HOOSIERS?

[gulf911]

With all due respect, The Hoosier and the kumho are 'competition' tires by there own standards....don't pee on my leg and tell its raining...

Dan-

It's raining! No, really, I am not saying that they are not a competition tire, but that their full race slicks are much faster. I just don't see any reason to ban DOT tires from the Stock class. If you want to run street tires, there is S/S class. I don't think we need another street tire class, personally. The first thing anyone wants to do once they learn how to drive their car is to put R-compound tires on it. What are we going to do, throw them all into Prepared for that?

I have not heard what the desired solution is on this thread yet. Are people looking for a ban on R-compound tires, or a <50 or less than <100 treadwear exclusion from Stock Class? Or just a ban on Hoosiers? I'd like to hear what rule proposal would solve this perceived problem. Heck, I'd like to understand more clearly what the problem is, exactly.

There is no suspension within the points in that class that will compensate for a hoosier.

Hmmm...maybe so, but with 8 points in stock class you could choose to go with lowering springs and/or big torsions w/ raised spindles, big adjustable ARBs, triple adjustable shocks and 2-point larger rims and a 0-point tire like the Advan Neova and come pretty close, depending on the driver and how well they can set up the car.

Regardless of that, if you know the Hoosiers are the biggest single improvement you can make, why would you leave them off your prep list? Because they are more expensive than a V710 or an RA1? I don't get it.

TT

Tom, Your problem is you know too much and make too much sense....How am I supposed to argue with something like that?

I guess I was just chiming in because of the DOT/ 'race' tire question in Stock class. Are hoosiers a6/r6 slicks?, of coarse not, are they street tires , definately not. After looking at the sheet again, its pretty clear. They should call it a competition tire on the DOT side and a Slick on the race side maybe... Dan C? You need to drive faster...

[Gary Burch]

Because there is no single improvement capable of decreasing your lap times more than sticky tires,

Tom, didn't you clean up and win everything in sight and then cause a rule change in G/P driving a white 67S? And wasn't the only mod on that car a set of 710's?

My motivation for this was and is very simple, at least to me, competition tires shouldn't be in Stock class. A couple of years ago I tried to get the rules changed regarding RA-1's. My thought was if you drive a stock car you should run it the way you drive it. The RA-1 campaign obviously failed, and now most of us use them. But, running a competition tire that is hiding behind the veil of a DOT rating and expressly forbidden by the manufacturer to be driven on the road, is in my opinion not in the spirit of the class. Stock class is for those of us that still like to drive the car on the street, work on it, do mods here and there and keep it simple. All the while staying in the rules and those 8 points. All the guys from A to I are pretty much in the same boat.

If you want to run true race tires move up to prepared.

[Don Middleton]

Tom, thanks for jumping into this issue. You always lend a few notes of clarity.

Heck, I'd like to understand more clearly what the problem is, exactly.

I think Gary's last post lays out the issue as well as can be...

[Dan Chambers]

I wonder why we give S/S any points at all.

One reason would be because a limited slip differential is 2 points, and a lot of showroom stock cars would be eliminated from the class by this one common option if 2 points were not allowed in S/S.

It sounds like we missing a rationale for 'S' and 'P'. To borrow from Gary, what is "spirit" of 'S' and 'P'???

The spirit of "S" and "P" classes is to allow minimal preparation of a car to go faster and compete at a higher level than S/S, and at a lower level than "I". What else do you need? It's what a lot of people want to do with their cars.

Tires are an important part of that preparation, and as Paul said, there are choices to be made and trade-offs to consider. That's part of the sport. I have no problem with allowing Hoosiers in any class beyond Street Stock. The disclaimer by Hoosier against street use for its DOT tires is simple "Cover Your A$$" language. Their race tires are slicks, and are in a whole different league in terms of grip, longevity and weight. The fact is that their DOT tires can be driven on the street and meet all the DOT standards--they just don't want you to come back and b!tch at them because they didn't hold up to a pothole! If you outlaw Hoosiers, what's next? The Kumho V710? Where does this stop?

In SCCA Solo racing, all the Stock classes are allowed to use any DOT tire, just like our rules. There are specific Street Tire classes which are limited to 140 treadwear, just like our S/S class, and there is just as much bickering and hand-wringing about the relativity of the 140 UTQG rating among manufacturers there. If you don't have 17-18" rims, you can't run the Advan Neova and are stuck with the Falken Azenis. Get over it! Just drive the thing faster.

You cannot make any fair rule change that would eliminate this anomaly, it is a fluid and ever-changing standard, with new tires coming out all the time in limited sizes by different manufacturers, as Paul mentioned. There cannot be a "Spec" tire for anything but a Spec car class, like 944Spec or Spec Miata, or a racing series with specific rim and tire size limitations. The differences in age and design of the cars in the full range of our Stock classes prohibit it. You cannot find a single tire that is made in all sizes to fit 14" rims in a 185 width for a 1970 911E clear up through 18-19" rims in a 315 to fit a Q-class 911 widebody. It ain't going to happen.

The only valid reason I can see for limiting tire choices in the Stock class is for cost savings, but that is a personal choice, and cannot be rule-driven. The fast tires are expensive and don't last very long, which penalizes the budget-challenged among us. But as they say, "what part of this racing thing did you think would be cheap and easy?" If limited on tires, the unlimited-budget people will spend the money developing other parts of the car anyway. Just look at engine development in Spec Miata!

It's all a tradeoff. If you choose to run a cheaper, longer lasting tire, then you can spend the points on other suspension/engine changes to equalize the speed potential. I don't have any problem with our rules just the way they are, and don't see how they could easily be changed to achieve whatever parity or "spirit" people think is missing. I really do not see how you can even extend this line of thinking to the Prepared classes at all. By the time you are spending 20 points on developing a car, 4-point tires are trivial to the equation.

That's my $.02,
TT

Tom:

I'll have to politely disagree. Tires, as you have told me, make a huge difference ... and Hossiers the type that Paul Y. runs ... are race tires (DOT ratings not withstanding).

A few years back there was a big stink about the Falken Azenis dominating in S/S. The rules were changed. A fully treaded Azenis was killing the competition of the Kuhmo's and Yokahama's in those days. The rules for tires were changed. The rules for tires were changed. The rules for tires were changed.

So, if we can change the rules about tires for S/S, why can we not change the rules about tires for S class as Don Middleton suggests? To me, changing the rules for only one class with respect for tires and traction potential and not make changes in other classes smacks of hypocracy ... or at the very least inconsistancy of rules. (But that's just my interpretation, others will obviously disagree).

With respect to Paul Young's type of tire (Hoosiers): come on. Really. One look at this tire, with three little itty-bitty tread lines running the circumference of the tire and a whole lot of flat rubber contacting the road ... plus the stickiness potential of Bazooka gum on an August day in Death Valley ... as compared to my fully treaded R-888's that I can drive around town, and in the rain, for a couple of months of daily driving before cording .... IMO There is NO comparison. To classify the Hoosiers and the Toyo's in the same class ... or allow them to compete in the same class ... I think, is about as smart as trying to to sell me shampoo and a blow dryer and as fair as running a 3.8L in IS class! (Again, MHO here.)

Maybe it's just me, but I think we ought to try and put both feet on the ground here and be consistent with rules with respect to tires and car classification. IF we are going to limit tire traction potential in S/S, THEN we should also limit tire traction ratings in "S" class ... and even consider raising the bar of >49 UTQG in "P" class (This would be more in line with the restrictions in S/S class). OR eliminate the restrictions to tire rating in S/S class to end the apparent hypocracy and apparent discrimination and potential inconsistancy of a single class having traction potential limitations while others are not. What about consistant rules?!? Can't we all just get along? Kuum-Bah-Yah, dude!

Just my opinions and Dos Pesos. Others will say I'm daft.

Dan C.
Non-Hoosier IS Loser

[ttweed]

Tom, didn't you clean up and win everything in sight and then cause a rule change in G/P driving a white 67S? And wasn't the only mod on that car a set of 710's?

Actually, it also had a few other mild mods, like larger sway bars, adjustable spring plates with hard bushings, Turbo tie rods, a competition alignment by Steve at Dieter's and a race seat w/ harness that would be illegal under the current rules. And it was in GS class, not GP. After a year in GS/S w/ Falken Azenis RT-215 tires, they changed the tire rules to give 100-200 treadwear rated tires 1 point, which put me up to 3 points, so I put R-compounds on it and moved up to GS without doing anything else to the car and won the SDR and Zone 8 championship with it. The next year, it was moved to H Class with the 2.2 and 2.7 liter 911S and rendered instantly obsolete. When I ran in GP before that, it was in my silver '73 911E with a 3.0 engine in it, but that got moved to I class with the rule changes the year before.

My motivation for this was and is very simple, at least to me, competition tires shouldn't be in Stock class.

I don't agree with that, but I'm willing to talk about how you would achieve it. Do you want to establish the same 140 UTQG rating as in S/S class? Why? To go slower? To save money? What's the beef?

You will just have the same problems with people chasing the fastest 140 "tire de jour" each season as manufacturers improve them. James G-W tested the Advan Neova when they first came out vs. the Falken 615 and found they were a second faster. They are as horribly expensive as Hoosiers, and you need to upgrade to 17" rims to run them. Is that going to solve anything? There will be new offerings from Hankook, Falken and others upping the ante all the time, because of the Street tire competition in SCCA.

A couple of years ago I tried to get the rules changed regarding RA-1's. My thought was if you drive a stock car you should run it the way you drive it.

I would and have run the RA1s on the street with no problems. They are even reasonably good in the wet. Remember when Toyo changed the UTQG rating on them? That's how arbitrary it is. One day they were 40 or 60 or something and the next day they were 100, IIRC. What if they (or Hankook, or whoever) make them, or another killer tire, 140 next year? Everyone in Stock will have to jump on them to be competitive. It's the same miasma as with R-comps, only you go slower and hurt your BRI times. What's the point?

If you want to run true race tires move up to prepared.

Well, I'm glad you are at least leaving Prepared out of this.

Do you have a different idea how to write a rule to accomplish what you want? Are you sure all the other Stock class drivers want this kind of change? Gary, my feeling is that you are a Street Stock driver at heart who is a bit frustrated because of all the restrictions on that class that make it nearly impossible for a guy with a 35-year old 911 to qualify for it. I would rather see you work on a rule change that would allow for older cars to meet the S/S qualifications, somehow. Or else just go buy a S/S Boxster and chase Kim and Charlie with it.

TT

[ttweed]

I'll have to politely disagree. Tires, as you have told me, make a huge difference ... and Hossiers the type that Paul Y. runs ... are race tires (DOT ratings not withstanding).

And yet both you and Steve G. have managed to beat him on occasion this year when he was running them. If the tires are everything, how did you do that? I would have to suggest there is more at work here, like figuring out the course better in order to go faster, and using the 2 points you save on tires to improve your car in other areas. It's not ALL about the tires, Dan.

A few years back there was a big stink about the Falken Azenis dominating in S/S. The rules were changed....The rules for tires were changed. The rules for tires were changed. The rules for tires were changed.

Of course we can change the rules and chase our tails again, but the tire manufacturers can move faster than we do. We update the rules once per year, they can come out with a new line or change the UTQG at any time. See my comments above, and Paul's comments about this problem over many years of rule-making. There is always going to be a faster tire, Dan.

More importantly, there is a lot to be said for a stable rule set. Constantly changing the rules completely screws people who are carefully preparing a car to compete optimally in a class, which takes time and money. With the stroke of a pen, we can obsolete that investment and discourage participants. That is one of the reasons my white '67 911S is in Holland right now, and my '73 911E is in Sweden.

OR eliminate the restrictions to tire rating in S/S class to end the apparent hypocracy and apparent discrimination and potential inconsistancy of a single class having traction potential limitations while others are not.

I'm all for that.

TT

[Kim Crosser]

Or else just go buy a S/S Boxster and chase Kim and Charlie with it.

Hey! I resemble that remark.

Seriously, I think there is one key point in the above thread. While the Hoosiers may be "DOT", the manufacturer says they are not safe for street use.
If I were in "S" instead of S/S, I would be lobbying for a change in the rules to state that tires must be "DOT and certified by the manufacturer for normal street use". That would eliminate the issue of race tires with DOT labels.
The real question is whether the majority of the drivers in the "stock" class want everyone to use tires that they can drive to/from the event (legally and safely) or do they want to allow tires that require a second set of wheels and changing wheels/tires at the event.
I use the Yoko Advan Neova AD07 because they ARE the best street/AX tire out there. By the way, they are a much better street tire than the BFG TA-K/D (Yokos actually stay on the road in the rain), and I drive them on the streets every day.

[Jad]

Have you ever heard the saying when driving, that "everyone going faster that you is a crazy driver, and everyone going slower is an idiot?" That is how most people feel. It is all relative, to some the RA1 is a street tire, to me, for a long time it was one of those crazy expensive racing slicks (something about R compound, does that mean road or racing compound?), now it has become the conservative tire I have no problem driving on the street before the 'good' tires go on.

Dan C, two years ago, RA1's were NOT street tires to you, though they are now. As TT says, you can not win this battle of tires, plus we all need excuses anyway.

At the last AX, I brought the Targa down and expected to win the class , Tom 'lrksome', Mr 1414, beat me, so it is a good thing he had Azenis on or what excuses would I have It can't be driving, RIGHT

I bet if Paul had NEW Hoosiers, he would beat Dan and Steve and new tires are the same points as old tires. So, I think our classifications should account for the age and heat cycles of each tire to be fair. After all, a new set of RA1's is much better than an old set, just ask the KP/KI clan from last year how much difference tire age makes. JUST IN CASE, I AM KIDDING, but tire age can matter more than brand, so if you buy new tires each event, you will have a huge advantage over someone that runs old used tires.

[Don Middleton]

A couple of years ago I tried to get the rules changed regarding RA-1's. My thought was if you drive a stock car you should run it the way you drive it. The RA-1 campaign obviously failed...

Now, I understand...

[Irksome]

At the last AX, I brought the Targa down and expected to win the class , Tom 'lrksome', Mr 1414, beat me, so it is a good thing he had Azenis on or what excuses would I have It can't be driving, RIGHT

All I can say is, thank goodness you were running 300 treadwear rocks! I'm ecstatic about my 0.36 second win, but very much aware that you would have clobbered me had you run PS2s, let alone Azenis or AD07s...

[ttweed]

While the Hoosiers may be "DOT", the manufacturer says they are not safe for street use.
If I were in "S" instead of S/S, I would be lobbying for a change in the rules to state that tires must be "DOT and certified by the manufacturer for normal street use". That would eliminate the issue of race tires with DOT labels.

No it wouldn't. It would eliminate Hoosiers, possibly, because of their "cover our butts" language on their website, but anyone could just switch to the V710, which is only a smidge slower and has no such disclaimer by Kumho, merely the warning that tread life will be reduced. A quote from their site:

"Racing tires are an extreme example of High Performance tires; exhibiting MAXIMUM Dry Traction & Grip with a significant reduced Treadwear Life." No "unsafe on the street" language, just a disclaimer about tread life.

It is the DOT that certifies the tires for street use, not the manufacturer. If you lawyered our rules up with this kind of language, it wouldn't solve anything but banning Hoosiers. It would be more effective and fair to ban all R-compound tires, but is that what everyone really wants? Two street tire classes? Send everyone who wants to run R-comps on a stock car to Prepared?

The real question is whether the majority of the drivers in the "stock" class want everyone to use tires that they can drive to/from the event (legally and safely) or do they want to allow tires that require a second set of wheels and changing wheels/tires at the event.

There are plenty of people who drive their cars on Hoosiers to and from our events safely. There are even some who drive down on FULL RACING SLICKS, with no DOT certification, if you look around.

I really don't understand all this Hoosier-hating. Yes, the A6/R6 is a fast tire out of the box, but as Jad said, they fall off quickly. They're really good for about 25 laps, which is maybe two of our events, and then the next 25 are slower, and after that, you still have rubber, but it isn't any better than a new Toyo. The other thing about them is they are a much less forgiving tire and harder to drive. They flat-spot easily if you make a mistake under braking, and the slip angle to lateral grip curve falls off a cliff once you exceed the maximum. The Toyos can sometimes be driven more agressively because their grip curve reaches a plateau and only falls off slightly when you exceed optimum slip angle, making them very easy to slide around, catch and correct. With the Hoosiers, you go over the limit and you are often just gone and off the course in a heartbeat.

Additionally, anybody who thinks that the Hoosier A6/R6 is a full race tire has not spent enough time on their real race tires. A 275/35-15 R6 weighs 20 lbs. Beside the difference in compounds, a similarly sized CSR/DSR racing slick weighs 16 lbs. That is a 20-25% difference, depending on how you do the math, and it is all in more durable construction for DOT approval. That extra 4 lbs. per wheel is all unsprung weight, and increased rotating inertia that must be overcome on every acceleration or braking action. Comparing the performance of DOT R-Comp tires to true racing slicks is nonsensical. That's why our rules make the distinction between them as a 6-point tire and any DOT 2-4 point tire.

TT

[gulf911]

Dan C's complaint reminds me of when I was getting my a$$ handed to me by guys on cantilever slicks (not 710 or hoosier's but slicks) , while I was running V700 victoracer's... Not exactly the same issue because its not a stock class, but in the same vein. I may be out in left field here but Street Stock I would think is a no brainer, no R compound tires. But as you move up , even in Stock class you are allowed additional points, thats the point right? more points to add performance. if you want to use those points for R compound tires then it should be ok. I am tending to agree with the issue of a nightmare trying to keep changing rules based on new tires all the time. If you don't want to compete with R compound move to S/S, or buy 710's or Hoosiers. While others in my class ran v700's it was a pretty equal footing...when they went to slicks I was losing by about 2-3 seconds... I never complained...

Also, Tom is correct, on the 710 I would drive up and back to san diego from OC and I had also drove up to Pahrump and back one year on them.
They are fine as long as it isn't raining...

[gulf911]

To classify the Hoosiers and the Toyo's in the same class ... or allow them to compete in the same class ... I think, is about as smart as trying to to sell me shampoo and a blow dryer and as fair as running a 3.8L in IS class! (Again, MHO here.)

Dan, you have the option to run them in that class. Its not like Paul can run them and you can't, that would be unfair. As others are pointing out In any class (except AR's) you have a finite set of points to work with. Its kind of like saying geez I have 8 points and that guy updated his suspension and I haven't and I lost so let's ban suspension upgrades in S class. It gives me an excuse why I lost ( I have lots of these )but shouldn't be grounds for a rewrite. Maybe not exact but you get my point. He's within the points to run R compound and no harm no foul. I'll be happy to instruct you at the next event if you want to win.. oh, that was just not right...and I apologize....

[LUCKY DAVE]

I'm with the opinion that changing the rules to suit a particular tire is shoveling sand against the tide. By the time you make such a rule, a new tire makes it obsolete.
I just spent $$$ to fit my ss car into stock, using my points (I'm only using 6 out of 8 so far) to my best advantage as I see it. I would be very unhappy to see a rule change based on one tire brand, or anything else, suddenly make my investment in wrenching, (and expensive, time consuming suspension set up tailored for a specific amount of grip) useless.
If we make rule changes every Wednesday, we'll soon be like the Americas Cup yahoos -no one knows what the rules will be by the next race-
Rule stability is a good thing.
As far as Hoosiers being race tires, well, I have many years experience with REAL race tires, and the Hoosiers some of us run on our cars don't even come close.
Real race tires can only be heated up ONCE, and must be changed for best grip if the car (or bike) comes into the pits or slows long engough to allow the tires to cool for any reason, even a full course yellow. In addition, real race tires only tolerate a very narrow operating temperature range, only possible during big track conditions.
These R compound tires that some are declaring jihad against are "sporty" tires, nothing more.

[Bill Behun]

Tom says: If you want to run street tires, there is S/S class. I don't think we need another street tire class, personally.

As an AX chair this year I say "OH, NO.... PLEASE, NOT ANOTHER CLASS!"

I think the system as presently set up is fine.