Your Thoughts on Mandating 200+TW "Street Tires" in Improved Touring?

I'm just going to go ahead and tell everyone....

I will laugh out loud and in your face if you show up on shaved 200tw tires. Not to shame you into hopefully spending less money so we can all be more "equal", but simply because you are dumb and wasted a bunch of money.

If you've generated a negative opinion of "street tires" based off of data from a decade ago you need to do some research. What a lot of you aren't realizing is that some of us have already went through this transition once with the autocross Stock/Street change. We have experience on a personal level and data on a club level. Most of the negatives I'm hearing come from people with none of the former and a refusal to see the latter.

Data? I love data! Please post the actual data that includes the following -- temperature, number of heat cycles on the tire, number of laps run on the tire, tire brand and type and lap times for the session.

Because what I see are stories, not data.

Here's a story. We bought and scrubbed 10 tires for the VIR 13-Hour. Scrubbed them in and set them aside. We practiced/qualified and ran about 50% of the race on the first four. Changed to the next 4. First set of tires had 3 heat cycles. Second set had 2 heat cycles. Last 2 tires had 1 heat cycle. Next time we did a typical race weekend, we used those tires and they performed pretty much like you would expect tires with a couple of heat cycles to perform. The 4 tires that ran the equivalent of 7 sprint weekends (7-hours on track) were like 2 weekend tires.

That's not data. It's a story. It's true, but still a story.
 
Jeff, what's your letter number?

Tracking #24834

I am writing regarding the proposal to require a 200TW tire in IT. I am opposed at this time as I believe the asserted benefits do not exist or do not exceed the cost of such a proposal.

1. For many cars, there is no 200TW tire available in the size they currently use. For these drivers to compete in their current cars, they will need to invest in new wheels at a minimum. The change in tire size will impact the effectiveness of their gearing and will require the purchase, if available, a different final drive gear. Finally, this change may necessitate changing suspension setups and tuning and require the purchase of new shocks and springs. These expenditures will significantly reduce or eliminate the proposed savings. Furthermore, some drivers will simply leave IT and make the switch to other categories; going counter to the suggestion that the tire rule will increase IT participation.


2. A 200TW rule will upset the competitive balance in the category, particularly among the classes with smaller engine displacement. The change will benefit higher torque cars with a wider powerband and harm those cars that rely more on momentum. The classification “process” (The PROCESS) would need to be recalibrated and we face the prospect of another IT Great Realignment and the subsequent appropriate weight wars. I acknowledge that the IT rules do not guaranty competitiveness, but it is one thing when a driver selects a car that isn’t competitive and a different thing when a significant rule change of dubious value does it.

3. This rule likely will impact the number of cross-over entries between IT and other categories (double dippers). Under the current rules, double dippers only need one set of wheels and tires. For example, an ITA CRX can double-dip in FP and, while not running at the front of the field, will find FP cars to race. Similar, many Spec Miata cars double dip in ITA. It is my belief that a 200TW rule will stop this double dipping – a significant source of revenue to the Regions.

4. It is doubtful that the rule will cause a significant number of cars running with 200TW rules to enter SCCA events. Many of these cars are no longer IT legal. The format between a sprint race and a multi-driver endurance race is different. These other sanctioning bodies have flexible classing rules that do more to ensure a car is somewhat competitive in a class, but SCCA is extremely inflexible in this regard.

5. What these drivers hope to accomplish – a smaller tire budget – is something they already could accomplish. They choose to run the most expensive tire that lasts the fewest weekends because it offers the greatest competitive advantage. These drivers could reduce their tire budget by purchasing less expensive tires initially or not replacing their tires as often. Few tires are discarded because they are unusable; they are discarded because they are less competitive.

6. I am not an expert in the testing of tires, but based on information from consumer reports and other tire websites, it appears that tire manufacturers may give their products a lower rating then the tested rating and that they do so, particularly, for competition and performance tires. This is a marketing ploy because racers are gullible – they assume a lower TW rating equates to more grip. Consequently, the 40TW rating on Hoosier R7s (purple crack) may be inaccurate and purple crack could be a much higher rated tire. I want to emphasis that I could not confirm this assertion.

7. I am not an expert in the testing of tires, but based on information from consumer reports and other tire websites, it appears that between two tires utilizing identical compounds, the TW rating is proportional to the amount of tread. That is to say, a purple crack tire with twice the tread of the current purple crack is eligible to receive twice the treadwear rating. If this is true, then given that SCCA competitors are the major consumer of purple crack, it is very likely that Hoosier will create a 200TW tire even more expensive than purple crack and lasting approximately as long.

8. This is a significant change to the category that may have major negative impacts on it. Caution demands that, before making this SCCA-wide change, it be implemented at the region or division level to demonstrate that the claim that it will attract new drivers is true. For this to be a true test, this regional/divisional class must be identical to the IT category rules except for mandating a 200TW tire or greater. I.e. IT200 where every car competing in IT200 would be legal to compete in the corresponding Improved Category.

If the claimed cost savings and influx of competitors is demonstrated through a regional/division class, I am likely to change my opinion. Without such a demonstration, I am firmly opposed.
 
After running recently with some very fast ITR and ITS cars in my session, I have a hard time believing that any of the faster IT classes would be willing to give up sticky tires.
 
Oh, has anyone actually researched what 200TW means?

We have no idea what the true TW of purple crack might be. Manufacturers are allowed to put LOWER ratings on their tires. For competition tires, manufacturers under rate their tires because we are stupid and equate lower rating with stickier and faster tires.

I would also like confirmation whether consumer reports and other places are correct when they assert that the rating of two identical compound tires is proportional to their original tread depth. Because if those statements are true, the only thing this accomplishes will be purple crack that you can shave to get the old purple crack.

Jeff, have you researched, or had experience with the tires being discussed?
I suspect YOU will be the only guy shaving them. ;)
And while you assert everyone is buying hoosiers like water, some are not. it takes a program, but you can manage to make a set last and be fast....for a long time.
True, many guys have the $ and prefer not to twist their brains managing a tire program.

J
 
Tracking #24834




8. This is a significant change to the category that may have major negative impacts on it. Caution demands that, before making this SCCA-wide change, it be implemented at the region or division level to demonstrate that the claim that it will attract new drivers is true. For this to be a true test, this regional/divisional class must be identical to the IT category rules except for mandating a 200TW tire or greater. I.e. IT200 where every car competing in IT200 would be legal to compete in the corresponding Improved Category.

If the claimed cost savings and influx of competitors is demonstrated through a regional/division class, I am likely to change my opinion. Without such a demonstration, I am firmly opposed.

Interesting. In the NER region, the IT7 guys decided to go this direction. It required new wheels, because as you point out, all tires aren't made in all sizes. So, a few guys bought in...basically the entire group of IT7 guys (except me*). At the time, every race would see about 3 cars. maybe 4. Now? There are almost 10 current IT-7 competitors, and about 7 or 8 are in any given race. All that have voiced their opinion (A couple are on this board) say they like the racing better. Less work managing a tire program, and less money expended per race. AND, most of all, they fell the change has attracted new blood to the class, and ....therefore.....they now have better racing.

Now, I know this won't impress you, lol....
...any NER IT-7 guys, feel free to set me straight if I have mis characterized teh situation.

* I chose not to convert. Most of the group concentrated on NHMS and maybe a couple other tracks. I, on the other hand, went to NHMS maybe every other year or, at most, once a year. I went to Lime Rock, Watkins Glen, Summit, NJMP, VIR, Atlanta, Mid Ohio, etc looking for new experiences, competition and track records. So I wasn't a good fit. But, I was the exception.
 
I believe the IT-7 attraction just begins at the street tires though. It seems like the group has fairly basic cars and are not taking the prep to the limits. Meaning they have modest build costs, not constantly trying to out prep the cars and seeking expensive HP gains. Assuming they continue to keep you out of the class (your car was on the other spectrum) and are able to keep that mentality as new people enter...that's the attraction at least in my perspective. We'll see how long they can keep those cars going and sourcing parts though.
 
Just as a data point....my friend has compiled entry data for the Solo National Championships the last few years.

Registration just opened for the event yesterday. More people have registered for Street class in the first 14 hours than did total for street class in 2014.
 
Jeff, have you researched, or had experience with the tires being discussed?

There is no Goldilocks tire for my car. The idea has surface merit. Someone needs to test the water to see if the promised benefits are real.

I suspect YOU will be the only guy shaving them. ;)

I've been associated with this club since 1973 -- if there is an unfair advantage to be had, drivers always will seek to find it. It's simply the nature of the beast. I've seen IT guys using the super-expensive fuel at VIR. For what they spent in fuel, they could do a track day and actually go faster.
 
I wrote my letter a few days ago opposing this. I had to guess the reason for this proposal as still don't see it stated what problem this is trying so solve. Others such as Matt Downing have stated it well already, so I'll keep this short. I just don't see why you need a rule for this. If you want to run those tires, run them, but don't make it a rule.
 
I wrote my letter a few days ago opposing this. I had to guess the reason for this proposal as still don't see it stated what problem this is trying so solve. Others such as Matt Downing have stated it well already, so I'll keep this short. I just don't see why you need a rule for this. If you want to run those tires, run them, but don't make it a rule.

If that actually worked the SCCA wouldn't need so many classes. In fact why have different classes within IT. Let's just have ITR and everything goes there.

We break it down to other classes because we want to run other cars, but keep some level of competitiveness. That helps participation. We care about being competitive. If we didn't, why would we spend so much time building to a ruleset when we could just do whatever we wanted and run untimed track days?

We race SCCA because it's the best place for competition. We want to spend less money on tires so we can run more races.
 
I've been associated with this club since 1973 -- if there is an unfair advantage to be had, drivers always will seek to find it. It's simply the nature of the beast. I've seen IT guys using the super-expensive fuel at VIR. For what they spent in fuel, they could do a track day and actually go faster.

I use the slightly more expensive fuel at VIR (93 octane or whatever the lowest is). Mostly because it's convenient. I know exactly how many gallons I want and the pump counts it out for me. I don't own enough fuel jugs to get through a weekend and the cost of having to drive the tow vehicle around to get more fuel pretty much offsets the cost of track fuel. Of course that will all change when I finally get my ECU installed and tuned.
 
If that actually worked the SCCA wouldn't need so many classes. In fact why have different classes within IT. Let's just have ITR and everything goes there.

We break it down to other classes because we want to run other cars, but keep some level of competitiveness. That helps participation. We care about being competitive. If we didn't, why would we spend so much time building to a ruleset when we could just do whatever we wanted and run untimed track days?

We race SCCA because it's the best place for competition. We want to spend less money on tires so we can run more races.

id be fine with one IT class if that what was already built. Cars would be classed with modifications to equalize the cars (best they can like current IT classes) and we would have all selected the car with modifications we liked to race. This would do nothing to control costs.

We have a set of IT classes to try and limit the modifications and provide a cheap place for races to play. Some cars are classes better than others, some cars have superior aftermarket support, and some are being raced for the love of the marquee.

Wanting to force the class to street tires in an effort to save money so more races can be run won’t work. The rules creep has already started with talk of changing the tire size rule to accommodate all classes on street tires. Any savings on street tires will be spent on new rims (2-3 sets min per racer) and could (and will) take years to recoup. And the rule actually requires an outlay of additional money at the start to get going. The exact opposite effect of what’s proposed. Pissing off the existing racers at the hope of attracting new ones is a bad idea. Even once that initial expense is offset, what have we accomplished? People who were running mid pack are still running mid pack but supposedly saving a few hundred dollars a year on race rubber?

I'd propose a new (old) class (yes - another class!) called Showroom Stock. True showroom stock as it was back in the beginning. Completely stock vehicles with ONLY a cage, race seat, belts, window net, fire system, and any paint job/number you want. Stock tires, brakes, bushings, shocks, drivetrain... Mandate a common street tire for the class and go. :)
 
2-3 sets minimum? Dude, I've had one set of rims for my car in the 3 years I've raced it and those rims cost me $600...half the cost of a set of Hoosiers. Buying 15" rims isn't an issue when you can basically get a free set every time you buy a set of street tires over what Hoosiers cost.
 
Two sets of rims with race tires mounted and a set of rain tires. (Three sets minimum) You'll burn any cost savings having a tire or two mounted at the track, so at least two additional rims are a necessity (to me) for race rubber.

I bought two sets of gently used sm7 tires for $530 shipped that can last a complete season.
 
Two sets of rims with race tires mounted and a set of rain tires. (Three sets minimum) You'll burn any cost savings having a tire or two mounted at the track, so at least two additional rims are a necessity (to me) for race rubber.

I bought two sets of gently used sm7 tires for $530 shipped that can last a complete season.

I borrowed a pair of rims to do some testing with, but I only have 4 rims for the car. I can't run enough races to have a shot at a season championship so if there is a good chance of rain I don't race. It's way cheaper and there is just too much of a risk for extra damage making a mistake on a wet track. I don't race if I don't have enough tire left to get through the weekend.

I started out on used SM7s, then a season of used R7s. This year was my first year where I purchased brand new R7s. I run a 225 front tire so SM takeoffs don't do me much good on that half of the car.

Listen, I get it. You don't want to run street tires, but you need to look at the big picture. The trends have already started to play out. I came from Solo Street Prepared category. It's basically the autocross equivalent of IT. It's a Rcomp class. My car used to be a nationally competitive autocross car. It's transition to IT was very easy as most of the car didn't have to be changed. I still use the same suspension and drivetrain. Street Prepared autocross is dying. When I started out in F Street Prepared the first year at Nationals there were over 30 entries. Last year there was half that many. It's been on a steady decline. All the Street Prepared classes (production cars on R-comp classes...sound familiar?) have been dying. Despite that steady decline Solo Nationals has been setting attendance records every year. So where are the extra entries going? Racing slick classes aren't really seeing substantial growth. The answer is classes using street tires...by a huge amount.

So we can all sit here and debate about the costs of this or the reasons for that. What we all have to realize is that the current IT philosophy is no longer appealing. You can watch it's Solo sister slowly withering to nothing. Something has to change and the powers that be are looking for something. If street tires aren't the answer then it doesn't really matter anyway. The IT philosophy is no longer appealing in a meaningful way.

If IT dies off then most of us have few choices for racing within the SCCA without it getting more expensive...either in car purchase price or running costs. Those who can will, but for most of us we will have to find alternatives and sadly it probably won't be in SCCA sprint racing.
 
I borrowed a pair of rims to do some testing with, but I only have 4 rims for the car. I can't run enough races to have a shot at a season championship so if there is a good chance of rain I don't race. It's way cheaper and there is just too much of a risk for extra damage making a mistake on a wet track. I don't race if I don't have enough tire left to get through the weekend.

I started out on used SM7s, then a season of used R7s. This year was my first year where I purchased brand new R7s. I run a 225 front tire so SM takeoffs don't do me much good on that half of the car.

Listen, I get it. You don't want to run street tires, but you need to look at the big picture. The trends have already started to play out. I came from Solo Street Prepared category. It's basically the autocross equivalent of IT. It's a Rcomp class. My car used to be a nationally competitive autocross car. It's transition to IT was very easy as most of the car didn't have to be changed. I still use the same suspension and drivetrain. Street Prepared autocross is dying. When I started out in F Street Prepared the first year at Nationals there were over 30 entries. Last year there was half that many. It's been on a steady decline. All the Street Prepared classes (production cars on R-comp classes...sound familiar?) have been dying. Despite that steady decline Solo Nationals has been setting attendance records every year. So where are the extra entries going? Racing slick classes aren't really seeing substantial growth. The answer is classes using street tires...by a huge amount.

So we can all sit here and debate about the costs of this or the reasons for that. What we all have to realize is that the current IT philosophy is no longer appealing. You can watch it's Solo sister slowly withering to nothing. Something has to change and the powers that be are looking for something. If street tires aren't the answer then it doesn't really matter anyway. The IT philosophy is no longer appealing in a meaningful way.
If IT dies off then most of us have few choices for racing within the SCCA without it getting more expensive...either in car purchase price or running costs. Those who can will, but for most of us we will have to find alternatives and sadly it probably won't be in SCCA sprint racing.

IT is not dying off. If there is one thing the SCCA is good at, it's keeping classes around for ever! :)

I still find the IT philosophy appealing. We (SCCA) need to do a better job of marketing what we're selling and getting people involved. From what I see - many people run other clubs because they want to run what they have built to their liking and they can do that. They get their ass kicked (because building to the rules will beat building what you like every time), but they get to play with their car and have fun. Some are even competitive until someone comes along and builds to the rule set. Other people do the LeChump thing because of the perception that it's cheaper. (It's not -been there/done that) The potential track time is big. But on any given weekend, there are only a handful of teams who can win and everyone else is just there to have fun. If you want to race with the top amateur racers in the country, the SCCA is where you come to play.

I don't see the trend you see. I've used street tires running some Chump races and they suck. If anyone is looking to just race and have fun, they can use street tires now and save whatever money they want. Racers will always look for any advantage they can get, so requiring street tires just means more research and development to find the best 200tw tire and setup (suspension/shaving/heat cycles). Everyone keeps saying shaving does nothing - I'd like the hard data showing that. I'm guessing shaving to 1-2/32nds could make a difference in a sprint race. One person shaves tires, everyone has to do it (this is all about making everyone competitive correct?)... Or finding the 'hot' tire for a track/condition.

When everyone has 10/10ths builds, tires can be the last .02 to make a difference. Most people use tires as a crutch for poor driving. Anyone on new R (or A) 7s can pickup a few seconds a lap. I've beat many people on new Hoosiers while I was on used Hankooks. I plan to beat most people running used SM7s this year regardless of what rubber they run. :)
 
I'll be at the Solo National Championships in September. If shaving street tires got you any gains someone would be doing it. I've been running them for two years and haven't seen anyone shaving them in that time. People were shaving the old Toyos, but those aren't really used anymore. I'll be there on Bridgestone RE71s with just a few runs on them to scrub them in. I suspect the 700 or so other street tire competitors will be on unshaven tires too.
 
Back
Top