SEDiv IT7 and regional SM tire questions

[lateapex911]

, Has any IT class ever had a spec tire before? I don't think so.

[/b]

But IT7 is NOT an IT class......IT philosophy does not make one marque/model classes.

IT7 is a class that specs ONE make/model, and sets ONE ruleset, the ITA ruleset, as their spec.

It isn't a pure spec class... (Arguabley those are VERY rare, spec Miata NOT being one), but it isn't IT either.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

But IT7 is NOT an IT class......IT philosophy does not make one marque/model classes.

IT7 is a class that specs ONE make/model, and sets ONE ruleset, the ITA ruleset, as their spec.

It isn't a pure spec class... (Arguabley those are VERY rare, spec Miata NOT being one), but it isn't IT either.
[/b]

I suspose that it takes sealed motors and transmissions to make a true spec class. But, in a class where only one chassis is spec'd with one motor and a given set of modifications, its as close to a spec class as my spec class Kart ever was. With Karts at least we could run different chassis, mine was an Emmick.

James

 

[instigator]

James as for your Speed Challenge comment. I can assure you hankook paid for that right as did toyo in the past years. Apples to oranges just do not seem to compare. Pro Raceing is paid by sponsors, and they buy your car one part at a time just to get their advertisement out to the public. I can assure you if they were given a choice you would see may different tire choices by the teams in that program.

Kurt Jackson

 

[tom_sprecher]

Contingencies pay to the few, while a spec tire that has a controlled price, and a longer life, benefits all.[/b]

God I despise socialism. Or is that Marxist and kind of sounds like "Capitalism benefits the few, while communism benefits all. It really doesn't matter as history has shown it does not work.

That's stretch...to say the least! How is that even close to the other examples??? If the tire is the same for everybody, and the chassis and motor the same, how can the cream not rise??
[/b]

In my opinion the “cream” is track records. With a spec tire that is a “couple of seconds slower” I don’t see any cream rising. You might get buttermilk at best.

How is a spec tire equivilent to a welfare state?? Are you being taxed to pay for someones tires?
[/b]

The list was offered as examples of how some of us are forced to accept less to aid those who, for one reason or another, can not keep up on the great road course of life.

Spec tires force me to turn slower lap times. Maybe it’s just me but going slower seems to go against the concept of racing.
Dumbing down the curriculum forces me to accept seeking out and paying for private schools for my children.
The welfare state forces me to accept taking care of someone else at the expense of my family.
15% payroll taxes, same thing.
Drunk drivers and tough DUI laws forces me to accept having only 1 and some fraction of my favorite libation and hoping I did my math right before I even think about driving home.
If some of us can’t keep from killing others the next thing you know they will revoke the 2nd amendment.
Get the picture.

I do not like to be forced to accept less than what I can get on my own. Although I offer to help on a regular basis, I very rarely ask for help so I get a little resentful when I am forced to so. Spec tire forces me to help with someone else’s racing budget. Not by paying an actual tax but being forced to accept less.

I have very little actual on track experience and am cursed with having higher ambitions that some others and but damn it I want a track record some day and tires that "are a couple of seconds slower, but they last longer" ain't gonna get it.

 

[lateapex911]

.....I want a track record some day and tires that "are a couple of seconds slower, but they last longer" ain't gonna get it.
[/b]

Well, thats some pretty interesting stuff, I'll say that.

I'm not involved enough to know whether the poll was fair or not, but it was a poll, and the masses voted (presumably). Thats not anything but democratic. (any claims of rigged polls aside...if you have such issues, then the real issue is not the philosophic ones but the methodological, or corruption ones).

Remember, you are free to run your car in ITA and collect track records and winners mugs until you have no room left on your trophy shelves.

 

[tom_sprecher]

Running my 1st gen in ITA won't work either as that would be way too much work. You see I've changed my whole outlook on life. Now, like everyone else, I want my cake, eat it and not have to work for it, too! Let's just reduce everything to the lowest common denominator and I’ll be happy swimming in a sea of mediocrity.

Great topic and in all honesty, there are pros and cons to both sides of this issue, and like I said before, if we vote again and a spec tire is wanted by the majority then so be it. Instead of tires I’ll just spend my budget on “better hardware”. First, I have to find the definition of the same in the GCR.

 

[JeffYoung]

While I'm not an IT7 driver, I do know and race with a lot of you guys (you see a lot of 1st Gen RX7s as a mid pack ITS driver...llol).

There are a lot of great arguments for the spec tire in IT7, and I appreciate them. I can make on empirical observation though: at least in the short term, it appears to me that there are far fewer cars running in IT7 this year than in year's past. Is that due to the spec tire rule? In some respects, yes -- 3 or 4 front running guys who liked running on Hoosiers went to A (and are doing pretty well).

Do you guys think IT7 will be repopulated? If so, the spec rule is probably a great idea as it keeps costs down. If not, and the class is dependent on attracting existing IT7s back to the class, maybe the open tire rule is the way to go.

Not advocating either side, just an empirical observation from someone whose only interest in the matter is the fact that I have a lot of friends running 7s.

 

[Hotshoe]

Speaking of other options, who chose Toyo as the spec tire?
[/b]

Tom,

... There was no choice given for a "Spec Tire". Toyo was the ONLY ONE listed on the ballot.

... Hardly even democratic if you ask me Jake. I told you after I drove all the way to your house what the deal was so acting like you do not know surprises me.

... I feel that the ballot that was sent out last year concerning the (Yes) or (No) for the "Spec Tire" rule was a very good idea. But: (Take note Jake) No Ballot was cast to determine which tire would be selected. So, ( Take note again) If you voted yes then it automatically voted for Toyo. And you call that fair????? Democratic ??? Not hardly.

... I hate to see changes made that do not take into account ALL that are concerned. Yes, ballots were sent out to drivers and car owners, but, Were ALL the Tire manufacturers given the same consideration? NO

... In all fairness, a separate vote should have been balloted ( even on the same ballot as the original ) and sent out as to which tire would be CHOSEN as the "Spec Tire"

... So, fire away. But, I am politically correct. LOL

 

[lateapex911]

Tom,

... There was no choice given for a "Spec Tire". Toyo was the ONLY ONE listed on the ballot.

... Hardly even democratic if you ask me Jake. I told you after I drove all the way to your house what the deal was so acting like you do not know surprises me.
[/b]

Well, Rick, forgive me, as it was late and some of the details of our talk may have slipped my mind. But do take note that in my comments I haven't stated any manufacturers, and I have specifically called out the differenence between a spec tire philosophy and the ballot methodology. And I stated I didn't know the whole story on the ballot situation. (I will always asume I don't know everything in a situation like this as there are often many "layers" of knowledge. In many cases, no one person actually knows all the facts)

... In all fairness, a separate vote should have been balloted ( even on the same ballot as the original ) and sent out as to which tire would be CHOSEN as the "Spec Tire"

... So, fire away. But, I am politically correct. LOL
[/b]

Agreed, IF the consensus was that a spec tire was desired by the majority, then the choice should have been discussed. (and not necessarily in that order) It's not easy to get a large group to respond and to get a consensus on the subject, which is why is rarely happens.

I agree that the choice and poll method are extremely important, but Ii differ with Tom's points and comparisons. I suspect Rick, that if you chose to give the same development to the spec tire chosen, that your success would have been very similar to your success on your previous tire. Thats what I meant by the "Cream rising" comment. I certainly respect your decision NOT to run IT7 as you have a tremandous investment in time and money tied up in your tire choice, and your level of development reflects that.

You guys in the south have an enviable situation, with enough cars to have an IT7 class, you can choose between running IT7 or ITA. But sometimes more choices brings more headaches, LOL.

I guess what confuses me is if there is so much disention, how was the poll mishandled in the first place, and more importantly, how can it be avoided again??

 

[Hotshoe]

... Jeopardy ...

Answer: Agreed, IF the consensus was that a spec tire was desired by the majority, then the choice should have been discussed. (and not necessarily in that order)

Question: I guess what confuses me is if there is so much dissention, how was the poll mishandled in the first place, and more importantly, how can it be avoided again??
[/b]

Jake,

.... You basically answered your own question.

.... Note: Hoosier Dirt Stockers were also listed on the original ballot as an alternate choice for rain tires. But that must have fallen through the cracks because it never made it into the rule change. Hmmmm ........ wonder why??????????

 

[Mike Guenther]

Hotshoe:

"... I hate to see changes made that do not take into account ALL that are concerned. Yes, ballots were sent out to drivers and car owners, but, Were ALL the Tire manufacturers given the same consideration? NO" [/b]

Not all owners received a ballot. I never got one. It is my opinion that even if you have a spec tire forced upon each driver, those with a larger budget will buy new tires more often than those with a smaller budget. So where is the equality in forcing a single tire on everyone? Even if the bricks last longer, new ones feel better and out perform the ones with 4 -6 heat cycles.

First we force a single tire manufacturer then a single shock manufacturer then a single spring rate, a single brake shoe, where does it end???

Freedom to choose any brand within a general spec. That's the American way.

 

[sgallimo]

Jake,

.... You basically answered your own question.

.... Note: Hoosier Dirt Stockers were also listed on the original ballot as an alternate choice for rain tires. But that must have fallen through the cracks because it never made it into the rule change. Hmmmm ........ wonder why??????????
[/b]

Nothing to hmmm about. The Hoosier Dirt Stocker is mentioned in the rules. The following was taken from the "2006SEDivRegionalClassRules.pdf" file found on the www.sedivracing.org website:

Improved Touring 7 (IT7)

July 1998 this class was initiated for MAZDA RX7s, model year 1979 through 1985 with
the 12 A motor. This class must comply with and be prepared to the IT A rules as
published by SCCA - GCR and Category Specifications.

|Effective October 1, 2005 the spec tire for IT7 is Toyo Proxes RA1 DOT – Shaved or
|unshaved. Optional rain tire, Toyo Proxes RA1 DOT, shaved or unshaved, OR Hoosier
|Dirt Stocker DOT.
|
|
|Ad-Hoc Committee, Joe Varble 678-482-0035, Lee Graser 423-494-7889, and Stan
|Hinds 423-588-9799

 

[sgallimo]

Tom,

... There was no choice given for a "Spec Tire". Toyo was the ONLY ONE listed on the ballot.

... Hardly even democratic if you ask me Jake. I told you after I drove all the way to your house what the deal was so acting like you do not know surprises me.

... I feel that the ballot that was sent out last year concerning the (Yes) or (No) for the "Spec Tire" rule was a very good idea. But: (Take note Jake) No Ballot was cast to determine which tire would be selected. So, ( Take note again) If you voted yes then it automatically voted for Toyo. And you call that fair????? Democratic ??? Not hardly.

... I hate to see changes made that do not take into account ALL that are concerned. Yes, ballots were sent out to drivers and car owners, but, Were ALL the Tire manufacturers given the same consideration? NO

... In all fairness, a separate vote should have been balloted ( even on the same ballot as the original ) and sent out as to which tire would be CHOSEN as the "Spec Tire"

... So, fire away. But, I am politically correct. LOL
[/b]

It may be mere symantics to some folks but last year's ballot was not a yes or no question on a spec tire for IT-7. It was a yes or no question on using the Toyo Proxes RA1 as the spec tire for IT-7. Answering that question was very straightforward. If you wanted the Toyo Proxes to be the spec tire for the class, you voted yes. If you did not want the Toyo to be the spec tire for the class, you voted no. If you did not want a spec tire for the class, you voted no. If you wanted the Cooper Tyres Lifeliner SLE to be the spec tire for the class, you voted no. Regardless of whether the limited alternatives attached to that question lined up with a given persons desired future for the class, that was the question that was asked and those were the possible answers that question evoked.

Was it a fair question? I think so. It was the question that the framers wanted to persue. Anyone that didn't agree to any or all aspects of the question only had to vote no. Was it a complete question? Yes, if the framers wanted to gauge folks reactions to using the Toyo as the spec tire. No so much, if the framers wanted to guage folks reactions to using any single tire as the spec tire. In "all completeness" a separate vote could have been balloted in order to ask all that wanted a spec tire to specify which tire they would like to see used. Unless the framers were only interested in gauging the reception of the Toyo.

 

[Hotshoe]

Optional rain tire, Toyo Proxes RA1 DOT, shaved or unshaved, OR Hoosier Dirt Stocker DOT.
[/b]

Well,

.... I see they updated the rules since I checked last. ( May 2006 )

.... Still doesn't change the fact that we did not get a choice as to which tire could have been the "Spec Tire"

.... Care to comment ?

.... Looks like you guys have a level playing field now that the "handful" (as you call them) are gone. But believe me ..... Toyo Tires didn't make the difference. Check the ECR results, the same driver that was leading the points last year on Hoosiers is leading this year on Toyos. And he could be leading the SARRC if he had the desire.

.... Say what you want about the ballot, but , if you voted yes to a "Spec Tire" you didn't have to choose Toyo. But that was the ONLY choice offered. Can we say "Trojan Horse"

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

.... Looks like you guys have a level playing field now that the "handful" (as you call them) are gone. But believe me ..... Toyo Tires didn't make the difference. Check the ECR results, the same driver that was leading the points last year on Hoosiers is leading this year on Toyos. And he could be leading the SARRC if he had the desire.

[/b]

Who said Spec tires would make slower guys faster? I think one of the primary goals os a ST (as long as you choose the one that meets your goals...) is lower cost to the whole class. It ain't about getting closer to the front.

 

[Hotshoe]

I think one of the primary goals of a Spec Tire (as long as you choose the one that meets your goals...)
[/b]

Andy,

... I keep trimming the answer down to the root of the problem.


............ No choice was given ................

 

[Hotshoe]

It may be mere semantics to some folks but last year's ballot was not a yes or no question on a spec tire for IT-7. It was a yes or no question on using the Toyo Proxes RA1 as the spec tire for IT-7.
[/b]

This is where I have to disagree. Since you like to publish the rules as they are written, then do this for ALL of us.

...Post a copy of the ballot in its original format, here on the forum and show us how you came up with your conclusions.

... There was two questions on the ballot. The first was a simple (Yes) or (No) as to whether or not you are in favor of a "Spec Tire " and nothing else was implied. So back it up.

... I'll admit when I'm wrong and I made a mistake about the Dirt Stockers, But I do know what I voted on.

 

[sgallimo]

This is where I have to disagree. Since you like to publish the rules as they are written, then do this for ALL of us.
[/b]

I did post the rule as it is in the file -- I can't say what it contained prior to a couple of weeks ago. So I don't know what you're getting at with that Ricky. Please explain.

...Post a copy of the ballot in its original format, here on the forum and show us how you came up with your conclusions.
[/b]

If I had a copy of the ballot, I would post it. I just sent Lee a note asking for a copy.

... There was two questions on the ballot. The first was a simple (Yes) or (No) as to whether or not you are in favor of a "Spec Tire " and nothing else was implied. So back it up.

... I'll admit when I'm wrong and I made a mistake about the Dirt Stockers, But I do know what I voted on.
[/b]

Hmm so you don't beleive the "you are in favor of a spec tire" question included a reference to the Toyo? Wish I could picture the darn thing. Based on your memory, what were the two questions that were on the ballot?

 

[Hotshoe]

last year's ballot was not a yes or no question on a spec tire for IT-7.

It was a yes or no question on using the Toyo Proxes RA1 as the spec tire for IT-7.

If you wanted the Toyo Proxes to be the spec tire for the class, you voted yes.

If you did not want the Toyo to be the spec tire for the class, you voted no.

[/b]

Scott,

... This is why I would like to see a copy of the ballot that you got. The one I received was not worded, or made references in this manner.

... So I guess we will wait until one is presented.

... Like I stated before: Voting on whether or not to have a spec tire was (and is) a good idea. Not giving the tire manufacturers an opportunity to participate, and then NOT giving ALL concerned a VOTE, is where the problem with all of this has originated.

 

[sgallimo]

[attachmentid=510]Sorry for the late reply but I spent the past 4 days at Roebling Road.

Here's a copy of the IT-7 spec tire ballot and information sheet. It clearly indicated the spec tire choice, the rain tire options, the reasons behind the desire for a spec tire, the reasons behind the choice of the Toyo, their optional status for the pre-2005 SIC races, and their required status for the post 2005 SIC races. It even pointed out that the proposal required a vote by the RE's and that the ballots were to be used to convince the RE's and the Class Review Board that a majority of the SEDIV IT-7 drivers wanted to adopt the spec tire rule.

I'm told ballots were mailed out to each of the 90 IT-7 drivers who had appeared on the SARRC, ECR, and Carolina Cup result sheets for that current year. 64 ballots were returned. That means roughly 72% of the community voted -- that's an exceptionally high return rate when compared to other SCCA elections. 52 people voted Yes and 12 people voted No. The No votes included two folks who had not received a ballot even though they were part of the original mailing and one person whose address was incorrect on the original mailing. Even if each of those remaining 28% of the drivers had voted No, the proposal would have received a 58% passing margin.