I for one hope that we never get to the point where "r" compound tires are
disallowed in stock classes. I've found that my Kuhmo's saved me money on
street tires. The street tires took a severe beating and lasted only 5-6000
street miles. I'll get 3 years of 12 event seasons with from 4-6 runs per
event on my Kumho's. I'd end up replacing a set of street tires each year
from the autocross beating on the edges.... (My Fiero eats fronts on the
outside and rears on the inside...., rotate each event to maximize life and
still get 5-6000 miles on street tires, and those had a treadwear rating of
320! TA radials....)
If tires are the real issue in STS vs a national class and we all know that
tire stickiness is not enforceable by treadwear ratings ( an arbitrary,
unstandardized number) then the solution is actually really simple:
Eliminate STS's 140 treadwear requirement, eliminate STR and have ST and SM
classes
(While we are at it why not eliminate the 4 seat rule for SM?)
PS.
Remember that treadwear ratings are related to tread depth. A 50 rated tire
like the Victoracers has less tread, at a comparable tread depth to a std
street tire it might get a rating of 100 or 120)
If anyone figures out the logic used for car classing, please let me know...
I found Tunnel's web site to be very helpful. No one complains about a BMW
M3 lightweight in ASP (Even stock!) but a similar M3 of the same vintage
that weighs a measly 100 lbs. more (Bob's M3) is classed in ESP. I guess my
engineering education and logical problem solving processes must be
deficient somewhere...
I got into a similar discussion about the move of the oldest Miata's (1.6
liters) into CS. The logic and performance were agreed to be "not a class
difference" to quote AB. It was done to "freshen up the class" maybe that
logic was used again!
Dan Morency
President Cumberland Motor Club
|