145 replies to this topic

[Muda]

Skip- What!  You didn't get my T-12, 2 wide, texts at the ARRC?

[Qik Nip]

Be forewarned...Regional racer rant follows:

 

I know it's utter folly to complain, but the decision to eliminate the SCCA's Regions lattitude to offer the option of an open tire rule is truly unfortunate - and in my view seriously misguided. As a memebr of my region's race committee (and a region board member), I forsee reductions in NASA crossovers in 2014 - as well as the "occasional" competitors who roll out the "old car" once or twice a year. The previous ability of a racer to race on the rubber they had was a benefit to car counts.

That aside, frankly IMHO the SCCA is waaay too "runoffcentric". The truth is that most regional competitors have exactly zero interest in the Runoffs. From my perspective, showing up to (still) spend way too much time so I can be be beaten like the proverbial chained up dog by a pack of $30,000 to (now) $40,000 SM's is utterly silly. 

 

We need to (but won't) reinstate the open tire rule for regional events. That won't happen and as a result the chips will fall (no pun intended).

 

Rant over...

Rick

[LarryKing]

Ric, Open regional tires is (was) a luxury that not all divisions enjoy. The SE Div, for example, has always required the national spec tire for regional racing. SE also seems to have the most entries.

[htron435]

Be forewarned...Regional racer rant follows:

 

I know it's utter folly to complain, but the decision to eliminate the SCCA's Regions to offer the option of an open tire rule is truly unfortunate - and in my view seriously misguided. As a memebr of my region's race committee (and a region board member), I forsee reductions in NASA crossovers in 2014 - as well as the "occasional" competitors who roll out the "old car" once or twice a year. The previous ability of a racer to race on the rubber they had was a benefit to car counts.

That aside, frankly IMHO the SCCA is waaay too "runoffcentric". The truth is that most regional competitors have exactly zero interest in the Runnoffs. From my perspective, showing up to (still) spend way too much time so I can be be beaten like the proverbial chained up dog by a pack of $30,000 to (now) $40,000 SM's is utterly silly. 

 

We need to (but won't) reinstate the open tire rule for regional events. That won't happen and as a result the chips will fall (no pun intended).

 

Rant over...

Rick

 

Rick makes a great point.  My limited schedule only allows me to 4-5 times a year, and the way the local schedule has fallen, I've only raced with NASA.  In order to race one weekend late in the year with the local SCCA will require me to purchase two sets of tires -- one dry, one rain (because it's OHIO).  Pretty costly for one weekend a year.

[Jim Drago]

Be forewarned...Regional racer rant follows:
 
I know it's utter folly to complain, but the decision to eliminate the SCCA's Regions to offer the option of an open tire rule is truly unfortunate - and in my view seriously misguided. As a memebr of my region's race committee (and a region board member), I forsee reductions in NASA crossovers in 2014 - as well as the "occasional" competitors who roll out the "old car" once or twice a year. The previous ability of a racer to race on the rubber they had was a benefit to car counts.
That aside, frankly IMHO the SCCA is waaay too "runoffcentric". The truth is that most regional competitors have exactly zero interest in the Runnoffs. From my perspective, showing up to (still) spend way too much time so I can be be beaten like the proverbial chained up dog by a pack of $30,000 to (now) $40,000 SM's is utterly silly. 
 
We need to (but won't) reinstate the open tire rule for regional events. That won't happen and as a result the chips will fall (no pun intended).
 
Rant over...
Rick

Rick
Why not run SM"x" as well as SM regionally? The race will be run simultaneously, all may enter in SM"x" if they like? It would also allow those who want to run SM with Hoosiers collect regional contingency ( which I think is a good thing)

[davew]

The earlier discussion about tire life, cost, performance all made sense to me. But the last few posts about regions not allowed to have an open tire rule shows how limited information can give poor conclusions.

 

Since there is a path to the Runoffs by only attending Regional races, Regional races must be run under Runoffs rules. Thus the current spec tire is required.

 

However, the regions are allowed to run other classes with an open tire rule. Or even a different spec tire if they desired. This could be SMT as we have around here, SSM, SM2 etc. Or you can run in ITA (NA cars) or ITS (NB cars).

 

If you are only racing once a year, you are not running for points. So pick a class that you can legally race in, and have fun. The fun is the same no matter what sticker you put on the car. Just remember an Advanced Autosports sticker adds 5 horsepower the moment you put it on !!!!!

 

Dave

[Muda]

I don't think anyone would protest a guy running Toyo's in an SCCA race.  You might have a bit of a problem going the other way.  ; )

[LarryKing]

I would if they beat me.

[Muda]

Really?  You might be better off asking him for coaching.  Just say'in.

[LarryKing]

Hoosiers have not proved faster at every track - just sayin.

 

Also, I don't think we get to pick which rules we want to follow.

[Muda]

No, only the one's on which we want to protest.

[38bfast]

although I really hate their rain tire which causes me bent sheet metal on a regular basis.

I did not know that the tires were the one in control of the car. I always thought it was the driver. Silly me.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I did not know that the tires were the one in control of the car. I always thought it was the driver. Silly me.

Apparently my car and tires didn't get that memo...

[FTodaro]

Be forewarned...Regional racer rant follows:

 

I know it's utter folly to complain, but the decision to eliminate the SCCA's Regions lattitude to offer the option of an open tire rule is truly unfortunate - and in my view seriously misguided. As a memebr of my region's race committee (and a region board member), I forsee reductions in NASA crossovers in 2014 - as well as the "occasional" competitors who roll out the "old car" once or twice a year. The previous ability of a racer to race on the rubber they had was a benefit to car counts.

That aside, frankly IMHO the SCCA is waaay too "runoffcentric". The truth is that most regional competitors have exactly zero interest in the Runoffs. From my perspective, showing up to (still) spend way too much time so I can be be beaten like the proverbial chained up dog by a pack of $30,000 to (now) $40,000 SM's is utterly silly. 

 

We need to (but won't) reinstate the open tire rule for regional events. That won't happen and as a result the chips will fall (no pun intended).

 

Rant over...

Rick

Rick I cannot speak for the other members on the GLD race committee but i think we can work something out that allows racers who want to use the regional races as a ladder to the runoffs and those who are just interested in doing regional events.

 

We have some time to work through it, stay tuned.

[Qik Nip]

Frank:

For the sake of car counts, I hope we can get it done in the Great lakes Division. The slowly dwindling numbers are worrysome.

Rick

[Jay Stroud]

Not all sessions are created equal.

 

Driving a tire around at 8-10s off the pace or in an HPDE setting for 20 minutes at a go is dramatically different than running within 1s of pole at a 45-mile SCCA National race.  Yet, both of those count as "1 HC".  I hesitate to put any faith in these anecdotes, not because I don't think Jay is relating his actual experience or that he's running those tires for 40 HCs, but because "40 HCs" by itself is not enough information to mean anything.    

 

Brian - totally agree with you.  Unfortunately, in the southeast today, SM's are a minority at NASA events.  I think part of the car count dwindling is due to having to maintain 2 brands of tires (as well as other things I'm sure) b/c in the RA-1 days...a lot of guys would run both.  So...unfortunately, most of our "race" time is with SCCA and the remainder is with NASA.  But...I can say that for a tire for a regional guy on a limited budget, the RR would win out b/c I have done HC's on both running at 7-8/tenths.  I can't speak for front runners like Danny, Dan, Jim, Keith, Cliff, insert other names here, etc. as I just do my best to try to hang at the back of the lead pack for as many laps as I can...which isn't too many.  

 

I think that's why Danny was trying to get more input from guys like yourself as the feedback on the RR at a national or front running level will be pretty limited down here.  Maybe in the NE or on the WC if there are better numbers? Then I guess the track would be the only big difference in the comparison.

[Parity]

-. Wrong thread

[Brian Ghidinelli]

FWIW, I'm not claiming the RR doesn't have more HCs than the Hoosier, only cautioning about anecdotal feedback without more rigorous data.  I haven't run them but at least some of our front-running guys treat them like Hoosiers - qual on stickers and race on first few HCs and then move to practice.  

 

I like the RA1 however it isn't nearly as economical as most people think. What tricks people is that the slow heat cycles are at the beginning and the tire generally gets faster the more you use it until it's done.  BUT, you are still paying for the track time and wear and tear on your car while the tire is not at the optimal depth/wear ratio (or you're shaving them to 1-2/32 so they don't last as long...)  The net of it is, you're still not getting 15 race-worthy HCs as a front runner.  It's probably in the 4-6 range.  For someone using less than 100% of the tire, they are going to get dramatically more life out of any tire: the Hoosier, RA1 or RR.  The biggest difference was the cycle-dependency since I ran RA1s from about HC9 for as many as another 5-6 qualifying sessions 2-3 laps at a go with top 5 qualifying times.   I don't know how the RR fares in that way nor how the SM7 will be.  

 

Racing will not get cheaper but let's not make it any more expensive than it needs to be.  In a spec class, our priorities should be consistency and value.  I don't believe bringing the field closer together by tire is an important consideration relative to those two.  Fingers crossed the SM7 is a step forward in 2014.

[Jim Drago]

I have no first hand knowledge of RR either... But my RA1 experience is similar to what Brian mentions.. Generally, I started at 2/32,at the Sprints and Runoffs I started at 1/32. I didnt get any more cycles out of RA1's then then I did with the Hoosier. Except I am able to sell my used Hoosiers for a little cash to mid pack guys and DE guys. However, during the RA1 days, if and when I needed a competitve tire, I could not always just go buy one and bolt it on.

The RR is faster when shaved( if reports are accurate) If that is the case, we will all end up shaving RR tires.. we are right back where we started.

IMO a tire that is more than .5-7+ a lap off the pace, those cycles are not what I would call "usable cycles" it doesnt matter if they are at the beginning or end of the tire life.

[SaulSpeedwell]

I agree on longer life and usable cycles, just beware of the grass is always greener syndrome.right tire for the day you were in trouble. You certainly were not going to just throw new ones on in most cases and be competitive. The one thing I disliked in RA1 datys is if you needed to buy tires and race, you were in trouble.

 

No dog in the hunt anymore, but after 30 years observing, including the entire history of the DOT tire classes, and 10 years competing in SM, there was never a better tire for cheap racing than the RA-1.  True, you couldn't bolt on stickers and be competitive.  Some track liked thinner tires than others.  But you could pole, set a record, and win, on 3+ year old 30+ heat cycle tires ... or on shaved tires with 4-6 gentle cycles of practice, qualifing, racing.  You ran your chubbies in practice and sessions that didn't matter, until they got good.  Then you kept them good as long as you could, which just meant keeping track of them, rotating them, and not flatspotting them.  No other tire before or since can do that. 

 

What I didn't understand was the complaints about managing RA-1s.  You can't run a new motor without breaking it in.  You can't go out and race on unbedded pads.  You can't have the same chassis setup for every track.  With all the prep time and money being spent, I didn't understand the complaints about "managing" the RA-1, which wasn't very hard to do.  I think that's why I always thought the people against RA-1s were just shills, or that weird brand of "patriot" that only thought Made In The USA mattered when it came to what race tires he put on his Korean/British wheels to put on his Japanese car with his Chinese impact gun?