HOOSIERS?

[LUCKY DAVE]

Anyone who really wants to run station wagon tires already has a class just for them....street stock. Have at it.
Why shouldn't drivers in ALL classes above street stock have as much fun (grip) as possible within the allowed points? Carefully reading the rules, making choices, and fine tuning our cars is half the fun, and half the battle.
Is this some kind of "chassis tuning police" effort, where the individual isn't allowed to make tuning decisions on their own...now you want to legislate them? Are you kidding??? What next, sway bar stiffness limits? Spring rate sliding point scale? Where does it end?
What's the point of reducing someone's enjoyment? Does it make you feel powerful? Are Improved classes "cooler" and therefore the most fun is reserved for them only?

More traction=faster=more fun. It's not like there was only so much traction to go around, and by improving mine I took away some of yours. There's plenty for everybody.

Don't try to quash the fun for the rest of us based on your "moral convictions"

[4est]

Stock class for the cheap? did I read that right? When 'racing' and 'Porsche' are in the same paragraph, you shouldn't expect to find 'cheap' in the whole book...

I envision the S/S class draw to go something like this (from the winner, of course):

On the heels of a good result, the winner could walk around exuding superiority because he could think to himself, "If you and I went to a Porsche Dealer together in 1977 and took delivery of two mostly identical 911s, I have proved that I would have left you in the dust on the way home".

Maybe that's what we need! Another class! Let's leave S and S/S alone for the purists, and have a Cheap Class! We could run the points kinda backwards; like the less 'modifications' (bondo, bailing wire, duct tape) you have, the more points you get. Instead of factory options like LSD or M030 that you'd have to factor in, you'd get stuff like rust percentage, number of different tire makers on the same car. Think of it, roll bars in PVC, spoilers in paper mache..

I'm on to something here. Yes, I am convinced I am on to something. Maybe points for dollars spent...

Highest finisher after a BRI type handicapping...

Imagine the excitement when Joe X in the 924 with the Ford Pinto engine steals the show from Bob Y, whose 914 rust bucket with only one of two carberators installed finished 17 seconds ahead but spent $970 verses the $210, a half rack of beer and 2 early 80's porn flicks on VHS bartered for the Ford/924. Call The Speed Channel!

[Dan Chambers]

[qquote]And Dan, Whining is when someone can run tires for free but chooses not to, and still complains. I complain because I can't spend $16K to put a 3.6 in my car, all because a couple in Stock class dont want to allow a stickier tire. There is NO comparison...its not in the same ballpark...it isn't even the same freakin sport...[/quote]

Hang on, Dan A., and let me get that carafe. I was going to offer you a glass for all that whine, but I guess I need a larger container.

... and remember. "I'm not complaining, I'm not complaining."

[Irksome]

Well, the replies are getting more and more sarcastic and less constructive. Debate is useful, but it would be great if we kept it more constructive. =)

Several of you have commented that there is nothing cheap about Porsche racing. While I definitely agree in my class (minimum entry cost for O class is still around $35k), it is not true for all classes. There are many classes where you can get into S/S or S for under $6k. And I think that's great.

My personal perspective is relatively simple: I think the current points system has an inappropriately low cost for tires. The point of the points system is to 'level the playing field', to allow people to compete with roughly even hardware, so the biggest factor is driver skill. This allows everyone to have competition, even if their entire class is 14 seconds off Erik Kinninger's.

With the tire points as they are right now, if you ignore money, it makes sense to go to race tires before any other 4 point mod. In fact, it is probably safe to say they are worth double (8 points of other mods to compensate for the value of 4 point tires). This says to me that the points cost for race tires is too low.

And guess what? Some (many?) of us don't get to ignore money. And tires are the most expensive mod most of us are likely to do, simply because they are consumable (and get consumed faster the stickier you go). I can invest $4k on suspension improvements and use them for 5 years or more (and get benefit from them in my daily driving). I would be unable to spend $1500+ per year on tires.

If the points values of tires changed, it would not kill anyone. If they stay the same, it would not kill anyone. Changing might cause people to choose different tires, or choose to reduce other mods, or be bumped up. Not changing will cause the arms race to be influenced pretty heavily by the budget of the racer.

I really don't care enough about this issue to push it, but if it came to a vote I'd vote pro increase in points cost for tires. I'd also support an increase in the ranges for the various classes to help compensate for the change. And I won't cry if it doesn't change. And I won't post sarcastic dramatizations as a counter point to those who disagree with me. =)

[Gary Burch]

Like these discussions have a tendency to do, they slide into the abyss of finger pointing, name calling, and a basic stand off.

I was questioning the rules concerning competition tires in S class. And S class alone. And for all the reasons given above. Now we are talking about a complete change to the tire points system.

So this obviously hits close to home for a lot of people. Which further illustrates the value of the tires. Tom may have to move up a class, Dan will be underpowered and underfunded, Lucky Dave is installing tractor tires, it goes on and on.

S Class is STOCK, with 8 points. Like I said earlier it should be about the car and the driver not tires and money. If you want the thrills and expense of competition tires spend 2 points and move up to P or I. But I assure you DOT200 Azenias or Hankooks are not station wagon tires.

[LUCKY DAVE]

I don't have a problem banning 50 treadwear tires (in other words Hoosiers) in stock, the toyo's I'm running work well enough at 100 treadwear and can be street driven. Heck, I have a set on my street only car.
Just don't ask us to return to those slippery soft sidwall tires the cars come with. Mine rolled so far on those mushy things the body scraped the track, and a return to the low level of grip will make my modified suspension all wrong (too hard/stiff for the grip).
I'll have to spend all that chassis tuning/testing money over again, and I (Jae) just got it right. I'm sure I'm not alone in this regard.

[gulf911]

Well, the replies are getting more and more sarcastic and less constructive. Debate is useful, but it would be great if we kept it more constructive. =)

The point of the points system is to 'level the playing field', to allow people to compete with roughly even hardware, so the biggest factor is driver skill.

How exactly is this not the case now?. And my point from the beginning has been, its your choice how to use the points...points cost money (for most ) ...some cost more than others. You all have 8 points, ie Level Playing field. In most of the classes you can have a large gap in cost and performance gain from the low end to the high end of a class. Why would you seek to have tire points changed in ALL classes, because you want a purer Stock class component? This is the objectionable part.

With the tire points as they are right now, if you ignore money, it makes sense to go to race tires before any other 4 point mod.

When all in the class have the option, thats unfair in what way?

Not changing will cause the arms race to be influenced pretty heavily by the budget of the racer.

Welcome to competition and racing throughout all sanctioning bodies ,marques and clubs.

Look, All I am saying and will hopefully be my last agonizing point, if you want purity in a stock class, move to s/s or put it to a vote and have at it for THAT CLASS...just don't try to create an issue in the upper classes where there is no issue with tire points.

Something constructive:

6 points allowed in Stock GS. FS etc. No Slicks. or 'R' compound.
or some reasonable facsimile of point change in that regard.

And Dan, do me a favor, just once, run the Hoosiers or 710's while they are free. When Paul has the same...driver ability wins according to irksome.

Olive branch: My offer still stands Dan....for instruction...

Sorry had to throw that in...

[Jess]

I have been in the club off and on since the 70s and tires have always been an issue.
Every time a manufacture comes out with a new tire for the lower class’s people have complained about having to run that tire to be competitive.
I remember one year Mistak was my competition and he had the best tires he could buy but I was still competitive with well used tires.
I didn’t complain about not having the money to buy the best tire I just worked on my driving skills.
It felt good to be competitive with inferior equipment.
Before we change a rule, we should look hard at the consequences because most people build their car to fit the rules.
It took me 2 years to optimize the set up on my car to run the 710s.
With a rule change I would have to start all over.
First research what tire would be the best with a 50 tread wear tire.
Second adjust the set up for the new tires.
No big deal just money and time (In case you did hear it in my voice that was sarcasm).
To be competitive I would need to spend most of my time at the track focusing on my setup to optimize the new tires so I won’t have time to instruct.
We all get the same points and how we use them is part of competition.
If there are no safety issues them why change?
So far all of the incidences at the Q the cars have had tread wear over 50.

From Tire rack
“Unfortunately, the rating that is of the most interest to consumers is the one that appears to be the least consistent. While the Treadwear Grade was originally intended to be assigned purely scientifically, it has also become a marketing tool used by manufacturers to help position and promote their tires.”

[ttweed]

It took me 2 years to optimize the set up on my car to run the 710s.
With a rule change I would have to start all over.

Hmmmm, another contrary view from a Stock class competitor? I'm sorry, Jess, but your car does not meet the New Philosophy of Stock™ criteria and must be slowed down. I have a set of 205/50-15 Falken Azenis you can have to start working on your setup for next year, or you can just move up to Prepared class if this rule passes.

TT

[Mark Garriott]

Let’s be analytical, even if it isn't positive and constructive.

We can guess about who would and wouldn’t be affected by a rule change – throwing lots of people under the ‘it doesn’t affect me, therefore it shouldn’t affect many’ bus. But they are only guesses.

I’m too lazy to re-read 8 pages of posts, but did anybody ask the question “Who is really suffering in the matter of DOT-R tires in S/S classes?“ Is it just one or two people with mis-configured cars, or is an entire class being held hostage by one lone wolf playing outside the ‘spirit of the class’?

[cam]

I’m too lazy to re-read 8 pages of posts, but did anybody ask the question “Who is really suffering in the matter of DOT-R tires in S/S classes?“ Is it just one or two people with mis-configured cars, or is an entire class being held hostage by one lone wolf playing outside the ‘spirit of the class’?

Yes

[Jess]

I'm sorry, Jess, but your car does not meet the New Philosophy of Stock™ criteria and must be slowed down

It doesn’t take much to slow down my over weight 95HP car.
Just going up the hill (back straight) does a good job.

[Jess]

Am I wrong about this, or does it seem to not be in the spirit of the Stock class to be able to run a full blown competition tire? I know it is legal if you have the points to spare, but should it be a Stock class option? Street Stock has its tire limitations, so why not Stock.

With the spirit of the topic what should the stock class look like?
Racing seats and racing harness should not be allowed in the stock class.
The car looks more stock with competition tires vs. full on racing seats and harness.
Most of you probably don’t know that you can get a ticket for the harness due that most are not DOT approved.
Where the tires are DOT and legal so if you have enough tread you will not get a ticket.

[tb911]

S Class is STOCK, with 8 points.

In all my time on the rules committee, the two people providing commentary that I have come to respect the most are Tom Tweed and Steve Grosekemper. It’s really interesting to see them seemingly on opposite sides here.

I would like to remind everybody that you on this thread are a small percentage of the drivers and don’t necessarily represent the opinions of the masses.

In the quoted section above I see the problem with this whole debate. “Stock with 8 points.” What does that mean? I tell you how I see it. YOU HAVE 8 POINTS TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH. (There, enough shouting.) Gary, you seem to be doing two things you shouldn’t be doing. First is assigning your definition of stock to the class, rather than the rules definition of stock. Second is ignoring the “with 8 points”. I gather your definition of “stock class” is something along the lines of a dictionary definition of a “stock” car. What is the rules definition of stock? It’s really pretty plain and simple. Zero to eight points. That’s how the rules define “stock.” No other meaning or interpretation is implied or should be inferred. Any 8 points of mods except slicks is “stock” by the rules definition.

What is the “Philosophy of Stock”, or the “Spirit of Stock”? (Or of Improved or Prepared for that matter, etc.) That’s like asking what is the “Spirit of Cabbage”. Someone said it earlier in the thread and it was ignored, but these are just labels. No meaning or definition should be applied to them. They are just there for convenience, it’s a lot easier to say I’m in “AI” than I’m in “A21-40”. We could have gone the Horton plaza route and called the classes apple, orange and cabbage, etc. Debating the spirit of the label is nonsensical. To illustrate, Prepared used to be called Production. Why was it changed? Well, hell, I don’t know but I imagine someone complained that Production should mean “How Porsche produced it” and therefore that was the same as Stock. See the silliness? As said before, all classes above Street Stock are modified classes. Question is just how much modification is allowed. In Stock it is 8 points worth. “Stock class” does not mean “a stock car”. If you think it does, you are wrong, plain wrong.

The philosophy of the rules is this: There are different sized point buckets. Pick your bucket, pick what options you want to fill it up.

Street Stock is a late addition and an aberration; it doesn’t follow the philosophy. Bad, good, irrelevant, I leave that to you to decide. No slicks in Prepared and lower is also an aberration that was added sometime after the initial philosophy was settled upon. I suppose safety was the reason. A 0 to 8 point car with 6 points in tires might not be safe. Not all agree with that, but enough did to get the rule in place. Notice I said 0-8 point, not a “stock car”. No car outside of Street Stock is a stock car. Again, this rule violates the philosophy. Good, bad? I don’t know.

My point is that any specific exclusion from a class that is not based on points is against the philosophy of the rules. Maybe you don’t like that philosophy, but that is the way it is. We have two aberrations. Do we keep duct-taping on more? I would argue “no”.

I’ll tell you what Stock has always meant to me (and my racing days pre-date S/S classes): Stock was the class to play with tires and suspension, without having to worry about weight or engine mods. Go to Production (now Prepared) and you get into the really expensive stuff. I’m sure everybody else has a different definition. But those definitions shouldn’t have any relation to the Webster definition of the word “stock”; not any more than if we had called the 0-8 point class “Track” (or “cabbage” for that matter).

I think Otto said it best in his post. Part of the fun and competition is the driving, part of the fun and competition is in setting up your car. I would go one further and say that it also is partly what car you buy in the first place.

Gary mentioned that it takes him 6 points just to be competitive with modern cars; not sure what he was getting at. That is a different issue. Perhaps the base classes aren’t fairly laid out. Again, a very different issue.

Or perhaps there should be a way for older cars to be allowed into Street Stock, by allowing them to have common modifications? There was a proposal to do that last year but it was shot down as too complicated and “not in the spirit of the class”. Alternatively, we could do like the parade rules and only have a Street Stock for cars 15 years old and newer (but that doesn’t solve the problem, and effected drivers might say we already have this as the ultimate outcome of our current rules).

Are the points for tires correct, compared to other 2 or 4 point modifications? Probably not. In my 1991 copy of the rules 100 tread wear was 2 points, just like today. I’m sure today’s 100 rating tires are much stickier than back then. But like Tom Tweed says – if you mess with that, how many drivers do you screw up? Like him, I’ve seen many get screwed by fickle and capricious rule changes. Rules need to be stable -- it saves everybody money and hassle in the end. As long as they are fair, of course. And they are, everybody can make the same choices.

So does it come down to money? You shouldn’t have to spend that much money in a “Stock” class? Well, I’m afraid it always comes down to money, if not tires then over some other enhancement. Only way to prevent that is with a true spec class, everybody driving identical cars. I totally agree that if we “fix” this problem, we will just create another one. The controversy will just move to some other tire issue or altogether different enhancement.

So should 4 pt tires be allowed in the 0-8 point classes? Or another way to put it would be: Should 4 pt tires be allowed in the first (or lowest) level of modified classes? I like the philosophy of the rules. I like the cafeteria approach to modifications, mix and match according to what is important to you. I see no reason to take away the 4 point tire option from “Stock” class drivers. And while I agree that sticky tires are under penalized, I fear the disruption of increasing their points would do more harm than good.

[mrondeau]

Tom,

That is a very well articulated argument to leave the classifications as they are. Thank you.