Mark Andy writes:
>My point is that a DOT stamp is just as unenforcable as a
treadwear
> stamp.
I think you're mistaken there. I believe that a DOT number molded
into a tire certifies that certain safety-related requirements
have been met. Some aftermarket replacement components, like
certain braided brake flex hoses, are not DOT approved and are
sold for "off-road use" only.
>What's to prevent Kumho from changing their R tire compound to a
much
>softer compound just before nationals, for instance? :-)
Not much. Maybe that's one of the reasons so many folks get their
new tires at Nationals. ;<)
> What's to
>prevent Hoosier from taking a slick, putting two grooves around
it, and
>slapping a DOT stamp on it?
Uhh, I think that's sorta what they do now. They work real good,
too. ;<)
>If you start with the assumption that the tire companies are
going to
>cheat, _any_ limiting rule on tires that you can't enforce with
a ruler
>will get beaten.
Ergo, you make the rules as unrestrictive as possible. Sorta like
Stock and SP are now.
>The fact that ST
>draws the line in a different manner than stock does NOT mean
that its any
>more or less enforcable.
Beg to disagree. The more you try to restrict tires, the more
advantage a tire maker can gain by fudging on the restrictions.
Jay
|