Don, and everyone else thanks so much for the information on tires!!!
I think I will probably go with the Kumhos. I will need to go with 16 inch
rims $$$ to get a large enough tire for my car. The only option I have with
15 inch rims are hoosiers. But I think It would be smart for the long run.
Out of curiosity, what would you guess the time difference of the Kuhmos and
the Hoosiers would be all else being equal with a good driver on a 60 second
course?
Again thanks for all the responses. I hope this will be a fun year :-).
David Borden
>Dave,
>
>You wrote:
>
>>I am researching the purchase of tires and wheels. I am hoping I can get
some
>>advice on the type of DOT approved autocross tire we should buy for the
>season.
>>
>>
>>The car is a FFR Cobra Replica, 2200 lbs with about 400rwhp.
>>
>>Between the new G Force R-1's, Kuhmo's and Hoosiers or others, what would
you
>>recommend?
>
>KUMHO'S!
>
>We, Steve Hobaugh and Myself, ran 2+ sets of Kumho's (274/40/17 and
>315/35/17) on the SS Corvette in '99.. After the first couple of events,
>when they are slow until heat cycled, they get better and better until, at
>about 2/3 worn, they are at their best. From there till we've corded them
>they have worked well with only slight "fall-off" near the end. On a mixture
>of mostly asphalt but some cement surfaces, we also had very good life. On
>the two complete sets we put on 4400 and 5100 seconds of run time, or 88 and
>102, respectively, 50-second runs. The third set are heading for about the
>same life. They also work well in the rain with close to full tread. For
>comparison, the previous tire wear experience I had on my '85 Corvette was
>with an number of sets of both 275/45/16 Hoosier Autocrossers (bias ply) and
>255/50/16 BFG 230's. Both of those tires yielded between 2400 to 2800
>seconds of run time which included switching the Hoosier's inside-outside
>half way through their life.
>
>Later in the '99 year, we ran a set of Hoosier, autocross compound, radials.
>After getting acclimated to the different responses of the Hoosier's (you
>can drive them "harder", compared with the Kumho's) we felt they were
>definitely the faster tire, probably on all surfaces in the warm summer.
>Also, from having previously run Hoosier radials on the '85, they are not
>good in the rain. Additionally, probably because they don't have a steel
>belt, I'm told they won't develop enough heat on cold/overcast days to work
>as well as the Kumho's. However, we havn't yet run them, under those
>conditions, to find out for ourselves. Surprisingly, to us, at about half
>way through the shallower tread on the Hoosier's, it looks like they will
>last as long as the Kumho's. I say surprisingly, because from the experience
>with having run several sets of previous generation Hoosier radials on the
>'85 several years ago, they didn't yield any where near the wear-life the
>'99 tires are producing.
>
>I don't have any personal experience with the BFG G-Force. But, from
>anecdotal information, I've heard, that for many drivers, they are hard to
>drive on the "fast-edge". I've also heard some complaints about wear rates
>compared with the BFG 230's. A key indicator of tire preference is to look
>at the tire brands run at the Topeka Nationals. According to entry lists, in
>'98 the BFG (probably mostly 230's with possibly some "saved" 226's) were
>the dominant tire brand in stock and SP classes (on 58% of all the entrys,
>73% stock, 24% SP). In '99, Kumho (38% total,39% stock,35% SP) and Hoosier
>(33%, 24% stock, 52% SP) both were on more cars than BFG (27%, 35% stock,
>11% SP). BTW, the numbers on Hoosier's are somewhat mis-leading since, many
>of the Hoosier's on SP cars are bias-ply autocrossers, not radials. Also, my
>guess is that some of the BFG's in '99 were not G-Force', but previous
>year's 230's. Interestingly, for some reason, the majority of good '99 BFG
>performances were on front-wheel-drive cars, and only a few of the larger
>and rear-wheel-drive cars ran BFG's. For the most extreem examples: In the
>combined DS/ES/GS classes BFG's were on 92% of entrys in '98 and still on
>60% in '99. However, in the '98 class BS, BFG's were on 87% of cars and, in
>'99, only 10% were on BFG's, with 55% 0n Hoosier radials..
>
>The "bottom line, as the accountants say, is cost. The Kumho's are
>considerably less expensive than either the Hoosier's or BFG's. However,
>since Kumho is in the process of bringing out a "new" tire this year, supply
>of available "old" and "new" replacement tires may be tighter than in the
>past.
>
>For some of us the real BOTTOM LINE is which are faster. For that reason,
>we're going with Hoosier's along with a couple different rain sets on the
>side.
>
> Don
>
>
|