Theoretically, but in practive the treadwear number is arbitrary, and
set by the manufacturer.
Michael Knapp wrote:
>
> 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
|