Rules pages 55-56 TIRES

[StephanAlfa]

In submitting a request for rule change on a specific tire I noticed that some of the points attributed to some tire brands actually is subject to questioning in my view thus I am just throwing out there to get a feedback from the COM members and experts.

I see on top of page 55 of the rule book a list of tires rated 10 points.. many of them wets, and rightly so under wet conditions some of them are awesome.
But what I am questioning is why the BFG R1-S and Hancook c90/91 are higher points than Hoosier whereby everyone "swears' by Hoosier being then best of all?
My point being is - from a COMSCC Time Trial application - I do not see the BFG R1-S of the Hancook c90/c91 as being a "better performance" tire than Hoosier A7 or even R7 for that matter. Why then attribute 10 points for those?
As a side note I have no experience with the listed Goodyear RS AC...

Based on the above, Is there a merit for having this tire chart re-evaluated?

[wizzman]

Stephan I agree with you that based on what you see people running in the time trials that Hoosier is the tire to have. I can speak from personal experience that the BFG R1-S is an insanely fast tire on the E36 platform but not so much on the Miata platform. I think the real issue is that some tires, including Hoosiers are still undervalued. Pretty much every class winner is running a Hoosier R7 or A7 except for T30 and T40 where is is almost impossible to run a 10 point tire and stay in the class. Theoretically our system should allow someone to build a relatively competitive car around almost any tire. I have run some competitive events on a car set up to run Toyo RRs but still find I come up short to the cars on Hoosiers. I think we should be looking at the tire point allocation every single year to fine-tune the points. We aren't there yet but I think we were getting close as we made changes those first couple years. I would like to see us embrace the willingness to continue to fine tune things to make the playing field as even as possible. All that said, without a formal proposal of some kind nothing is going to change.

[TroyV]

Dave hits on a good point here.

In the case of the BFG R1S, my experience has been that the tire really needs load to work as intended. In a lot of cases, the lighter cars just can't get the tires to the right spot load wise, and have better luck with the Hoosier, which does not need as much load. However, from my personal experience, if you are driving right at the limit on the BFG and you can get load into it, the tire is VERY VERY fast. My result at Thompson last year, then my result at Mosport, then at Watkins Glen are a prime example of how that tire needs load.

I took the T60 lap record at Thompson the event before, and torched it by two seconds...then I could not get comfortable loading the tire at Mosport simply due to how fast and bumpy those turns are. I was not comfortable at all. I moved to the hankook and felt better immediately. That tire needs less load. Then I went to WGI and set a personal best that was quite a few seconds lower than I would have ever expected....on the same BFG that I ran at the two previous events. Again..in this case I was able to load the tire properly and get it to its optimum temp range.

I think...to summarize...that if you can get it there, the BFG is definitely faster than the Hoosier, but to get it there in a lighter car takes added risk, because you have to drive the car really hard to get the load the tire wants.

[jeffw]

Stephan I agree with you that based on what you see people running in the time trials that Hoosier is the tire to have. I can speak from personal experience that the BFG R1-S is an insanely fast tire on the E36 platform but not so much on the Miata platform. I think the real issue is that some tires, including Hoosiers are still undervalued. Pretty much every class winner is running a Hoosier R7 or A7 except for T30 and T40 where is is almost impossible to run a 10 point tire and stay in the class. Theoretically our system should allow someone to build a relatively competitive car around almost any tire. I have run some competitive events on a car set up to run Toyo RRs but still find I come up short to the cars on Hoosiers. I think we should be looking at the tire point allocation every single year to fine-tune the points. We aren't there yet but I think we were getting close as we made changes those first couple years. I would like to see us embrace the willingness to continue to fine tune things to make the playing field as even as possible. All that said, without a formal proposal of some kind nothing is going to change.

Dave if the Hoosier is the tire to have, why aren't you running it?

I don't think we should create a flat playing field for all tires. The tire is part of your build trade-off. What's better? Add a stupidcharger or run a stickier tire?

[blindsidefive0]

The goal was always to have a flat playing field for tires, and I fully support moving tire points towards this goal, even if it means putting tires like the A7 at something like 12-15 points. This is a big complaint that I've heard since the beginning, and while we've gotten closer, we're not quite there yet. The expense of buying sticker Hoosiers isn't something that should be a requirement to win.

DW - with that said... obviously the hoosiers matter, but don't forget to count the fact that you're down probably 15-30hp to a couple of those cars

[wizzman]

Dave if the Hoosier is the tire to have, why aren't you running it?

With Hoosiers, you only get about half a dozen cycles of true "value". After that they no longer perform like 10 points tires. It is not an economical solution which is why I have tried to build a car around an Nitto or an RR lately.

I don't think we should create a flat playing field for all tires.

So you are suggesting that a tire's point assessment should not directly correlate to it's performance?

The tire is part of your build trade-off. What's better? Add a stupidcharger or run a stickier tire?

You just made my point. Spending 10 points on Hoosiers and equivalents (for those first few cycles) yields far more "value" then spending those points on weight reduction, power, suspension etc. If you truly think it is a trade-off to spend points on anything but tires than there really is something that needs fixing. Thus my suggestion that we are still off the mark on tire values (and likely weight as well). I thought the whole point of the touring point system was to standardize the value of a "point" thus making it feasible to have different car platforms and builds be equally (at least close to) competitive. Of course no car or specific build is guaranteed to be competitive. It is no coincidence that almost every class winner above T40 running class-competitive times is on a Hoosier or BFG equivalent. I am not singling out a specific tire model but simply saying that the fastest tires are still undervalued in our system based on the way people are building there cars, the results and your assessment above.

[Bobc]

Why not lower points for the lesser tires rather than raise the points for the faster tires? Thus giving the cars running slower tires other options to drop the times. Once you have gone to purple crack you never want to go back LOL.

[blindsidefive0]

Bob C - I think that's a good idea. As long as the gap between a street tire, NT01, and Hoosier are appropriate I don't think it matters too much whether you go up on the fast tires or lower on the slow tires. I could see a case for making the NT01 the 0 point tire (it's now 2 points) and adjusting from there

[paultg]

Why not lower points for the lesser tires rather than raise the points for the faster tires? Thus giving the cars running slower tires other options to drop the times. Once you have gone to purple crack you never want to go back LOL.

The concern I see with lower points on lesser tire (vs raising the hoosiers) is the competitors who don't have the budget to afford running Hoosiers (to be competitive), probably don't have the budget to make further / more drastic vehicle changes (by having more points available).

Most of the top cars in touring are race cars / caged; finding ways to fit in class with Hoosier dry and Hoosier wets. Not changing the points on the Hoosiers keeps those cars in class. A few points back to folks in the same class on a lesser tire probably won't mean much. They don't want to spend the money on Hoosiers, and they probably can't make to many more changes to their more mild race car or street car to compete.

Paul G.

[jeffw]

Why not lower points for the lesser tires rather than raise the points for the faster tires? Thus giving the cars running slower tires other options to drop the times. Once you have gone to purple crack you never want to go back LOL.

Most of the top cars in touring are race cars / caged; finding ways to fit in class with Hoosier dry and Hoosier wets. Not changing the points on the Hoosiers keeps those cars in class. A few points back to folks in the same class on a lesser tire probably won't mean much. They don't want to spend the money on Hoosiers, and they probably can't make to many more changes to their more mild race car or street car to compete.

Paul G.

From the opposite perspective, what do all of the people who get bumped from say 49.9 points to 51.9 or 52.9 points do? They could have to spend a heap of money to be competitive in the new class. We could end up with with competitors leaving the club as a result.

We also need to consider the impact in T100 where we could push touring cars totally out of Touring (cars with more than 109.9 points must move to Super).

I think we need to look at the big picture of the rules. It might be ok if we do something that pushes a large number of cars IN EACH CLASS up 7-8 points, then we would keep some amount of equity.

Bumping a large # of cars up 2-4 points could be very detrimental to the club.

[blindsidefive0]

If we reduce tire points for street tires/entry DOT-R's instead of increasing the top DOT-R's, no one needs to get booted out of their class.

But even still, if I had another couple points added to my classing, I would be run the SM7 instead of the A7. Or I'd add weight. Or I'd remove the CAI and cat-back. Plenty of options instead of going up to the top of the next class...

[joncowen]

I agree with reducing the lower point tires, thus affecting fewer cars. To Paul's argument, those on a budget can do the free mod. Weight removal.

[paultg]

I agree with reducing the lower point tires, thus affecting fewer cars. To Paul's argument, those on a budget can do the free mod. Weight removal.

Well, sort of missing my point; if you truly compete in your street car or a streetable / state inspection able vehicle it's hard to come up with a significant amount of weight reduction. Many of our touring competitors are driving a street car to the track & showing up on street tires, or towing a set of DOT race rubber.

I do see Jeff's point too. None of this is easy, and some members are not going to be happy with what is decided.
I don't know if "approach "a' will piss off less people" is the correct one for the club / competition.

I like to think / hope that most of our members enjoy the club much more than they enjoy their "FB - look at my trophy posts when on top", and that they would stick around to post about how close the competition is in their class with more refined rule set. Maybe that is wishful thinking.

Paul G.

[ED9man]

The tire rule change might make sense from the other end of the spectrum too. The -2 points for the 140-200 treadwear tires should be evaluated. The current crop like the Bridgestone RE-71R really aren't a 4 point difference from an NT01 or RA1. The autocross street tires get measurably faster every year and the Nittos/RA1s haven't changed at all.

[offcamber09]

Here's my tire bottom feeder perspective: First off- the Maxiss RC-whatever is no better than the NT-01.I won't buy them again.
"No one in T30 or T40 can run a 10 point tire like a Hoosier" that seems logical to me- but wasn't the case this year.
Agree with Mikhael, the gap between the RE71r and NT01 should not increase. Lowering the NT01, RA1 and Maxiss may be justified.