Politically Ray, durometer readings and such will never be accepted. Technically
it's possible and the ASA racing series has used durometers to measure/test
tires
for a long long time. In the past I have made proposals based on what you
propose.
The Solo group needs something simpler than that though. A "Z" rated tire has to
be built to withstand the heat of long periods of high speed (over 149 mph for 1
hour, I believe). In doing so, tire construction and compounding is affected.
Those that say that a Z rating only affects the carcass are not correct. The
tread compound has a lot to do with how much heat is developed and how much heat
it can take. As every racer probably knows, softer compounds cannot withstand
much heat.
Therefore, if we were embrace a minimum speed rating for specialty type R tires,
say a Z rating, tire companies could continue to produce specialty performance
tires that we could use. IMO, specialty tires are the cheapest way to autox
competitively. But that's another subject.
The SCCA should have an interest in creating a single tire rule across club
racing and autox. The tire companies would like this because they could compete
in both arenas with only one set of rules. Autocross would get more tire
participation (something that a dominant tire company might not want) and club
racers could sell their takeoffs to autoxers ... and tire companies would have
just one set of rules and a development arena that would relate to street tire
development. Whether the divergent SCCA divisions can do anything in one voice
is
open to debate. It would be interesting to see them try to.
What we're seeing with the early reports of the G Force aren't any different
than
what we saw in '89 when BFG produced it's solo only edition of the R1. In two
years after, we lost Yoko and their Nationals sponsorship, and all other tire
companies in stock class solo. Can that happen again? Why not?
John Whitling
RacerRay52@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/20/99 10:08:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> alliancemillsoft@worldnet.att.net writes:
>
> << You'll all, in your
> infinite wisdom, tell me that for some magic reason tires cannot be
> regulated. They are too complex for that ... black magic, if you will. >>
>
> That is what many teamdotnetters will say. But not all will say that. Of
> course it would be possible to regulate tires. First though there would have
> to be the will to do it among those who have the time and energy to devote to
> such matters as being on SCAC or SEB or being movers-and-shakers in the SCCA.
> Those good folks aren't of a mind to change the tire rule to oust racing
> rubber from the stock category so it isn't going to happen anytime soon.
> Probably never.
> As for what the rule should or could be and how it would be enforced...
> People who are, I am sure, honest and sincere have said to me that
> durometers only measure softness not grip. I have had anecdotal stories
> presented in evidence of that assertion. While I concede that softness and
> grip might not always be in EXACT correlation I shall continue to believe
> that they track close enough together to form a part of a useful detection
> and enforcement procedure until I am shown data from extensive, controlled
> scientific testing proving the contrary.
> Along with durometer testing treadwear ratings would form another
> component of the procedure. An exclusion list would flow from that.
> This is a subject that some pretend to hate but it always draws enough
> verbiage that I can't help believing that many of my fellow cone-destroyers
> really enjoy these little keyboard jousts.
>
> Ray Elliott
> Norfolk, Va.
|