Spec Tire Survey Results

[problemchild]

The least acceptable way of dealing with this is picking the hardest current tire (R55's) as a spec and getting the price down.

The R55 is what 72% of the people are looking for when asked what type of spec tire they would want.

"A specifically designed slick tire by Hoosier, Goodyear, American Racer, or other; that fits on existing FV rims, is a racing slick compound and is designed to last 12-15 heat cycles with very little grip degradation. Rubber to last 20+ sessions."

That's the R55.

Why are people obsessed with existing tires, compounds, and constructions? Spec tires mean a clean sheet of paper for engineers to build us the best tire for our needs!

They have 10 monthes to manage their current inventory and production. Racers have 10 monthes to manage their purchasing. Worrying that some Runoff contender will not be able to get full use of his free tires in 2013 really is not a concern.

[Speedsport]

The competition between Hoosier and GY has already given us the best tire for our needs. If they could do better, don't you think they would have?

[Speedsport]

So you're OK with telling 20+ FV drivers that buy new tires for the runoffs that they won't be able to use them the following season? Sounds a little hypocritcal to me.

[problemchild]

Maybe the elite FV drivers should unite, set an example, and run the 2013 spec tire at the 2012 Runoffs!

Great leadership!

Great promotion!

It would pull it all together, leading into the Birthday season!

[tiagosantos]

designed to last 12-15 heat cycles with very little grip degradation.

No, that's not the R55. Yes, the rubber lasts.. But 12 heat cycle R55's are not competitive anywhere, unless everyone else is running old tires. Again, the grip degradation needs to be measured in tenths, not seconds. The only way I'd consider the R55 as a spec tire is if they were significantly cheaper than they are now, but it's definitely not what I'd consider ideal..

[Speedsport]

I believe the expectations from a spec tire are too great. This is where I think the cheerleaders are being misled.

It is being assumed that the tire manufactures have a chemical formula in their back pocket that they are waiting to use to unveil a tire that will be fast from cycle 1 to 25. Why would they be saving this holy grail of tire devlopment? Hoosier and Goodyear are in heavy competition between themselves not only in FV's, but in most forms of motorsports. Part of winning customers is to develop tires that customers are happy with. That includes longevity. The competition among tire brands has forced compound development to where it is today. They are not withholding anything.

We can request a harder compound tire to provide a longer overall life, but I would argue the effect the cheerleaders are trying to diminish will actually be worse. A harder compound tire will be more sensitive to the aging and changes that occur throughout it's life, resulting in a greater difference between first cycle and last cycle performance. Most notably the first cycle.

We will most likely end up with a harder tire, but one that has a magic heat cycle in it. It will become more important then ever to run sticker tires. This is the phenomenon experienced by most classes using spec tires.

Right now, we are in a sweet spot between overall life and performance reduction. The competition between brands has given us a tire that can be competitive for many heat cycles without a significant sticker tire advantage. They can even be stored over the winter and be competitive again the following season. If we start requesting a harder and harder tire, we will be past the sweet spot.

How expensive will it be when sticker tires are required to be at the front of a national instead of simply 3-4 heat cycle old tires?

[problemchild]

The technology is available. The exact same people making the current tires would be making the new tires, so why would they be worse?
What we need now is the will of people, particularily those that are sceptical, to make it work.
Paragraphs of fear-mongering is not helping.

Hopefully, some of the elite FV guys will embrace this and make it work. All it will take ..... are a few of the guys who are going to win anyway, to agree with a few of the other guys who win anyway, and promote it as good for the class. It would be so cool to hear Dorsey and Calvin talking about how FV went to spec tires, and the Runoff pole was only 1 second slower ..... then having Jon Biz.... interview the Runoff winner who praises the new tires and how they have been great for the class. It would be a win-win for all involved.

There is absolutely no reason that cannot happen and happen soon! If enough people want it, push for it, demand it, ..... then the politics will take care of itself.

[FVartist]

Greg states:

"The technology is available. The exact same people making the current tires would be making the new tires, so why would they be worse?
What we need now is the will of people, that are sceptical, to make it work.
Paragraphs of fear-mongering is not helping."

Asking opposing people, saying they are fear mongers, to just go along and do as you ask. I know you will not get much cooperation. Using the poll as written, the results were inevitable. It proved nothing, until a proper poll is taken, you do not know what the will of the people is.

You are asking for the tire companies to use their resources to develop a tire that meets your specifications, and still lower the cost. How do you think they will respond? I know they are not a charitable organization. This is not fear mongering, but who do you think will pay the cost to develop this remarkable tire? There has to be realistic thought brought forth, before unrealistic actions are taken.


Bruce

[problemchild]

The tire engineers are good. They'll build a tire that will be good in their first attempt and make minor refinements by production time.

Ongoing tire development programs would cease after the initial batch .... there is cost savings!
Eliminating tire sponsorships ..... there is cost savings!
Eliminate tire contingencies .... there is cost savings!
Eliminate alternate tire suppliers (competition factor) ..... there is cost savings!
Loss of volume VS increased market share ...... don't know but increased FV participation may make it a cost savings!

Decrease in tire price would be nice but the main cost savings to competitors will be reducing their tire usage requirements.
Any price decrease in the cost of tires is the bonus!

Are we supposed to feel sorry for the tire companies who have been selling more FV tires to FV racers for the last 30 yrs than anyone in FV wanted to buy? Remember the 90s when a LF tire would be trash in one session. I think the FV tire sales are overdue to level off. No FV driver should need to use more than 2 sets of tires in a season.

[P-2 Mark]

Greg,

Don't let Bruce's post cause everyone to focus on the legitmacy of the survey even though 252 people responded to it without
being under duress, but rather move ahead with the "spec-tire" as the majority (77%) clearly responded in favor of it. The
arguement for or against was made on the APEXSPEED website with over 600+ posts and 13,000 views during the discussion
period, and it's now time to move ahead with the Committee and work on getting the proper "spec-tire" in regards to durability
and cost. Rehashing the arguement For or Against is nothing more than just rehashing, and it won't lead to anything getting done
which is the angle he's hoping to achieve: deceive, distract and divide which are the exact principles of Sun Tzu (sp?)......

Bruce,

You have little faith in those who worked hard to construct the survey and gather the results!


Mark

[FVartist]

Mark,

I have seen enough polls to see one that is slanted when I see one. The results were predetermined. It wasn't until the fifth question that the purpose of the poll was asked, and then, only with a condition. No where was the option to leave the tire rule as is, asked. Yes, the poll had a definite bias.

Bruce

PS I don't rely on faith, nor do I accept a bias. I accept facts.

[P-2 Mark]

Bruce,

Facts as YOU see it.......The facts are that 77% voted in favor of the "spec-tire", and you can spin it how you want but those are the REAL facts as 77% see it!


Mark

[problemchild]

Facts?

There really are only two facts that apply to this discussion.

1) Virtually every pro racing Series and most amatuer racing in the world, virtually every class at every oval track in America, from F1 to Nascar uses a single tire supplier as an effective cost-saving and safety tool.

2) FVs in SCCA have an open tire rule.

That would suggest that FV is doing something better than everyone else ..... or FV is not doing something as well as everyone else.

[jpetillo]

The survey was limited in its ability to have everyone's interests completely captured, but no survey could do that - they are all limited. It had to categorize the issues somehow and gauge the interests of the class - it's a start that was needed. What it did do was ask a handful of questions that will give direction and an indication of how to move forward. It did a good job of that. It was hardly the end-all, nor was it perfect. For example, we hear that many against a spec tire didn't submit. That will have to be dealt with. But we have it and it will give us the best indication we have yet of the interests (of some) of the class.

Judging from the comments, everyone reads what they want into the survey. None of you are wrong, but none are completely right, either. Surveys have to be taken as a whole. You can't choose which questions to pull from. The results need a careful study, and that careful study will erase a lot of the biases (not all), like are inherent in any survey. The committee has signed up to take that on.

The next meeting is soon, so let's let them take a crack at an analysis and come up with the next step. We can push them and question them about their actions all we want right now, but that will accomplish nothing of value. My guess is that it's not helping them! This is a big step for the class and we should not rush a solution. We shouldn't delay unnecessarily, either.

I've said it many times in the past, if you want to support the class, then work with and support the Committee's efforts. Until we as a nationwide class work towards supporting the efforts of our committee, we can't expect them to be successful in helping the class prosper. Try it!

The committee has taken the initiative to deal with the spec tire issue, so let's settle in and see where it goes. John

[Speedsport]

Facts?

There really are only two facts that apply to this discussion.

1) Virtually every pro racing Series and most amatuer racing in the world, virtually every class at every oval track in America, from F1 to Nascar uses a single tire supplier as an effective cost-saving and safety tool.

2) FVs in SCCA have an open tire rule.

That would suggest that FV is doing something better than everyone else ..... or FV is not doing something as well as everyone else.

Those are irrelevant facts to whether a spec tire is the right choice for FV. They do not have the same goals of providing a tire that will last for half of the season. If you want to use them as an example, then we will be using multiple sets of tires on a given weekend. Even every road racing series in the country allows AT LEAST one set of tires per weekend. I'm not aware of any that require the same tires to be used for 5+ races.

Bruce,

Facts as YOU see it.......The facts are that 77% voted in favor of the "spec-tire", and you can spin it how you want but those are the REAL facts as 77% see it!


Mark

77% percent of the people who responded to the survey, and of those 77% it is difficult to judge what the knowledge level is among them as towards the practicality of such a change. If presented an option do you want racing to be cheaper, yes or no, what outcome were you expecting?

[Speedsport]

The tire engineers are good. They'll build a tire that will be good in their first attempt and make minor refinements by production time.
Ongoing tire development programs would cease after the initial batch .... there is cost savings!
Eliminating tire sponsorships ..... there is cost savings!
Eliminate tire contingencies .... there is cost savings!
Eliminate alternate tire suppliers (competition factor) ..... there is cost savings!
Loss of volume VS increased market share ...... don't know but increased FV participation may make it a cost savings!
Decrease in tire price would be nice but the main cost savings to competitors will be reducing their tire usage requirements.
Any price decrease in the cost of tires is the bonus!
Are we supposed to feel sorry for the tire companies who have been selling more FV tires to FV racers for the last 30 yrs than anyone in FV wanted to buy? Remember the 90s when a LF tire would be trash in one session. I think the FV tire sales are overdue to level off. No FV driver should need to use more than 2 sets of tires in a season.

I remember in the 90's when tires were only good for a session. I seem to recall huge fields back then too. Kind of shoots down the premise that spec tire will save FV. But do the tire companies know about their ability to build a tire like you are asking for? I can't believe they've been keeping that technology from us for so long....it must be a conspiracy? The tire we have now works because it is almost too soft (Even the 55's) on the first heat cycle...which is why the remaining heat cycles are JUST AS FAST, IF NOT FASTER, then the sticker cycle. A harder compound tire will loose that effect, creating a sticker tire advantage, which will, in effect, make things much worse then they are today. Remember this post so IF (and a BIG IF!!!) we end up with a spec harder tire, and people start bitching about needing sticker tires to qualify at the front, you can look back and see there was at least one voice of reason.

[P-2 Mark]

I assume we should go to the manufacturers and request a tire that lasts (1) heat cycle if the fields were that good back in the 90's
as a result of those tires? I fail to see how things can get worse than today with $600 for a set of tires that last 6 competitive
heat cycles, and participation falling 30%+ over the past 5 years? Go ahead and bring back those 90's tires and we'll see the extinction
of the entire class.
So the 77% of those who voted in favor of the "spec-tire" may not have the knowledge to make an educated decision, but all of those
who voted against the "spec-tire" are articulate, well educated on the subject matter and their 22% should be considered above the
majority?

[GT6]

Can we just start the process with the step of making the Hoosier 55 the spec. tire for FV?

That seems like it's a hard enough step to begin with. We can worry about compound changes next year. A spec. tire being produced in only two different size molds with the same compound in each seems like it would make life easier for racers and manufacturers alike.

I think this is a good starting advantage in and of itself, but to go beyond, we could use our collective bargaining power and firm stance of support for a supplier to negotiate for a lower price. $100 or $200 off on a set would be very substantial at least in terms of tire budgets for guys who buy 2-3 sets a season. That's equal to one more race entry a season.

I don't think it is in the tire makers best interests to make tires that last long unless they are assured of a market for the excess manufacturing capacity that would be generated by such a tire. They also don't want to price themselves out of all sales all together. It's the job of the business owners and their advisers to find the balance which results in maximum profit. We should be able to affect this balance if we make their manufacturing life easier by reducing molds and compounds, make their business life easier by guaranteeing class wide sales, and let them know that there is more to be lost by not listening to us.

Let's not try to make the end all be all solution in one fell swoop. Start by making a spec. tire out of one the we are dealing with today and one that I think is acceptable to a lot of people. Then we can go from there and keep things fluid.

[Speedsport]

"So the 77% of those who voted in favor of the "spec-tire" may not have the knowledge to make an educated decision, but all of those
who voted against the "spec-tire" are articulate, well educated on the subject matter and their 22% should be considered above the
majority?P-2 Mark "


I never said that....but in a survey that was worded as such that was open to anyone, one can certainly question the ability of all respondants to have the experience and knowledge to make a good desicion. Again, the survey was basically "do you want to save money, yes or no". No where on there was any discussion on the negatives of a spec tire or possible draw backs.

22% voted no. Does that mean they are opposed to saving money? Not likely. They are probably more understanding of what the consequences will be with a spec tire....so it is entirely possible that those 22% could be more educated on the subject matter, and are not being influenced by the pompom waiving cheerleaders.

[P-2 Mark]

But those 22% were possibly influenced by the pom-pom negative naysayers? There's NO more conclusive evidence to say those who
sided against the issue in question we're any MORE knowledgeable than those who sided for it.

[jpetillo]

I think it would be most helpful for people to just state what you think will work, or even list some suggestions and things to think about, and why. Make it simple. Sort of like what GT6 did - nice job. The more ideas we can collect, the better.

[Dave]

Here is a thought, why don't we ask the CRB to start another new Class say Spec FV. We can have a spec tire, we can add all the weight we want, and make another rule adjustments deemed beneficial. If the new class works everyone will migrate to it. Hundreds of Garage Queens will come back, any thousands of new drivers will appear.
If it doesn't pan out, we will still have the spec tire, we would still be grouped and would run with FV, we will have more winners, and most of us will still be looking at the back of Mike's SpeedSport. Biggest plus would be not killing FV. To me this would be considered a win win situation for both sides of the argument.
This is a big change we are considering, something that has never been done in SCCA. Do we want to be the guinea pigs?
Dave

[fvracer27]

Here is a thought, why don't we ask the CRB to start another new Class say Spec FV. We can have a spec tire, we can add all the weight we want, and make another rule adjustments deemed beneficial. If the new class works everyone will migrate to it. Hundreds of Garage Queens will come back, any thousands of new drivers will appear.
If it doesn't pan out, we will still have the spec tire, we would still be grouped and would run with FV, we will have more winners, and most of us will still be looking at the back of Mike's SpeedSport. Biggest plus would be not killing FV. To me this would be considered a win win situation for both sides of the argument.
This is a big change we are considering, something that has never been done in SCCA. Do we want to be the guinea pigs?
Dave

This would take already small fields in most regions and make them smaller that is not in the best interest for anyone.

[satterley_sr]

I'm with GT6, let's make the Hoosier 55 our 'spec" tire for the intial season. I think it would be something the majority could agree with, with no loss of performance. We could then determine compound for future seasons.

[BLS]

I think you would get better pricing if you had two companies bidding against each other for the contract, say Goodyear and Hoosier, with whatever current compound picked.

I think it needs to be realized that whoever gets the contract, the other one is done with FV. Are you sure you want that?