An additional thought, if the treadwear number is related to
hardness/softness of the tire, and the requirement is that tires have a
minimum treadwear rating of 150 (pick a number). Does that not solve the
problem. I do beleive that DOT specifies the requirement for the treadwear
(could be wrong).
Mike Knapp
TLS #318
(Pro Street Tire)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Mitchell [SMTP:jemitchell@compuserve.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 11:00
To: John Whitling; RacerRay52@aol.com
Cc: autox@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: one of my favorite topics
John said:
>Those that say that a Z rating only affects the carcass are not
correct.
Yeah we are. A soft compound can be part of a tire with the
requisite heat-dissipation characteristics. Witness the Yokohama
A032 cited earlier.
> 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.
You're trying to say, by implication, that a Z-rated tire will
intrinsically have longer tread life than one with a lower speed
rating. And you're just wrong about that.
>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.
As GH already pointed out, the tires you seem to have so much
against ALREADY have a Z rating. Ergo, your proposal will have
zero effect on those tires. Zip. Denada. Zilch.
>Autocross would get more tire
>participation (something that a dominant tire company might not
want) and club
>racers could sell their takeoffs to autoxers
They can do that now, although, if you really want to be
competitive, you'll get new tires, not cycled-out ones. Answer my
original question: exactly HOW do the IT tire rules differ from
Solo II tire rules? I see the same tire designs used in both
areas, and I'm not aware of any differences.
>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.
We did NOT lose Yokohama in two years. I went to the Solo II
Nationals in 92 and 93, and Yokohama was not only there, they
sponsored those events. They chose to stop providing direct event
support in 1994, FIVE years after, according to you, the world
ended. Hoosier has been there all along, in the form of
independent distributors. And now there's Kumho. You're trying to
create the perception of a problem - lack of competion among tire
manufacturers - when the facts clearly say otherwise.
What is really motivating all this? Anyone who is unhappy with
BFGs has at least two other competitive options in DOT
competition tires. It's never been any better than this, and
you're trying to get us to believe the sky is falling.
Jay
|