Jump to content

PROPOSED RULE 2015: Clarify "DOT" definition


JSG1901

Recommended Posts

Proposed change

Define DOT tires to those compounds/construction/sizes that are commonly available to all competitors either from the typical national sources (Tire Rack, etc.) or directly from the manufacturer.

 

Reason

A competitor this year at the NASA East Champs declaring on DOT tires worked for a tire manufacturer. This driver told another competitor that he had "special tires" that the manufacturer has made for him. This is not fair to other competitors and I question whether they are truly DOT tires.

 

Proposed wording

All DOT tires must to be equally available to all competitors through retail outlets. Tire variations differing from standard specification, delivered only on a limited basis, or only to selected competitors must use the non-DOT tire ratios.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree.

 

If a competitor works with a tire manufacturer to develop a new compound/construction then good for them.

 

Why limit it to tires? Why not ban custom suspension parts too?

 

It doesn't seem worth creating a rule for something which one person said happened one time - how likely is it to ever happen again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

(not that it matters to me but just asking as a point of clarification that may matter to some)

 

under the new definition would these special one-off tires be outlawed entirely, or allowed but only allowed if you claim the non-DOT factor in the weight/hp formula?

 

This isn't the first I've read of people getting the "secret sauce" or "specials" but it's been quite a few years since the last incident. Very interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Disagree.

 

If a competitor works with a tire manufacturer to develop a new compound/construction then good for them.

 

Why limit it to tires? Why not ban custom suspension parts too?

 

It doesn't seem worth creating a rule for something which one person said happened one time - how likely is it to ever happen again?

 

Yes! disallow them completely.

 

 

Iv asked Hoosier and they said it would be easy.

 

the only issue is how do you enforce it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to say YES on this, but wonder if in that example it was really DOT approved. Did they manufacturer really go through the process of DOT approval for one off tires?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
I tend to say YES on this, but wonder if in that example it was really DOT approved. Did they manufacturer really go through the process of DOT approval for one off tires?

 

thats what I was saying about enforcement. it would be easy to just stamp the tire a DOT but the the volunteer tech people would probably be none the wiser.

Link to post
Share on other sites
brant giere

yes, but how can this be enforced? I recall rumors of some Hoosier R6-looking tires that were apparently anything but the R6 compound...they were "packaged" to look like an R6 though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Against. How can you track it? Did the person who said they had special tires do any better? Were the tires actually anything special or did somebody get fooled?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How would this be tracked/verified?

Also, how is "special" defined?

if we go with "not commercially available as fitted to the car", then hand grooving becomes illegal too, no?

 

 

If we are going based on someone saying something and it being from a manufacturer, then we only have what they said to go on? if this was a "special" or "test" tire, it might have come from the same mold (with the same markings) as the "commercially available" tire, with no physical way to tell what is different. Different compound could be found by taking a sample of the tire and a sample of all of the other same make/model tire in the paddock and sending off to a lab. (expensive and may or may not answer the question.) That will tell us nothing if the "special" was in a difference in construction technique and not compound.

 

This seems like a rule that, since there is no way to verify, would just be another way to DQ anyone with a connection to a tire company without any actual basis in fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems logical to vote yes but it is meaningless like the other fellas said due to inability to police it. If somebody has the inside track to secret cheater tires, well, the rest of us are screwed.

 

Are we going to start impounding people's tires and taking a rubber sample for a lab test? Establish a minimum allowable durometer reading (measured at what time & temp)? Require certified documentation of your tires' origin? Unless tires are going to come from a "controlled source" (this sounds like random NFL or MLB urine sampling) there's really no way to deal with this effectively.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For. Require proof of purchase or origin from manufacturer if they are contingency or sponsorship. Hope manufacturers aren't shady to pull a switch. Tires are not something like an engine that you can learn to work on with practice and such.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...