View Full Version : Ban on Hoosiers??
Dave Barker
09-20-2002, 06:14 PM
So far this year Hoosier tires still seem to do very well both in Solo 1 and the SCCA and the new Kumho ecsta has not been a match as was once hoped. I have overheard various competitors who have stated that next year they plan to buy Hoosiers to improve their lap times . That may of may not be a good decision for them but there is no doubt that it is an expensive decision. Certainly if I were to have run Hoosiers this past year my tire costs would have been triple what they were .
At this stage Yokohama and Kumho sponser our series and Hoosier does not. What would you think of requiring all non modified classes to run a sponser's tire if they are going to run an "R" compound tire, kind of like having a spec tire or at least spec tire manufacturers who are also sponsers of the series? I know this could be an issue for Toyo but maybe they could be convinced to sponser again . It is also possible that Hoosier would decide to sponser in our series and at least more sponsership never hurt.
I know that this year only 3 of the top 10 in the final results were on Hoosiers and although I don't know if they were faster because of the tires , I know they were spending more $ than if they bought tires from the series sponsers. My concern is that there may be a significant increase in costs if many competitors start using Hoosier tires ( whether they are faster or not) and I'm sure that Yokohama and Kumho will not be pleased if more drivers with the cash to spend switch to Hoosiers thereby decreasing their sales while still sponsering the Solo 1 series . It MAY also mean that to be competitive ( if indeed Hoosiers are faster) you have to spend a lot more money which goes against the spirit of Solo 1 .
So how about it ? Only running R compound from series sponsers at least in non modified classes? Your opinions please.
Nissan Racer
09-20-2002, 07:05 PM
Or worse Yokohama and Kumho might decide its not worth sponsering Solo anymore if no-one is buying their product.
Bad Karma
09-20-2002, 09:35 PM
Okay, how about a couple of quick questions....and I KNOW we've tossed this around before (with me as the outsider...).
One, how many people are running R-compounds in Solo 1? If it's a majority this will lead to question 2....
Two, how about making Solo 1 a *Spec tire* series....and approach either Kumho, Yoko, Toyo etc, and ask them who wants to exclusively sponsor the series? It's likely you'd get better pricing all around, AND eliminate the tire question all together.
It's a moot point if 50% or more of the participants are running on street tires and merely for the fun of it (and are less concerned about competition). If that's the case, a *spec tire* could exclude some participants, and you wouldn't want to do that.
However, I have to think that most regular lapping day / driving school / Solo 1 enthusiasts are currently running one flavour or another of R-compound....
Only one potential caveat in all of this. Given the vast array of cars in Solo 1, can one Spec Tire sponsor cover all sizes required?
Pat
Rob McAuley
09-21-2002, 12:58 AM
Pat: Almost everyone runs R compound tires - at least anyone who comes out more than once.
Dave: You will have a lot of upset people if we get an inferior tire as a spec tire.
Inferior? Hoosiers are too expensive. Kumho Ecstas require more camber than most care to run or they cord. Yokes don't stick. Toyos take too long to burn in.
I had a blast running on used Hoosiers. They were cheap, but they sure don't last. I'm not sure if I'll get the opportunity to do it again.
Ideally, we'd get tires at cost - or less. It should be too good a deal to turn down.
Dave Barker
09-21-2002, 10:28 PM
Rob , I agree that in all likelyhood Hoosiers are the fastest of what we have now. While clerking the pro track it was a hoot to see Fred Perez oversteer through turn 2 on the Pro track when he had Hoosiers on one end and Kumhos on the other ( 10 cents if you can't tell which end the Hoosiers were on ). What I do want to see is sponsers being happy so that they return ( after all Kumho gives tire discounts just for running their decals without having to use their tires) and what I don't want to see is some people being able to " buy" their way up the results due to having a large tire budget ( and yes I am jealous of those who can afford to ).
Rob McAuley
09-21-2002, 11:01 PM
It sure is frustrating to see slower lap times when running tires on their last legs. I wish I could afford new tires whenever I need them. I typically run my tires down to the cords, and hope that I've rotated them on the rim at the right time to balance the wear.
Good tires have got to be worth a couple of prep points. I was caught up this year at our last event at Pro Track (but those Hoosers were working well at Mosport!), and Victor blew 2 days at Cayuga burning in his Toyos.
Personally, I'd rather spend $1000 on suspension than buy another set of tires, but those new tires that I've passed up would likely get me an additional win or 2.
About the only way to be totally fair is to give each copmetitor a set (or 2 or 3) of tires for the season. You'd have to make them last. I don't see that happening, so we'll be at the mercy of the tire buyers - those that can afford to by tires at the optimum time.
Bad Karma
09-22-2002, 09:37 AM
Rob / Dave,
As I've said, a spec tire is *STILL* the way to balance out the tire equation...and there are two ways to possible do that.
One, take a street tire, and make it the spec tire (ie, Toyo T1-S). These can be shaved down to 4/32s, and it will really balance out the variety between cars.
Two, take an r-compound, such as the RA1, and make it the spec tire. It could be shaved or un-shaved, but it would at least allow ALL competitors to run on equivalent tires.
One nice thing about the RA1s when they're shaved; they have the same life-cycle as they do unshaved. I can get 4 RA1s to last 10-12 days shaved, which is the same as if I ran them unshaved.
This eliminates the *greasy* feeling you get from them the first couple of days, while still getting the additional life out of them that we've come to expect.
The benefit to running on a spec street tire (ala Toyo T1-S, again, merely as an example) is that tire life can be FAR greater than for R-compounds. This could potentially help fence-sitters into coming out and enjoying some Solo 1 time.
I mention Toyo regularly, simply because they are a more likely candidate to sponsor the series, than say a Bridgestone / Michelin / Goodyear etc....
The same factor applies to whatever tire company has the sizing and the willingness to sponsor Solo 1.
Regional Racers get RA1s at near cost pricing... (~$260 for a 235/40/17 compared to $309, which is the max discount for an R-group member).
Pat
Pat, the Solo 1 series is currently sponsored by Kumho and Yokohama, so if we were going to go with a spec tire it would seem likely to come from one of these two companies. Toyo has sponsored the series in the past, but not for the last couple years for some reason.
From a competition standpoint, I like the idea of a spec tire. It will even out the playing field somewhat, though certain kinds of cars may handle better on the chosen tire than others, depending on things like curb weight and weight distribution, tire section widths and profiles available, driveline configuration, etc.
But from a grassroots perspective, I tend to think a spec tire is detrimental for many competitors. Many of us buy used R-compounds from friends with bigger tire budgets, from race teams, etc., and this is really the only affordable way for them to run on R-compounds. If we went with a spec tire, it would all but eliminate this option for small budget Solo 1 competitors. A spec tire could force the cost of competing in the series substantially upwards, a trend we've already seen hurt the sport due to the rising cost of motorsports insurance. So to keep things as flexible and affordable as possible it seems to me to make the most sense to leave the tire choice as open. This does, of course, give the rich guys an advantage, but find me a motorsport where the rich guy doesn't have an advantage and I'll give you a dollar :)
Dave
turboawd
09-22-2002, 10:26 PM
Although I like the idea of a spec tire, some tires are just not made in every size and going to a spec tire may force some people to buy new rims or something because of lack of sizes. Hoosier seems to have the most sizes but they are more expensive and don't last very long. Most hi-per. street tires cost more than R-coumpounds!
Everyone knows that in the dry Hoosiers are SUBSTANTIALLY faster!
Why not apply preparation point(s) to the use of them!?!?!
This would help "keep things compedetive" and allow anyone that wanted to spend the cash to do so. At the same time it does not limit anyone from using Hoosiers if the really want/need to use them.
Unauthorized removal of an ashtray is a big deal to some compeditors. Yet a guy with the cash can just buy faster lap times with tires that COST FOUR TIMES THE PRICE (Factoring in longevity they are 4X the cost).
Yeah all mods buy lap times, but they always cost points! (Except for brakes, but that is obviously a good thing)
Tires are a HUGE modification. Why not capture this in the rules?
Seems fair to me.
Jay
John Hannaford
09-23-2002, 10:42 AM
The problems with this are many.
1. Spec tires do not "level the playing field" in all cases. They only do so for cars with the same requirements. A very light car like the Super Seven can't heat up a harder compound as well as Dave's Camaro can and is at a huge disadvantage if a softer compound can't be used. Softer tires are part of the design envelope for cars like that. The argument that these cars don't compete against each other won't wash as long as we crown an overall champion. Spec tires might level the field well within a given class, but across all classes they would have the opposite effect, and as long as we PAX, we have to consider that.
2. Which raises a related question, what do we do about the performance indexes? They are predicated on the maximum potential of a class, which has to include optimizing the tires. If you think that Joe and I would be happy with a .98 PI and the same tires that the guys trying to proposition us are using...
3. Next to proper heating, total cycles is the most significant factor in a tire's performance. Shall we certify a certain number of sets for use during the season? If someone is willing to spend 4X as much for Hoosiers ( You don't. That's a worst case analysis and only applies if you pay full retail and don't maintain them with all the tricks, but it makes the point. ) then they'd be willing to replace the spec tire 4X as often to keep the edge.
4. What do we do about the exotics, or near race machines? Losing tire choice really affects the potential of a car like mine. I'm as interested as anyone in reducing my cost per racing mile (!), but I'm not really interested in running a car like this on tires that can't keep up. If we mandate a spec tire for all classes, you'll see fewer of the exotics out.
That's why I think Jay's suggestion has merit. What matters is that we find a way to have affordable classes that you can race in without giving up your childrens legacy. We don't have to change the whole regime to achieve that and we can avoid creating the No Fun Tire rule.
Street to R to slicks is an obvious progression, although there will always be arguments about tires that blur the lines. At least we could try to bring the cost down for the stock and mild prep classes by requiring street tires, or perhaps a minimum durometer, which is easy to check with inexpensive off the shelf tools. A similar durometer based rule could be a part of what separates highly prepped from Mod, where anything could still go. That would eliminate the effect of traction boosting chemicals as well (forgot about those, did you?) and leave those who are willing to pay more to blow their retirement money any way they want. Most of the involved street classes would be populated by dual use cars and mandating streets would have a huge impact on the cost to run them.
Perhaps we could also split the overall championship and crown a "Street Tires Champion and a "Comp Tires Champion" to encourage people to run the stock classes, as well.
The Hoosier advantage over other R tires is an important, but relatively minor point compared to the need to make this sport more attractive. Lets make a move that addresses both issues.
Interesting thread, guys. Lots of good discussion here. If I had of known there was such concern over tire choice I would have included a question about it on the Solo 1 Competitor Survey. Doh...
Anyway, as John correctly points out a spec tire with as diverse a group of cars as we see in Solo 1 isn't going to be fair or even feasible given the tire size choices required. No single tire manufacturer that I know of makes a R-compound or high performance street tire in enough sizes to fit all the wheel diameter and widths we see in our series, unless we limit wheel size choice like they have in the Speed World Challenge series. But somehow I don't think people would be too happy being told they have to sell their expensive race rims for ones of a different size (which may throw their gearing out). Given the grassroots orientation of our series, I really believe we've got to leave tire choice open.
However, charging a prep point for Hoosiers at, for example, the Stock and SuperStock levels does make sense from a cost-control standpoint upon initial reflection. These classes are, after all, intended to be more affordable and the cars more streetable. I don't know anyone who would drive to the track on Hoosiers, though I've often driven to the track on Toyo RA1's or Yoko 032R's.
On the other side of the coin, we do have a fairly extensive list of allowable mods (no prep points required) at each level of prep. All these "free" mods do allow you to go faster if you take full (ie. expensive) advantage of them. For example, you can spend many thousands of dollars on a big brake upgrade including lightweight multi-piston calipers and huge cross-drilled or slotted rotors and this "free" mod will likely improve your lap times considerably (depending on how good your stock brakes were). You can also add power with "free" exhaust and intake systems at the SS level, again likely benefitting your lap times. Further, you can keep rotating mass down by buying the lightest weight rims on the market, which are likely thousands more than the average competitor could afford. Just like we have to weigh the cost:benefit of a $4k big brake kit versus stock calipers and rotors with good race pads, we also have to weigh the cost:benefit of street tires vs a long-lasting but less sticky R-compound vs short-lived gumballs like Hoosiers. Having to make decisions based on cost:benefit is a reality of this and any other motorsports series that I can think of, other than perhaps a true Spec series (but even then some teams will run new tires every weekend and others don't have the budget for it).
So is attempting to control costs and relative competitiveness via limiting tire choice really keeping the series more affordable and competitive? I don't think so. If the rich guys can't go out and buy Hoosiers, they'll just go out and spend their cash on something else that will make them faster (like bigger brakes and superlight rims). And lets not get caught up in the "well brakes are only worth 2 tenths and Hoosiers are worth at least 1 second!". I can find that 1 second with a combo of other parts instead of the Hoosiers and so can you.
The fact of the matter is we have mods that are allowable and mods that cost prep points. Flipping Hoosiers over from allowable to costing a prep point will have little to no impact on the rich guys, it'll just force them to spend their money on other allowable or prep point go-fast parts. The net effect will be mighty close to zero in my estimation. Unless we do away with all allowable mods and supply a specific list of products competitors can upgrade to with their prep points, we can't expect to control costs or level the playing field just by limiting tire choice.
What's that? I can't run on Hoosiers anymore? Ok, I'll just buy twice as many sets of Kumhos and keep them fresh, upgrade my Koni/Eibach suspension to a custom set of Ohlins and buy those Volk 9 lbs rims I've had my eye on instead. Yup, you sure slowed me down and controlled costs! :rolleyes:
Dave
i think racing in general is stupidly expensive in the first place....thats why i like the toyos..they last a long time, and allow me to spend money on "hard" goods like $3400 tien suspensions
guys....this sport is a money pit..with no bottom to it... :)
IMO i don't care what tires the honda weasels drive on....thats the real problem with racing....
if your driving skills stay about the same...the only way to go faster is to make the car faster.......so every year i plot and plan....and sink more money into going faster........
basically i agree it comes down to a war of parts and how much do you want to spend........
i am not sure if anyone has noticed but since i started solo 1..the times in CSP have gotten faster each year...every year i used to say...ohh if i could only go 56sec on the nelson.....then i do it only to find out people are then going 55..then 54..then 53....you see where i am going....
its a constant battle with the jone's...hmmm dave beat me (besides him being a better driver) i say to myself..what can i do to go faster?....
ahhh tien suspension..3400
756cc injector system...1600
3 inch exhaust....600
vented hood....
ect..ect...ect.... it never stops....
so IMO tires are the least of my money worries...smoke em if you got em :)
what we might want to do is put a CAP on spending?
or go to a power indexed system?
so IMO tires are the least of my money worries...smoke em if you got em Nice work Adam! You know Babzy will take you up on that one ;)
I think the only way to keep costs down is to a go to a true Spec series, like the Ontario Street Stock (Sentra NASCAR North) series, where they all run the same tires, the same shocks/springs, the same everything. In any other type of series, where they allow engine mods or suspension mods but don't specify the product, you're going to get rich guys out spending you for superior parts. Question is, can they outdrive you with their $6k suspension? Driving is the great equalizer, for sure. We should all spend more $ on high quality driving schools like BFRA instead of T66 turbos :p
Chris P
09-23-2002, 01:09 PM
How much time do you guys think Hoosiers are really worth over say..........a Kumho (next best thing). I'll tell you right now that 1-second faster is so far off its laughable. At best .5 and in my case it was only 3 tenths and not all of those 3 tenths came from the Hoosiers since I also found hp with dyno tuning and other adjustments.
However, a spec tire is taking things a little far and maybe a better option is to just exclude Hoosiers. I know i would rather spend money on hard mods instead of 2 and a half weekend wonders.
burn the hoosiers... ban them..ban them..
:)
what about all the people who own them already...?
how many people with hoosiers were in the top 10? if there arn't any why are we trying to ban them? if they are so much faster they should all be in the top 10...
here is another issue.....
what about all the cars with HUGE tires on them.....
my car started out with 205's ..now it has 245's..and 225's
what about the vettes...they have freaking 315's on them
maybe there should be a rule on how wide they can be? since that in part is a big part of the cost of a tire....
if we decide to go to a "spec tire" lets go to a tire thats....
1=cheap and streetable
2= lots of sizes...
3= can be bought anywhere
like a cheap all season.....why not...maybe a crappy tire brand....?
..."street performance" tires cost more than the toyo R tires that i currently run..
or maybe we are getting away from what part of this sport really is as well... car development...and driver skill?
Krispy, what's a hard mod? I haven't found a part yet that I can't blow up. In fact, in the last 2 seasons I've gone thru 3 engines and 1 and a half sets of tires. Hmmm, maybe I should go with a stock ITR engine and Hoosiers! Might be cheaper. Point is, the beauty of this series is we've got a lot of freedom to develop our cars the way we want to, making the series at least partly about car development rather than just straight up driving skill. Is there a series somewhere that I don't know about that's about nothing else but driving?
If the OSS had chosen a more affordable and sportier car (say 4th gen Civics, eh Jay? :p ) it would be pretty close to ideal IMO. Everyone is on the same tires, same shocks/springs, etc. Pretty even stuff. But then in really tight race series like that you do tend to have more body damage and wrecks.
Man I miss the good old days of racing my Prelude in B-Stock with Blair and Alex and Christian. That was good clean fun and it's cheap! It's also easy to classify cars in stock form. Why is it that so few people choose to keep their cars stock for Solo 1 anyway?
If people really wanted Solo 1 to be affordable (which apparently we don't), why aren't we all running in Stock class cars?
Dave
GOOD POINT DAVE!!!
we could all be driving stock cars...
but we get the "go fast" bug..
its a sickness....first its...awww i will just install a new intake...whats an exhaust gonna hurt..while i am at it might as well install a header...and crap while the headers off lets put a cam in......ect.....
i think the real truth is ..we like to spend money on our cars..and the racing gives us even a better justification for it.. :)
only problem is... in racing we find even crazier people who will spend even more :)
That is the OTHER problem with having a spec STREET tire.
On a track, R- Compounds are way more fun to drive on!
As for stock cars..... tons of body roll, nosedive under braking and uneven tirewear!
YUCK!
I say we run a K-Car spec series. Talk about CHEAP parts. No need to worry about accidents! Heck as long as no one is hurt, I am sure the participants would "enjoy" a bit of racing contact in a K-Car! :)
the last street tires i tried got chewed up quick( yoko avs intermediates)..and sqealed like a pig around every corner.....
agreed, R-compounds are more fun for sure! I guess the reason we all modify our cars is that faster is more fun, and when you see someone with a modified version of your car going faster than you are it gets pretty tempting to try to keep up :)
Jay, at St. Eustache raceway out near Montreal they actually have a K-car series of sorts. The owner of the track has a junkyard full of K-cars and for something like $50 you get to race them bumper to bumper around the oval and if you blow one up they just bring in the bulldozer and throw it on a pile of dead ones. Too funny! Probably a lot of fun too.
well since this thread is going downhill already....i propose we ban ......
all honda's and honda weasels..and any affiliated honda weasel products and persons
Brent
09-23-2002, 03:50 PM
My two cents worth. Instead of Hoosiers costing prep points, how about bonus prep points for using a sponsor's tire.
brent...good idea....
i like that one even better....
thats thinking outside the box as they would say...
that way..it would encourage use of sponsor tires as well....
plus its a doublle wammy..if you get a extra point you can use that for a camshaft..or whatever....
Brent, now that's an idea worth examining! Hmmmm....I'll have to raise this at the next Solo 1 Committee meeting and see where it goes.
Chris P
09-23-2002, 06:45 PM
Brents idea is worth examining further........
Nobody is stock? I kinda like Johns idea about creating a trophy position for overall stock classes. That way people have something to aim for.
Hard mods, emmm, rims for one.
Dave Barker
09-23-2002, 09:36 PM
Few thoughts about ideas expressed here
1 my original thought was that modified cars should run whatever they want to and that the ban on non sponser tires including Hoosiers be limited to street driven classes.
2 Most people who enter Solo 1 are car enthusiasts yet most cars are much more compromising with the obvious exceptions of the Z06 , Type R Viper , 911 etc. Therefore most cars will be modified by their owners before even coming to Solo 1 and the population in strictly stock classes will be small. BTW after seeing this years final results the 9 stock classes yielded a total of only 5 entrants who ran at least 8 events , in other words we have way too many stock classes , (but that is a different thread).
3 I agree that no one manufacturer will likely make tires to fit all the cars that enter, but we do have 2 tire sponsers who between them should be able to accomodate all sizes requried . And if only Hoosier makes your 375/25-20 inch size well tough s&#@
4 I have always been a fan of charging prep points for R compound tires . For a beginner in a mildly modified car, nothing will make his car go faster than DOT race tires ( with the exception of a good driver's school) and we all know the difference we felt the first time we drove on race tires. To run on street tires is expensive as they weren't designed for race track use and won't really fit with the enthusiasts idea of maximizing performance ( see above and small # of stock entrants). It seems stange to charge 1 point for a modified sway bar bushing but no points for something that will take literallly seconds off your time on any of our circuits . Call a spade a spade and charge points for them.
5 3 of the top 8 drivers had Hoosiers but only 5 of the top 30 so are they good or not ? I don't know but I would love to afford to try . I don't agree with Dave that we can't try to legislate some barriers to excessive cost .
6 I think the problem with Brent's idea is that to give point credits to those who drive on sponsers R cmpd tires means they are at an even bigger advantage over those few on street tires. I would rather charge different points for different tires, i.e. 1 for toyos , 2 for Kumhos and 3 for Hoosiers in an effort to level the playing field. This is obviously somewhat arbitrary and could be adjusted each year by the Solo 1 committee. We might also adjust this for whether the tire was a sponser's or not i.e. making Toyo 2 points unless they cough up some sponsership money . This way we would be encouraging the use of sponser tires but not banning other makes outright and still allowing people to come with street tires and be sort of competitive in improved classes.
BTW did I mention this works better with a linear system than our present Family based system ( oops , thats ANOTHER thread.)
Good points Dr. Dave!
We could yammer back and forth all day long about all the minor details!
The BIG ISSUE remains that Hoosiers are faster than anything in the dry. PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION. (And yes krispy I doubt it is 1 second, probably more like .3-.5 seconds. Who cares it may as well be a milennium)
Bla bla bla this and that.
Lets cut the crap and apply some sort of prep points to the BIGGEST mod there is! TIRES!
I am ready to call a spade a spade! Are you?
Fram
Brent
09-24-2002, 10:24 AM
If you apply negative prep points to R compound tires then you wouldn't be able to run R compounds in stock classes. Would you?
rainman
09-24-2002, 11:32 AM
I don't think you can start assigning points based on what tire compound you run. I thought that the first thing most people do when getting into Solo is buy a set of R compounds. The question is, do you spend wisely on a set of R compounds that match your budget, experience and conditions or do you go for the jugular and get the best there is regardless?
It really comes down to individual preference: do you invest your budget wisely for a pay out in the long run (driving schools, best bang for the buck equipment) or do you go for the quick pay-off? Like all racing series, there are those competitors that have more greenbacks than others and unfortunately that can translate into faster lap times. Unless we develop a spec class, there will always be inequities to one degree or another.
me confused :confused:
alexb
09-24-2002, 06:21 PM
If we charge prep points for r compounds then i would have to remove my rather expensive coil overs to compete in ss.The coilovers are the only mod i have=3 points.Running hi-po street tires with my current set up would cost a lot more money.The street performance tires i have are $60 apiece more than r compounds and will be destroyed in 4 events.
So,i say leave tire choice as is.
yup, for the reasons identified here applying negative prep points for tires would throw the balance of the current system completely out of wack. Furthermore, applying different prep points costs to different R-compounds isn't going to work too well either IMO, since the same tire can have very different results on different types of cars. I haven't found any real speed difference between Toyos, Kumhos and Yokohamas on my 2000 lbs Civic, while on my Dad's 3300 lbs Camaro I noticed a huge difference between the Yoks and the Kumhos.
The more I think about it the more I'm of the opinion that there's just too many variables at work to develop an equitable way of applying prep points (positive or negative) to tires. It makes far more sense to leave them open, as they have always been in this series.
The rulebook is more than complicated enough as it is. I don't think we need to be adding something as difficult to quantify as tire choice to the equation. If anything, we need to moving in the other direction by looking for ways to simplify the rulebook.
Dave
Good point Al Byrne!
Geesh these issues are waaaa more complicated than at first glance! :confused:
I still find it hard to believe (That one was for you Pratte, I know you love to hear it :) ) that their is not some way to even the playing field of tires.
Guess Adam was right.........
Dr. Dave we are gonna have to burn these Hoosiers out............ tire fire style!.....
Forget points.......BAN EM!
YEEEEE HAAAAAA Burn em
Yeah! :D
Jay...finding something hard to believe??? Or should I say hard to understand??? Inconceivable! :rolleyes:
So how do you propose to "control" for tires when the benefit of running brand X on my car may be completely different from the benefit of running it on a Z06? We've seen Hoosiers benefit Krispy by only a few tenths while being worth more than a second on Chris Sorensen's Bimmer. Some of this is probably because of curb weight, driveline configuration (RWD vs FWD) and some of it is likely a result of driver style (maybe Christian's driving style suits Hoosiers better than Krispy's?). If this is at all accurate, are we then going to develop a tire specific equation for every type of car in the series, based on the perceived benefit of each brand of r-compound? And how do we factor in driving style? Anyway, if we're going to develop an equation for this I elect Jay for the job!
I just don't see any way we can say Hoosiers are worth 3 points, Kumhos 2 and Toyos/Yoks 1. This doesn't ressemble my experience on these tires and in my discussions with various competitors on this topic the responses are incredibly varied. Some people love Hoosiers, some people think they're terribly overrated. Some people love Kumhos, some people find them no faster than Toyos or Yoks. Unlike power-to-weight ratios or curb weight data (which we've used in our performance index), there's no cut-and-dry data on r-compounds and no accurate and reliable way to say they're worth x number of prep points.
The only quantifiable data we have on tires is price. Are we going to ban Hoosiers just because they're more expensive? And who are you anyway to tell me how much I can/cannot spend on tires? If I've got a $10,000 dollar tire budget, I'm going to spend it, regardless if that's on 7 sets of Hoosiers or 10 sets of Kumhos.
One way or the other, I'm going to have faster tires than you if I've got the wallet turbo for it, regardless if its via stickier Hoosiers or fresher Kumhos.
And hey, just because tires may constitute the largest portion of your Solo 1 budget doesn't mean it constitutes the largest portion of mine. If my wallet turbo can handle it then I'm going to buy a $7k Penske suspension to whoop your ass with while you bounce around the track on poorly valved off-the-shelf Konis and mismatched Eibach springs.
Like I said before, unless you go racing in a full spec series, the guy with the biggest wallet turbo is going to outspend you in an attempt to go faster than you. The poor man's hope is driving skill, something we working stiffs better keep developing...
So I was just flipping through the lastest issue of Grassroots Motorsport Magazine and lo and behold what do I stumble across but an article comparing R-compound brands! How timely!
So here are the results, in a nutshell:
Test mule was a 2003 Dodge Neon ACR with some typical bolt-ons. This would be a C/SS2 car, and probably a very competitive one at that.
The tires they tested (all in the same size - 205/50-15) include both Kumho r-compounds, Toyo RA1s, and Hoosiers (not sure why the excluded the Yoks).
The course they used was a high speed Solo 2, which is more like a Solo 1.5 by Canadian standards. If you've ever been to a Solo 2 in the U.S., you'll know what I mean. Their Solo 2's are fast and open (you can take different lines through each gate).
Lap time results? Well, for the first driver there was a mere .25 second between the fastest tire (Hoosier) to the slowest tire (Toyo). Yup, a whole quarter of a second! Not exactly awe-inspiring given the cost difference and tread life difference between the two. The Kumho Victoracer average was only .06 off the Hoosier average and the Kumho Ecsta was .06 slower than the Victoracer. Tiny differences, to be sure.
The second driver had a larger difference of .72 of a second between the fastest tire (Hoosier) and the slowest tire (Toyo). With this driver (in the same car and on the same sets of tires) the Ecstas were .04 seconds faster than the Victoracers and .18 seconds slower than the Hoosiers.
It's also interesting to note that the 19.5 lbs Kumhos are only 1 lbs heavier than the 18.5 lbs Hoosiers, and the Toyos are 1.5 lbs heavier again at 21 lbs.
Take from this test what you will.
My personal opinion on their findings is that it only further reinforces the idea that the differences between R-compounds aren't nearly as large as we like to think (Hoosiers are only marginally better than Kumhos which are only marginally better than Toyos) and that a tire which appears to work better for one driver doesn't always work better for another.
Dave Barker
09-24-2002, 10:46 PM
Brent and Alexb I agree that charging points for race tires means that virtually no one would be stock , but few are now. ( Did I mention that this is not a problem in a linear system where there are no stock, SS, or SP classes?) . (It sure will be nice to get some survey results , hope you have all submitted your response .) A realignment of break out points would be necessary in the family system.
Dave , If you have a 10,000 $ tire budget you should be regional racing , This is grassroots and trying to keep costs under control is , I think , still reasonable . I think the VAST majority of Solo 1 competitors do not spend huge amounts of money on the series and don't want to think you can buy the championship and if banning the most Expensive race tire we use works to keep costs down a bit then it is still reasonable.
It is interesting to note that of the 3 drivers who used Hoosiers in the top 8 , one had a light car , one had a mid wgt car and one a relatively heavy car i.e. one from A,B,and C families.
If you all go back to my original post my concern was that maybe we all want to run sponser's tires to keep them happy and Hoosier ( and Toyo for that matter) contribute diddly squat to Solo 1. Who knows if Hoosier did sponser maybe I could gamble and try to run them on the basis of winning another set at the end of the year ( fat chance!)
B18C5
09-24-2002, 11:01 PM
There's always going to be something. Whether expensive tires, expensive remote resevoir shocks, expensive ECUs, expensive turbos, expensive... whatever. They're always be some expensive unfair advantage. Maybe next year the guys who drive to events in their SS prepped cars will get pissed off with the trailer queens with 1117.6lb springs. So would that mean that cars trailered in should be charged with prep points? Just to bring the cost down and make things fair of course. Or maybe put a limit on spring rates in SS classes. Or maybe disallow any modifications to interior trim like pedals and steering wheels. Or how about only allowing stock shocks. Those can get extremely expensive. Someone could enter an event with a completely stock car right now but only change the shocks to some crazy daizy 200way adjustable sh•tterz that effectively dampen low speed movements enough to make the car equivalent to a crazy stiff spring car. But he'd still be allowed to run in stock. And preposition everybody. So how about fixing that?
Every loophole or money pit can be fixed in the rulebook. But it adds complexity which isn't great for growth. Do you remember the first time you opened the rulebook? I was completely lost in it for two days straight... and I still didn't completely grasp it.
Forget about specific issues right now. The bigger question is do we want a rulebook that will be attempt to be fair, or do we want one to be logical? Have a look at the rules for the Open Track Challenge:
http://www.opentrackchallenge.com/tourrules.htm
http://www.opentrackchallenge.com/tourclassing.htm
All the allowable mods and classifications fit into 2 pages. Competition is competitive. Simple and fun. Similar to the way MSOC does their Solo II classifications.
I'd post a link to SCCA stuff to show the extreme other example, but you can't even view that sh•t online, partially because of the bandwidth to download such huge files and partially so they can charge money to sell the rulebook novels. Have you ever seen one of these books? They're about the same size as the book "Swedish Made Penis Enlargers and Me".
We're somewhere in the middle now. I believe the last rulebook rewrite simplified while increasing competitiveness, but not everybody agrees of course. I guess it depends on where your car ended up being classified.
Anyway... my whole point is this stuff is the more stuff we ban or charge points for or change in any way is one more step closer we get to an SCCAesque totalitarian dictatorship by committee.
Free love... free mods, man.
HAHA! Love the linear system dig, Dr. Dave! :)
Your main point about supporting our tire sponsors (and keeping costs down as a result since Hoosier will never sponsor our series) is a really good one. Ideally I'm sure we'd all like to see Kumho, Yoko, and Toyo onboard (like we had a few years ago) and then it would basically just be a banning of Hoosiers, wouldn't it? I don't think this'll keep costs down given my prior line of thinking but I do agree it will prevent somebody from trying to buy a class win at the last second by showing up with Hoosiers.
The other thing is, I wouldn't want to see us insisting that competitors on street tires use a series sponsor brand. That could be a real deterrant for new people trying out the sport.
B18C5
09-24-2002, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Dave Barker
If you have a 10,000 $ tire budget you should be regional racing , This is grassroots and trying to keep costs under control is , I think , still reasonable .
If someone had a $10,000 tire budget they definitely should be regional racing. Solo I isn't exactly the most glamourous sport, as much as we love to think it is. If someone wants to spend his way to a championship by all means... what would that prove other than they know how to spend more money? I know I could spend $5k on a nice set of shocks and kick some serious ass next year in CSS1. I dream of them at night while salivating and wake up in a cold sweat. Wanna see a pic?
http://www.kingmotorsports.com/images/suspension/itr_n1strut.jpg
Ohhhh, yeah...
But I could get a full cage, all safety gear and my race license for that. Then I'd be regional racing. If someone wants to spend that money on those shocks go ahead, I'll spend the same and move up a level.
Rob McAuley
09-25-2002, 12:27 AM
Charging a point for R Compound tires would mess up many of us that are maxed out in our classes - unless the classification system is adjusted.
Another simple way to handle this is to make R tires illegal in stock classes, but a free mod in SS. As soon as you put on a track tire, you run in SS (like adding a cold air intake or strut tower brace).
This way, newbies can come out in their stock cars on their street tires, and not feel that the system is stacked against them.
the problem with limiting Stock classes to street tires is they end up burning off potentially more expensive hi-po street rubber, make more noise, and have no sense of how their times compare to the class above, not to mention it throws the propositioning system out of wack since it will all but make it impossible for a Stock car to proposition the class(es) above.
Chris P
09-25-2002, 03:19 AM
What about going with the SCCA solo 2 system of forcing people to run stock cars. With their system you need some major $$ to prep a car for SP, P, M and if your not willing to part with the bling then you run stock. Which is why US stock classes are so successful. However its extremely hard to have a stock class that isn't dominated by 1 spec car, which is where classes like A1 are made, can you say Class Z06. Actually every current stock class in SOLO 1 has a spec car that can't be touched reasonably by any other car in the class. Dissolving the current families and carefully mixing the groups will create some very competitive stock classes and other stock classes will always be spec classes because of cost issues. However this is a dilemma of the CCC. What about the prepared classes? Sure, a 96 BMW 318i and a new MINI Cooper will run identical times in stock from but their ultimate modification performance curves will look very different. So what’s the answer? I actually have an attempt at a solution but its 3:30 at night. You guys figure that out. :p
Currently the view of many solo peeps is that Stock classes are for newbies and when these new drivers get some experience and see a goal they should move up to a prepared class. Who would every stay in stock with that kind of perspective? What about people actually running stock because things are too expensive in a prepared class? That why the stock classes will be filled and competitive battles will be had. However, many of the current crop of SOLO 1 people are not around just for the competition otherwise we would all buy miatas and race, cheap, easy, spec!. Instead they want to run cars that were chosen for street duty and have been tinkered with to be fun on the street and the track is secondary. With the way things currently are stock classes will always be under populated and used for no other purpose other then to get newbies into the sport. Something isn't right.
Maybe the problem stems from trying to bind 2 groups together, those that are doing this for track time and those that are here to be competitive and win. The people that are here just for some track time won't be competitive because their cars aren't prepared to the limit of the rules, which is needed for one to place well. So why should we make rules around there needs? Is the majority or SOLO people in that first group?
PS, here's a copy....well at least summation of the SCCA SOLO 2 GCR.
http://mouton.best.vwh.net/sccasolo/
Rob McAuley
09-25-2002, 08:11 AM
Looks like the thread has degenerated to a discussion of prep points and the family system.
Tires are just one of the things that can make a car go faster than stock - but they are a consistent thing. Ex. 1 point for a sway bar can make a huge difference on one type of car over another. Whereas R tires will add a couple of seconds to any vehicle.
I would challenge the CCC to find a system where:
- Novices can come out and not get blown away by others running in their class (ie. No R Tires in stock)
- People should have to prioritize the mods they want to make to their cars. The benefit of one type of mod doesn't need to be the same on all cars, but all cars should be able to realize the same improvement in lap times by applying the same number of points - at least for the first x points.
- Classes have a reasonable number of competitors. PAXing is better than some arbitrary score (a la 2001), but I'd rather run against a human. This will result in cars with similar potential times running against any other car that can turn a similar time.
- The disparity between cars in a class is reduced. 3 classes in a family isn't enough. Ex. In B1, we have BMW E46 M3s going against E36 M3. In B2 we have RWD BMW 330s going against FWD Nissan Maximas, and in B3 we have the BMW E30 325 going against the 318. I can see these cars going into at least 4 different classes. To keep the number of competitors/class up, we'd have to eliminate the family system.
- Cars at the bottom of a class (based on Performance Index) should be allowed more points to compete as they move up to more prepared classes (unless the base classes were narrower - then we wouldn't have as wide a range between the top and bottom cars in a class). The current classification system is arbitrary. Even if we rank cars based on performance index, there is an arbitrary line drawn that separates a 1 car from a 2 car from a 3 car. Depending on where that division is set, your car may be at the top - or bottom - of your class. Cars at the top of a class shouldn't be allowed as many points as cars at the bottom of a class if they are moving up together.
And the survey results say...??
this linear system......
explain it a bit more....
anyone...
John Hannaford
09-25-2002, 11:04 AM
Adam,
It's simple. You know how you were saying how you're going to whup on those V8s? With a linear system you may HAVE to.
Be careful what you wish for...
Still, I agree that the families seem to be unwieldy and more cars with the same performance potential in a group would be more fun. It would make for a better founded championship too, IMO.
i think that would be cool.....
so then...i would be racing against andrews' rx7, and dr daves camero, and blairs new m3?
if based on time wise?
or would they just go based on performance? if so performance of what? the stock car..the modified car? how would that work?
or some kind of time index from past races?
still not clear on how this would work?
what about an car age index? is it fair for a 13 year old car to go against a new car?
how would all this work....?
if based on the performance of the stock car....then with prep points assessed to the car...whats the real difference from the current way we are doing it? other than not having families?
Here is a thought that I just had. I haven't had a chance to critically analyze it so maybe it's total garbage.... but...
What about a few alternative "Spec. classes" added to the Solo I rules. What if all the Mazda owners and the 5.0 guys and the Civic hatchback guys got together and made their own "Spec series" within the current system.
Basically set up a few "Spec Classes" in addition to the existing rules. The Miata guys could get together and decide on an acceptable spec setup. Certain suspension, brakes, tires etc. Anyone wanting to compete in one of these "Spec groups" is welcome to do so. If ya don't wanna run the spec gear then don't. Just run in the "Normal Classes"
That might be really fun for those looking for a highly compeditive class. At the same time other folks have the option to run in the "Normal classes" as they are now.
Would that be a good thing?
Rob, I've done an initial summary and analysis of the surveys but I'm waiting to collect the last few. When can we get together and do this? I'm sure you find the results VERY interesting! I know I have.
Classes have a reasonable number of competitors
The disparity between cars in a class is reduced. 3 classes in a family isn't enough
Rob, the "challenges" you've posed to the CCC are some of the very issues we struggled with the 9 months. You've identified one of the great trade-offs that occur in any classification system. On the one hand we want to have enough competitors in each class, and on the other we want there to be as little disparity between cars in classes, which results in needing more classes. But as you well know, more classes means less cars per class. So which do you want? More cars in each class or less disparity within each class? Under the current system or an indexing system, you can't have both.
It is possible to equalize a smaller number of classes than we currently have by using different prep point schedules for the top and bottom half within each class, but unless you're prepared to give Stock class cars in the bottom on their class quite a few prep points you're not going to be able to equalize these groups. And if you do give "Stock" cars prep points to equalize, are they really stock classes any more? I don't have any answers here, just pointing out some the challenges we face as rules makers.
It also becomes a tremendous amount of work to develop prep point schedules for many smaller groupings and it's very difficult to get the prep points balanced fairly.
The current classification system is arbitrary. Even if we rank cars based on performance index, there is an arbitrary line drawn that separates a 1 car from a 2 car from a 3 car.
It sure is! And so is any other classification system on the planet which attempts to allow dozens of different types of cars to compete on an equalized playing field. There will always be winners and losers in any classification system, even an indexing system. The only way to *try* to even things out completely would be to develop unique prep point schedules for EVERY possible car. Um, do you want this job? I know I don't, because getting the competitive balance right would be a near impossible task. In the interests of this balance, it's a lot more feasible to use groupings of cars with similar performance levels (thus our current use of the indexing system). Even if we give the top and bottom half of each class different prep points, there's still going to be a car at the bottom of each of these subgroups who are being disadvantaged. Does the car at the bottom of the top half of the class really deserve one less prep point than the car at the top of the bottom half of the class? These two cars will likely have very similar indexing scores, yet one is being given an extra prep point because of an arbitrary splitting of the group. Just another line in the sand.
Point being, there is no magic bullet, no perfect system, just different ways to divide groups of cars in an attempt to create competitive groupings. If we had 100+ cars coming out to every event we could have more classes and thus create more competitive clusters of cars, but we've got to work within the parameters of our series. With only 50 cars per event, to have any hope of filling the majority of classes it's obvious that we're stuck with fewer and larger groupings of cars. That's just a reality of the practical limitations of our series. This is why we can't, for example, apply the SCCA Solo rulebook to our series. They have way too many classes for our event population level.
Anyway, I could go on about this stuff forever but I'd never get any work done :)
Cheers,
Dave
Chris P
09-25-2002, 12:27 PM
Running street tires in stock class does nothing to promote a competitive series at the stock class level. Instead you are allowing people that by nature shouldn't be competitive. Why should we manipulate our rules to be favorable to people that don't have the experience to be fast. Are we just trying to make them feel better so they come out and play again? So hacking and destroying stock classes so that a few new drivers will feel less of a learning curve is not an ideal solution. Fact is, once the new guy starts to become a competitor he will no longer want to run a stock car because there is little population there. Street tires will do nothing except belittle the stock classes even further.
Adam, the basic idea is that we use the index scale that was made by the CCC to distribute cars. The scale does need to be adjusted to fit this new purpose however it’s pretty close now. Classes will be divided up by there %. So lets say 12 groups to break up the 60% range in cars. So that means we will have 5% variance within a class. Ok, so this is great for stock cars. Battles will be tight but many of the classes will be empty and we still have the other 70% of solo peeps with modified vehicles to integrate into the scale. That’s the tricky part. The method is that a car will move up the scale as they add mods. The really hard part is determining the breaks and how many points move you up and how high should you go. So would a 2nd gen CRX with a B16 swap end in the type R index range or the M3 index range. I believe a system like this could work but its not simple and will take a lot of time to figure out. Is this really what people want and do you guys actually realize what it means?
rainman
09-25-2002, 01:11 PM
Interesting thought about running street tires in stock classes to keep costs down. I do wonder if this would work in achieving the objective. Reason for this is that by nature, you want to stack the odd in your favour. If you're running in a street tire only class, there is a wide variance of costly tires available to competitors. Some street rubber comes pretty damn close to R compound performance, and not at an inexpensive price. I honestly don't think that making R compounds available to SS or higher classes is the way to go.
Dave Barker
09-25-2002, 08:19 PM
Adam , this is my take on a linear system which would exclude cars presently running in modified catagory.
1 ) all cars would be given a performance index ( PI) weighted the same ( they are presently weighted differently in different families) . This data base for this has already been compiled by the CCC and any new vehicle can be fit into it easily.
2) all stock cars would be divided into small groups with a small range of PI , likely 5 or 6 , depending on how many classes we wanted to run . My personal suggestion is 10 or 11 classes. This solves the problem of huge spreads of PI in some of the family system classes and gets rid of the perfomance overlap between families, i.e. if you have a similar PI then is doesn't matter what your vehicle weighs , which wheels are the drive wheels etc. It also means we will have more competitors per class.
3) as cars are improved they increase their PI and may jump up 1,2 or more classes depending on where they started. If you have a minor improvement and started with a low PI in your class you might even stay in the same class. The problem here is that the more improved the cars become , likely the smaller the increased performance in that likely the driver will be smart enough to know what will work well for his car and do that improvement first. It has been suggested that the ratio might be an increase of PI of 2 for every prep point we have now for the first 5 points falling to 1.5 for the next 5 prep points then 1 to1 thereafter. It has been suggested that certain cars respond better to certain mods than others and therefore shoulden't run together but I don't really buy this . If porting the heads works well on a 5-0 Mustang and doesn't on a Type R then why would the type R owner do it in the first place?? I certainly don't think we would need to weight the PI improvements differently for different cars, but it could be a problem for very heavily modified cars.
4) as you can see this system would allow significantly modified cars to run against stock cars , i.e. a somewhat overdone 240 might be up against a lightly modified Camaro and a stock M roadster. I personally have no problem with this. The main problem is to get an appropriate increase in PI that can be used for all cars for any given number of points. As Rob McAuley points out in the present system , 6 prep points are supposed to increase a cars potential the same even though in some families there are already PI spreads of 15 (correlating to 7 points if the above suggested weighting is used) Obviously the fact SS1 classes were dominated by the 1 level cars( including a lot of propositioning) in all 3 families indicates that the more we modify our cars the less the improvements are. One more point for me and I would be up against the Z06s yet I would be very hard pressed to beat them with 10 more points .
Adam there are lots of other pros and cons of a linear system but it is not worth going further without the results of the survey. Thanks for reading and soaking up every last detail.
BTW I suspect George deodopoulas will find this too complicated ( but he IS a HADA weasel !!)
Shaman
09-26-2002, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Dave Barker
If porting the heads works well on a 5-0 Mustang and doesn't on a Type R then why would the type R owner do it in the first place?? I certainly don't think we would need to weight the PI improvements differently for different cars, but it could be a problem for very heavily modified cars.
No kidding. For example, your car, Dave, could easily pick up 100hp with "minor" porting and a cam swap, and more if you go to headers/exhaust/intake modifications. Meanwhile, a Integra motor will be hard pressed to gain 40hp (on pump gas) with all the mods you can throw at it... and most of that way up in the powerband (reliability = suspect).
indicates that the more we modify our cars the less the improvements are.
I'm not so sure about this one. I'd put it more like "the more modified and fast the car becomes, the harder it is for the driver to take advantage of that." Especially when the car doesn't get lighter or wear bigger tires to go with the other mods... those are the two major issues with many modified cars.
One more point for me and I would be up against the Z06s yet I would be very hard pressed to beat them with 10 more points .
No kidding. Z06s are cleaning up all over the place. Hey, they're even out-competing 3rd-gen RX7s with minor mods in autoX for godsakes. The RX7s have a 500lb advantage and are much smaller in dimension, and they're now threatened through the cones. GM built a serious car there...
Director
09-26-2002, 08:22 AM
For those of you who seemed to have forgotten, motorsport, in what ever form, is to compete and be the best at whatever class, level you want to race in. Let's not kid ourselves and think this is not about money. Yes, he who spends the most will most likely win. All forms of motorsport are the endless cash hole.
All this talk about "Spec" tires, prep point evaluations & penalties, banning Hoosier tires is getting crazy. If its about money and you want to keep the costs down, run in stock and live with it. If it's about being competitive, then choose your car & class better. You the competitors have raised the bar and continue to do so, and when someone finds a better shock, tire, spring or cold air intake, the people who don't have or can't afford it bitch.
The current rules and classification structure is based on the wants and needs expressed by the competitors, safety committee, rules committee.
Solo I is going through growing pains, not through competitor numbers but the performance levels of the vehicles being brought out to compete.
The Solo I Committee has tried to level the playing field as best we can, but as the bar gets raised another notch, keeping it level gets more difficult. In my opinion, he who wants to spend all his money on building a top flight ride with all the best parts to compete against someone who's had to do it on the cheap shouldn't be penalized. Again it comes back to money. Suspension mod points are based on the modification, not the cost of doing it. So when you plunk down your hard earned bucks on a set of shocks, tires, springs etc, think twice if it's going to be worth it if your competition is spending double what you are.
The Solo I Committee has made a place for everyone to run with whatever they drive, from all the stock classes to Open Mod, so be prepared to either dominate the class or scrape the bottom, but remember, it's competition.
I'm happy to see the competitors having open dialogue on the forums and welcome them to attend a Solo I Committee meeting and bring in their concerns so that we may continue to work as a team to build Solo I. There's always room for imnprovement and we're open to suggestions that will benefit the competitors as a whole.
Our next meeting is Oct 10, 2002, 703 Petrolia CASC Head office at 7:30pm sharp. Come on out and lets start working on Solo I for 2003.
good point perry,
its like i said... every year the cars keep getting quicker..and more fully prepared...is a steady progression..and in the upper levels like CSP the cars will eventually be all out race cars that will dominate everything.......or i guess BSP , and ASP
case in point...last 4 years i have been running on tokiko shocks and progressive coils...with 192lb up front and 110lb on the rear..and in my quest for speed have pretty much left the suspension alone..and worked on getting more power.... i was still claiming the 5 points for a full modified suspension....but was it the fastest suspension....NO WAY...
after taking a ride in honda weasel daves civic... i was amazed..i was giving up 20kph in the corner at the end of the fabi......20KPH!!!!!!
so what do i need to do...go out and buy a new set of tien coilovers....my points don't change...but i can tell you the times will be affected dramatically....
so again...next season..CSP times will go even lower than they were this season....now what doe that do to CSP?
really there were only 3 competitive cars this year...
daves fastest
mine...
then hanifs...
and this new rsx that came out the last event......
basically...you have to keep up with the jones..or get out modified....
i think alot of this has to do with planning...over a long term goal....
i choose to modify power first since my car was gutless to start with...great..the turbo system knocked off tons of time from before...
other people ..start with suspensions...
or choose to go NA vs turbo...i chose turbo for future reasons...cause if things get more competitive in the future..its easier to increase the power with a turbo than with NA :)
and even then..how many people are using the points to the fullest? i really don't want to rip out my dash, and windows and use all my points up...why cause its a pain the arse doing it.....
so unfortunately..there is lots of speed left in classes that is not being used yet...so even if we do scale cars in a certain way..those cars with small tweaks here and there will go faster and faster as time progresses....
another good point..a newbie coming into the solo 1 sport with a prepared car thinks the car is fast..only to get hammered by some little civic or 240sx....they don't realize that some of us have spent YEARS of losing in solo 1, and making changes year after year to go faster....i think that is something to be considered as well....
how can a newbie come into CSP or any prepared class and expect to win against cars and drivers that have been modifying the cars for YEARS?
maybe some of this sport comes down to experiance? it took me 4 years to finally realise that POWER is good...but POWER with a race suspension...aka evil honda weasels..is even better....
racing is a learning process...
anyway...just rambling on...
DECH_92
09-26-2002, 09:25 AM
I think I have to agree with Perry on this one.
Director
09-26-2002, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by DECH_92
I think I have to agree with Perry on this one.
You my friend are going to go far in Solo I.
p.s. Good luck with the rebirth project for next year.
You have made some good points Perry!
Perhaps many of the arguments for banning Hoosiers come from issues that are not "High level" enough. There seems to be a lot of bigger issues here.
It also seems that the people who have studied the situation the most (eg. Perry, Dave, the committee peeps, etc) all agree that in the big picture, banning a tire probably does not make sense.
Geesh these issues are complicated :confused: Then again I am from Nova Scotia :rolleyes: hehe
Jay
jay are you going to the banquet....?
i think i owe you a beer...will pay up at the bar ...
Silver Fox
09-26-2002, 11:01 AM
Okay......here goes. My friend and I will be "newbies" (nice term!) in 2003.
I just finished reading the entire thread and wish to make my comments on these subjects as a person looking in from the outside.
First off, tires......If you have a tire sponser(s) should you not use their tires for your competition ?? If I was sponsering your event and people were using whatever tire they wanted, what the hell am I sponsering you for ?? The more the sponser see's there product being used the more they would be willing to help you out. As for cutting time from your laps with non sponser tires, would you be able to run without the sponser's with no added cost to the competitors?? If so, run whatever you want !
Secondly.....mods & classes. For us "newbies" (nice term!) when you come out to compete, the #1 thing should be having fun and the spirit of competition. We choose what we can compete in as
far as vehicle because we have budgets. Anybody getting into this type of sport knows that money wins. So for some, Solo 1 is just a pissing contest and for the rest, it is a way to have some great fun, meet people with the desire to improve what they drive and how well they drive it !!
Dave was right when he said that "the guy with the biggest wallet wins" because he can afford the Z06 or all the mods he can find for his "destroyer Nissan" or "wessal Honda" as an example. But my friend and I believe that Solo 1 provides a very nessessary niche in the racing world, so that you can learn about your car, about modifing it and about yourself as a driver and how to improve !
Maybe because I am looking at this from the standpoint of a "newbie" (nice term!), the problem with the classes seems simple. Break it down into lap times and class people by that and not by what they drive or how they've modified it. You can get a guy that has a nicely modified Honda that turns some great lap times and be in the same class as someone who has never turned a competative lap in a V8 because of what they drive. That is still competative....and as the V8 driver gets better and turns faster times, they move up to compete with other v8's.
Chris P. said part of it "Fact is...once a new guy starts to become a competater, he will not want to run a stock car. "
Is this an unreasonable system or to hard to setup and maintain ??
I look forward to coming out next season !
Steve
(Silver Fox)
Adam... Yes I will be there..... or I will be an L7 (Square)
I will be accompanied by the beautiful Dyno..... er. I mean Brandy!
Re. Beers, I thought I owed YOU a few!?!?!
At least we will both have an excuse to explain the long strand of beer tickets that we will both be tripping over! :D
BTW....... what is "bench racing"? Some event planned for the banquet!?!?
John Hannaford
09-26-2002, 11:33 AM
I'm putting Hoosiers on my bench!
Christian Sorensen
09-26-2002, 12:18 PM
I don't pay attention to this board for a few days and look what happens!
I've got lots to say wrt rules changes and classification issues, but for now I'll just share a data point regarding Hoosiers:
My best time with reasonably fresh Hoosiers at the TMP track (Cayuga) is 83.362 and I can do mid 83s fairly consistently. Mind you, this was after I bumped up the pressures 2psi on the Saturday event and gained 3/4 of a second.
Last Monday I returned to TMP with the Raven folks on the same Hoosiers (after a few more events) and was unable to do better than 87s.
They were obviously off! They got worse during the next session and I left the track before they gave up altogether.
I returned in the afternoon with my street tires (1 1/2 year old Bridgestone S02s) and was able to consistently do mid 85s!
The car, driver, and track were basically in the same shape during both the Solo event and the Raven day.
Conclusions:
1) R Tire performance is highly variable, with significant falloffs occuring (for Hoosiers at least) towards the end of their life. Tire pressures and driving styles make a big difference.
2) Furthermore, the performance gaps between tire brands are NOT as large as some might think!
When 1) and 2) are mixed together, it is impossible to fairly compare tires! ie, it is virtually meaningless to conclude that Hoosiers are x seconds better simply because you replaced a set of used y brand and went x faster....
Chris
Silver Fox, we can't classifying cars by lap times, because this is heavily dependant on the driver.
Here's an example of what I mean. If a hypothetical driver (lets call him Dave) in a Honda Civic is dead slow because he's got pooched tires and little familiarity with the track and we classify all Civics as C3 cars based on Dave's lap times because it's the only Civic we've seen there's a high probability we'll see a well-prepped Civics or three the next year taking advantage of all the extra prep points and killing everyone in the class and likely propositioning everyone in the class above. There are just WAY too many variables at work when looking at lap times and we don't have enough examples of each type of car to average them out and say "this seems like a reasonable lap time for this car". If we had a huge database of lap times for each car with a wide variety of drivers then we could try something like this, but no such database exists.
Instead, we've classified each car based on it's predicted performance potential using known data such as curb weight, horsepower, torque, suspension design, etc. This means we've removed the extremely unpredictable variable of the driver (and associated lap times), which will skew the results tremendously. It's not difficult to predict a car's straight line speed using curb weight and horsepower and by factoring in suspension design (or what we call a 'handling ratin') we've tried to predict "performance potential" around a road course. I think we've actually been extremely successful in this regard. The results of the Solo 1 Competitor Survey (which will be made public soon) shows a very high satisfaction level with the indexing system and the prep point schedule.
Where we've seen some problems (ie. new M3 in B-family) and low satisfaction levels based on the survey results is with the way cars have been grouped via the Family system. With some fine-tuning of this system or the adoption of a full indexing system, I think we can move closer to a overall ruleset that our competitor base will find highly satisfying and competitive for a greater number of cars.
We can't, however, garauntee that a car that is competitively classified will produce competitive results with driver X in the car. It is fair to assume that in your rookie year you'll be off the class leading pace for at least the first part of the season, until you've learned the track layouts and sorted out your car. As you gain experience you will gain speed and competitiveness. Almost every class is led by experienced drivers who know the subtle nuances of each track layout and their car (and have spent considerable time developing their driving). Given the "driver factor", it's entirely possible to show up with a class leading car and get completely destroyed by a much slower car because the driver is extracting much more speed potential out of their ultimately slower ride. And that's what makes this series interesting! It's all about what each driver can get out of their car, regardless of how fast or slow it looks on paper. Sometimes you'll need to extract 85% of your car's speed potential to win your class, sometimes you'll need to extract 99% to win (just ask Krispy and Jay). It all depends on your competition and your ability to find more speed potential in your car.
Cheers,
Dave
yeah jay.... thats right you owe ME beer
:)
silver fox,
solo 1 really is a good time, and you will meet some great people here...even some nice honda weasel people... that aside..we all want to race on a somewhat level racing field with our cars..thats all...
don't take this bickering as anything negative..this is part of our normal rants and raves...and is part of the solo 1 fun..
most of us are good friends..and share a very tight comradery with each other....
it really is a great and unique series...
laptimes.... can't use those....they vary too much day to day...and track to track...too many variables....its easier toi classify the car..than the driver
IMO... i think the classification system is almost 100% spot on..look at some of the battles in the classes this year..they were awesome....
and if the honda weasels could actually make thier engines for a day of racing..it would have been even better..
IMO there are a "few" anomolies...
1=new M3..this is a supercar guys
2=type r's they are still faster than they should be for thier classes...should be CSP right out of the box IMO
3=zo6 vettes... ASP out of the box..they have enough class population to almost run thier own little class :)
most of the other cars are classed very well....
look at dave barker and his camero and andrews rx7...totally different types of machines..but look at the awesome racing this year with them.....
Chris P
09-26-2002, 07:10 PM
"1=new M3..this is a supercar guys "
BSS1 would make sense for this car.
"2=type r's they are still faster than they should be for thier classes...should be CSP right out of the box IMO "
yeah, the stock version of this car may fit CSS1 very well
3=zo6 vettes... ASP out of the box..they have enough class population to almost run thier own little class
Forget ASS1, that bitch needs to be placed in AM!!! But really, ASS1 would be a much better place for this car then any current stock class.
"look at dave barker and his camero and andrews rx7...totally different types of machines..but look at the awesome racing this year with them....."
Adam, not sure you wanna go there, Andrews RX7 is a much faster car, what made the battle interesting was Andrews learning curve. Just imagine how much faster Andrew could have gone with some real tires on that car and more seat time. Dave's poor camero never stood a chance.
Dave Barker
09-26-2002, 08:06 PM
Thanks Chris, If I could shed 600 lb I might even put up with the live axle but the more Andrew learns about the car and tracks , the more burnt toast I become . Now , if I got my tire issue solved ( who knows. maybe Hoosier will sponser next year !!) a 5 inch tail pipe, and God knows I need a boost control knob, I could give a certain Nissan a run for his turbo money but as you know we are not in the same family. ( can't afford the boost control or the turbo but the knob might help!!)
BTW Silver Fox , Adam is right , all this bitchin' boastin' and bogglin' just indicates how friendly the Solo 1 community is . I deliberately made this post to be controversial and get those fingers typing; and looking at the number of replies it has been, but all of us will probably run no matter what happens to the rules next year; we are just that badly addicted.
Brian
09-26-2002, 08:09 PM
"1=new M3..this is a supercar guys "
BSS1 would make sense for this car."
Well, I'll keep bitchin' about this one... my Prelude classed as a BSS1 car with the likes of that?! Please...
ctheo
09-26-2002, 11:49 PM
With tounge firmly in cheek...
You should equalize the tire disparody with air pressure, not with points.
Sure you can run Hoosiers, run the biggest baddest Hoosiers you can find, but you're only allowed to put 15 psi in them.
That should even things out.
Theo, what's a tounge? It's that a lounge for teens? Or some kind of obscure winter sport?
ctheo
09-27-2002, 07:11 AM
A "tounge" is what people stick out at the web spelling Nazi's.
It far more offensive than a tongue. :p
Silver Fox
09-27-2002, 10:07 AM
You guys are all certifiable !!
I'm looking forward to joining you next season !!
Steve
(Silver Fox)
you did give me a run...in fact i think we had very very close times.....though next year i am sure the spread will be by several seconds :) of course in my favour :)
but then again..our big discussion was how the V8 power was going to dominate on the big straights ...he he he... you dominated me by 1kph....with over twice the displacement ..he he he he.....
there is replacement for displacement..there is replacement for displacement... ..very catchy tune...
:)
Originally posted by Dave Barker
Thanks Chris, If I could shed 600 lb I might even put up with the live axle but the more Andrew learns about the car and tracks , the more burnt toast I become . Now , if I got my tire issue solved ( who knows. maybe Hoosier will sponser next year !!) a 5 inch tail pipe, and God knows I need a boost control knob, I could give a certain Nissan a run for his turbo money but as you know we are not in the same family. ( can't afford the boost control or the turbo but the knob might help!!)
BTW Silver Fox , Adam is right , all this bitchin' boastin' and bogglin' just indicates how friendly the Solo 1 community is . I deliberately made this post to be controversial and get those fingers typing; and looking at the number of replies it has been, but all of us will probably run no matter what happens to the rules next year; we are just that badly addicted.
Shaman
09-27-2002, 10:05 PM
FWIW, I ran some high 74s on Hoosiers when my car had about 100hp less than it does now, and was about 30 pounds heavier (if it matters).
On some cars, they make a tremendous difference. My car is one of them, which is why I plan to run Hoosiers next year on top of all the other improvements I have made over the last year. On my car, at least, they really are worth a second or so.
Gotta show those Z06s what brute force really means. ;)
B18C5
09-29-2002, 02:42 PM
About Z06s, Type Rs and M3s... a big thing about the reclassification was not to have stock cars in prepared classes. Instead the fastest car becomes the benchmark the family. Right now it seems that the benchmarks are the Z06 for A, the M3 for B and the Type R for C. The families were designed with only a few cars in the top classes in the family to accommodate new cars that will be faster than the current family leaders.
Right now the Type R is the fastest C1 car. The RSX or the MINI didn't exactly end up being faster cars stock, but who knows what's going to come out next year. Maybe a Civic Type R or a more powerful MINI. And how do you think a CSS1 RSX or MINI would do? It's very likely that someone could make a class leading car out of either of those. But maybe not since the Type R guys have spent years developing our cars... and we just have bigger balls than anyone else. :P
It's possible that prep points should be added or subtracted to lower classes to compensate. If changes are to be made that is the best way to do it. Maybe C2 and C3 cars need a couple more points to be equivalent to a CSS1 C1 car. That would work.
Taylor
10-01-2002, 10:30 AM
Well.. continuing the out of control spin this thread is undergoing, let me say just one thing about classification...
I (and a number of others) in ASS/2 refuse to make any more changes to our cars which move us to ASS/1 because A1 (a.k.a. the Z06 class) will promptly wax our asses. Andrew is the quickest ASS/2 guy and his times are still 1.5 to 4 seconds off the leader in A1. Heck, A1 propositions A Mod for corn sakes. This statement in itself should show that a change is required.
I look forward to the linear system Dave (along with myself) pushed for last year. I doubt it'll help me a heck of a lot but it should sort out the freaks of nature in the current classifcation system like the Type-R, E46 M3 and Z06.
As for tires. I like Brents idea of getting back a point for using a sponsors tires. It's incentive to do so. Helps us with sponsors (which is a cornerstone of the series) and should help keep our budget low and attractive to newcomers. If you really feel the hoosiers make a difference then you're more than welcome to use them. I'll take the extra point which could possibly be good for the .3 to .5 seconds that has been thrown around anyhow.
My problem with Spec tires is simply that in Solo 2, I may want to run Hoosiers, *having* to buy two sets of tires is not attractive to me. In Solo 2, I could use those tenths. In Solo 1, I need a rail layer mounted to the front of my car. :) There are many other little reasons too, but having to have two different kinds of tires to compete in two series, requires two sets of race wheels, etc..etc..etc...
DECH_92
10-02-2002, 04:34 PM
Well, it looks like I may have a new ride.
Mustang of corse with all the parts I have
but the car has engine work that may put me in
A\SS1 GEE I get to play with ZO6`s
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.