More on tires. SRF Goodyears for IT.

[ekim952522000]

I forgot they are not DOT approved I personally don't feel it is a good idea there are lots of other good places out there to get used tires I think the idea of upgrading to a 15" wheel and buying used spec miata tires is a great idea.

 

[dickita15]

I forgot they are not DOT approved I personally don't feel it is a good idea there are lots of other good places out there to get used tires I think the idea of upgrading to a 15" wheel and buying used spec miata tires is a great idea.

Except for the part about becoming friends with Miata guys.

 

[trhoppe]

Why do you care if they are IT legal? Thats a fair question to ask IMHO.

What, is someone going to protest you for going over 2 seconds off the pace??

-Tom

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why do you care if they are IT legal? Thats a fair question to ask IMHO.

What, is someone going to protest you for going over 2 seconds off the pace??

-Tom

Sombody 3 seconds off the pace? Patullo said something to this effect once: No legal car should ever finish behind an illegal car, no metter what position they cross the line.

 

[Greg Amy]

There is a foundational issue here, and that is do we start allowing non-DOT tires into the mix.

Thumbs down. I haven't given it much thought, but you can rest assured that if something like this were to pass, I most certainly would...

 

[fairgentleman Z]

What is the curb weight of of SRF and ministock?
What is the curb weight of your car?

The Goodyears are 22 in tall, about 7 in wide. Big ,tall, kinda "wobbly" by current DOT race tire standards. They are not DOT rated tires. This size also is a ministock tire.

Do you want to go into a corner beside a guy with "wobbly" tires, that have not met DOT testing standards (albeit usually a formality)?

 

[Flyinglizard]

This is cracking me up.. 16 years of running SRF tires,now the tires are not Dot , same relative speed(alittle slow)and the desk racers have a cow.
The tire safety value is not in question. It is well within its' design parameters. The SRf is lighter than the ministock. MIni stocks race as light as 1800# and as heavy as 2550#.(same tire). There is no logical reason to exclude a proven,tire ,(available), just because it lacks the DOT tag.
This is specific tire request, "SRF Goodyear", for cars that can run on 13in wheels. This is not a request for race slicks!!
They will not win against ant 40/45/50series Dot race rubber,unless the driver is very poor.
You can repeal the rule,if My Son beats you on these tires!!!
If I could get used Hoosiers, I would. The set I have now is old.( 225/45/13):>
The SRF national guys take off these semi- treaded tires because they slow down about a tenth, the second time out. (But stay at that speed for the rest of the tire life) I get 800laps onour minstocker with these tires, (in a bigger size, 23/8/13).
I would not buy any new Goodyears. The same tire, but larger, (23/8/13) cost 108$ at our local circle track. 168$$??
I have 15 in wheels and a SM. The VW slows down, as the roll out gets bigger. 13s are faster.
Much to do about nothing. MM

 

[Greg Amy]

- Spec Racer Ford tires are not DOT rated.
- IT rules require DOT tires.
- Ergo, Spec Racer Ford tires are contrary to the IT rules and are illegal.

Period. End of argumentationarianism.

No matter how many excuses you come up with about how "valuable" they are to the community, how "safe" they are, how much "cheaper" they are, or how they can't be competitive (sorry, I missed the clause that says "if it won't make you faster you can do it") you cannot overcome this one simple fact: they're illegal. And even if you were to get a unanimous approval from everyone on this forum that they should be allowed, they'd still be illegal.

If you want to allow non-DOT tires within Improved Touring, even just specific ones, please use the process of sending a request to Topeka via [email protected]. It will be accepted, reviewed by the ITCS, and either forwarded to the CRB as a recommendation or returned to you as "contrary to the philosophy of the class."

See? That was easy.

GregA, "desk racer". Oh, and past ITA champion.

 

[spnkzss]

- Spec Racer Ford tires are not DOT rated.
- IT rules require DOT tires.
- Ergo, Spec Racer Ford tires are contrary to the IT rules and are illegal.

Period. End of argumentationarianism.

No matter how many excuses you come up with about how "valuable" they are to the community, how "safe" they are, how much "cheaper" they are, or how they can't be competitive (sorry, I missed the clause that says "if it won't make you faster you can do it") you cannot overcome this one simple fact: they're illegal. And even if you were to get a unanimous approval from everyone on this forum that they should be allowed, they'd still be illegal.

If you want to allow non-DOT tires within Improved Touring, even just specific ones, please use the process of sending a request to Topeka via [email protected]. It will be accepted, reviewed by the ITCS, and either forwarded to the CRB as a recommendation or returned to you as "contrary to the philosophy of the class."

See? That was easy.

GregA, "desk racer". Oh, and past ITA champion.

I'd have to kinda agree here. Big can being opened. And I do apologize in advance for sounding like a dick, but tires are part of the sport. If you can't afford the tires, then ....

Edit: But I do feel for you a bit. My first year racing I spent on free SRF Toyo take offs.

 

[jumbojimbo]

Sheesh Greg, take it easy. Read the dang thread before you jump all over people.

"The proposal has been received by the ITAC."

If the proposal is rejected it is rejected. But you can't yell it away here.

 

[JohnRW]

With minor mods (window clips, fire system, etc), a Golf can run in Prod classes and be legal on the SRF tires.

While there may be a few upper echelon SRF drivers who regularly swap tires, the vast majority run them down to "worthless". There are probably just as many sources of cheap, used DOT tires from Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, T? classes and even IT, as there are for non-DOT tires from the SRF ranks...if not more.

If the argument then becomes "Well, I don't have 15" wheels" or "I don't happen to know those guys", then what is being discussed is modifying the IT tire rules for individual competitors' specific situations. Gee...that sounds like the Production classes, huh ? (Oh my....did I just say that ?)

Speed is irrelevant. If I promise to finish at the back of the pack, can I drive a GT-Lite car in IT (if I put the winshield washer bottle back in) ? Yeah...I didn't think so.

The GCR for each class states a "class philosophy". Is there any support to start fiddling with the one for IT ?

There is a place in SCCA to race a Golf on pooched SRF tires, but that place isn't "every place".

Just sayin.

 

[jjjanos]

... and either forwarded to the CRB as a recommendation or returned to you as "contrary to the philosophy of the class."

The GCR for each class states a "class philosophy". Is there any support to start fiddling with the one for IT ?

Please find the section of the IT Category rules that state or imply that this is inconsistent with the philosophy of the class and when relying on that wording, please ensure that no allowable modifications violate the quoted text.

Turning this down for inconsistency with class philosophy would be hypocritical. Turning it down because it isn't likely to harm the category *and* explicitily stating so would not be.

That being said, I'm in the DOT only camp.

 

[JohnRW]

Please find the section of the IT Category rules that state or imply that this is inconsistent with the philosophy of the class and when relying on that wording, please ensure that no allowable modifications violate the quoted text.

Turning this down for inconsistency with class philosophy would be hypocritical. Turning it down because it isn't likely to harm the category *and* explicitily stating so would not be.

Is it your position that any "allowable modifications" (although those allowances are discussed and permitted in the "Intent" portion of the IT category rules) are outside the envelope of IT ? And is it your position that because there are such things as "allowable modifications", any further requirements for other components to remain stock is hypocritical ? It sure does read that way. Your logic is circular.

GCR 9.1.3.A and B repeatedly say things like:

"...To that end, cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer's specifications except for modifications permitted in these rules"

and

"Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered or removed"

DOT tires are a component of this. I think a debate on whether DOT tires are the same as DOT tires when IT first appeared will fail, because a DOT-compliant tire is a DOT-compliant tire. There are no degrees of "pregnant"...you either are or you aren't.

Where is the hypocrisy ? Are you that much of an "originalist" ? Did the requirement for a one-piece driver's seat in IT cars send you screaming down the streets, raging about hypocrisy ?

 

[jjjanos]

Is it your position that any "allowable modifications" (although those allowances are discussed and permitted in the "Intent" portion of the IT category rules) are outside the envelope of IT ?

The allowable modifications are clearly within the envelope of IT because the rules allow the modifications. It is, however, the granting of those allowances that seem to be in conflict with "It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car." (The Bible)

Note the phrasing - useful and necessary to construct a safe race car.

Most of what we are permitted to do fits the useful test but fails the necessary test. A vehicle meeting the SS category rules (as originally envisioned, pre-truck kits but with a racing seat) is a safe race car. EVERYTHING beyond that is suspect as to whether it is necessary.

And is it your position that because there are such things as "allowable modifications", any further requirements for other components to remain stock is hypocritical ? It sure does read that way. Your logic is circular.

It might be a perfectly logical restriction for the health of the category, but if the justification given is inconsistency with the philosophy of the category, then yes, the stated reason for the denial is hypocritical.

Justify the allowable modifications as to whether they are both the usefull and necessary. Most - and all of the go-fast ones - do not satisfy the constraints and therefore, while allowed, are inconsistent with the intent of the class to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car.

GCR 9.1.3.A and B repeatedly say things like:

"...To that end, cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer's specifications except for modifications permitted in these rules" and "Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered or removed"

Irrelevant. Justify the allowable modifications with the intent to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car. Simply because they are allowed does not mean that they are necessary to construct a safe race car. The modifications are simply useful.

DOT tires are a component of this. I think a debate on whether DOT tires are the same as DOT tires when IT first appeared will fail, because a DOT-compliant tire is a DOT-compliant tire. There are no degrees of "pregnant"...you either are or you aren't.

Justify the allowance for anything but street-legal tires as useful and necessary. Justify the restriction to DOT, but not necessarily street-legal. We use DOT-approved tires because they wanted to use cheap tires and now competitive tires aren't cheap.

Where is the hypocrisy ? Are you that much of an "originalist" ? Did the requirement for a one-piece driver's seat in IT cars send you screaming down the streets, raging about hypocrisy ?

Here's the hypocrisy - allowable modifications are suppose to be limited to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car.

One-piece driver's seats are necessary to construct a safe race car. Alternate final drives, alternate springs, non-stock anti-roll bars aren't necessary. They are simply useful.

 

[dickita15]

I do think it is a little funny that a standard as convoluted as the DOT standard is being held up by some as the holy grail of IT philosophy.
I am not saying we should do away with the DOT standard but I think the ITAC can review this proposal on its merits without the “inconsistent with the intent of the class” defense.
Tires are our biggest expense, for some more than entry fees. Anybody who comes up with a way to control that cost should get a Nobel Prize. If the ITAC finds there is no down side to allowing the SRF tire then I am okay with that.

 

[JohnRW]

Note the phrasing - useful and necessary to construct a safe race car.

I'll simply state that your interpretation (and it IS just your interpretation) of that phrase - that anything that isn't necessary to contruct a safe race car cannot be useful, and those two things cannot be mutually exclusive - is simply pedantic. You may interpret the language that way, but others...including the drafters of the language...might consider those two things mutually exclusive. Those who drafted the "intent", and those that have followed them in the rules creation process, obviously don't agree with your interpretation, given the evolution of IT rules. You are a man chasing windmills.

 

[Knestis]

...Tires are our biggest expense, for some more than entry fees. Anybody who comes up with a way to control that cost should get a Nobel Prize. If the ITAC finds there is no down side to allowing the SRF tire then I am okay with that.

Spend less on tires.

The Fuzion ZRi runs about $75 each in the kind of sizes we use.

The first two years back with the Golf, I used FULL-TREAD Toyos. This is one with 9 hours of track time on it.

There are options.

K

 

[jjjanos]

I'll simply state that your interpretation (and it IS just your interpretation) of that phrase - that anything that isn't necessary to contruct a safe race car cannot be useful, and those two things cannot be mutually exclusive - is simply pedantic. You may interpret the language that way, but others...including the drafters of the language...might consider those two things mutually exclusive. Those who drafted the "intent", and those that have followed them in the rules creation process, obviously don't agree with your interpretation, given the evolution of IT rules. You are a man chasing windmills.

Of course its pedantic. It's the freaking rules! These are formal rules and you either pay attention to them or you end up being illegal.

Moreover, the GCR is very clearly - they cannot be mutually exclusive. Both conditions must hold. What part of the conjunction "and" do you not understand? If they didn't intend for both conditions to hold, there is a perfectly good conjunction that could have used "or". If allowing something that is useful, but not necesssary is permitted - we should be allowed to have lexan windows, RR shocks, alternate pistons for hard to locate stock pistons, the ability to swap out prone to break quickly suspensions bits for parts that never were on that car when it left the factory. All of that crap is useful. Hell, I'd like to make fiberglass parts matching the stock, break in a stiff wind fenders and header panel on my car. that sure as shinola would be useful, but I recognize the slippery slope on allowing that modification.

I'm allowed to run put different shocks/struts in the car as long as they mount to the same location. Why shouldn't I be allowed to put a lexan windshield in the car as well - provided I make no other modificaton? Answer with a coherent explaination that relies on the class philosophy that allows one, but not the other. Neither are necessary, but both are useful.

Let's see exactly how far from the founding document the current IT rules lie. Someone must have the original rule set sitting around. Nor are those making the decisions all that keen with their attention to detail - kee-rist, somewhere along the evolution of this thing, they dropped out the allowance for a fire extinguisher! We're all illegal.

A modification gets added either because the original rule can no longer be enforced (see ECUs) or because cost containment no longer is an issue (someday RR shocks will be IT-legal) or because the modification doesn't have a slippery slope (when does fender flaring stop being flaring and becomes a new fender? Where's the line in the sand on that).

 

[lateapex911]

This is cracking me up.. 16 years of running SRF tires,now the tires are not Dot , same relative speed(alittle slow)and the desk racers have a cow*.
The tire safety value is not in question. It is well within its' design parameters. The SRf is lighter than the ministock. MIni stocks race as light as 1800# and as heavy as 2550#.(same tire). There is no logical reason to exclude a proven,tire ,(available), just because it lacks the DOT tag.
This is specific tire request, "SRF Goodyear", for cars that can run on 13in wheels. This is not a request for race slicks!!
They will not win against ant 40/45/50series Dot race rubber,unless the driver is very poor.
You can repeal the rule,if My Son beats you on these tires!!!
If I could get used Hoosiers, I would. The set I have now is old.( 225/45/13):>
The SRF national guys take off these semi- treaded tires because they slow down about a tenth, the second time out. (But stay at that speed for the rest of the tire life) I get 800laps onour minstocker with these tires, (in a bigger size, 23/8/13).
I would not buy any new Goodyears. The same tire, but larger, (23/8/13) cost 108$ at our local circle track. 168$$??
I have 15 in wheels and a SM. The VW slows down, as the roll out gets bigger. 13s are faster.
Much to do about nothing. MM

Wow.

You're right about one thing.

Much ado about nothing.

So, you want cheap tires, and you aren't concerned with winning, but you don't like the 15' size because they are too slow... hmmmm...see a conflict here? you're asking an entire category to change a rule, but you're not willing to try to work around your issue.

also, read and think more .

In my post, i said I had a basement full of tires..I run an RX-7....on 13" rims, in the exact size you need. I sold a bunch last fall, and I'm looking to sell more. I went chasing lap records and wins last year, and I went thru some tire sets...most have between 7 and 11 cycles on them.

You have options, but i just don't see making a change to a ruleset that opens the category to unintended consequences as one of the better options.

*Oh, by the way...this "Desk racer" towed his car from CT to: New Hampshire, Watkins Glen NY, Lime Rock, CT, Southern New jersey, Pocono PA, Mid Ohio, and Road Atlanta in GA, broke track records at every track except one, and finished the season with 7 wins 4 seconds and a third in 12 races. And I know what it's like to race on a budget. In my first year racing I drove the actual race car (also my street car) TO the track ON the ONE set of Toyo R tires I raced on, and slept on the ground at places like Watkins Glen, Lime Rock and NHIS.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

....Anybody who comes up with a way to control that cost should get a Nobel Prize...

Dick, I don't think you get a vote on the Nobel Prize commitee

If tire cost control were a goal then maybe take a cue from auto-crossers and limit tire tread wear to greater than xxx.