139 replies to this topic

[Bench Racer]

Tire cost has an impact on all racing budgets and has been recently been discussed on this site.

 

Received SportsCar magazine today. SRF has completed tire tests with five tire companies with all tires tested to specific parameters and the chosen tire is Hoosier. The decision for the major change by SCCA Enterprises CEO, the SCCA Enterprises Board and agreed to by Hoosier who is providing a spec tire is contingency tires have been removed from the program and tire prices have been reduced for all racers. 

[Johnny D]

I didn't see Toyo?  Is that bridge burned ??  Page 44.

http://www.sportscar...2016?pg=44#pg44

J~

[Steve Scheifler]

No contingency, lower prices. Exactly what many asked for years ago because the "incentive" is pointless with a spec tire. It also puts everyone on a more equal basis when evaluating how we feel about the designated tire and cost to run it. Granted there may be an issue with non-SM competitors taking advantage of the lower prices, as I think some do now, but if Hoosier really is willing to produce a more durable tire to keep our business then killing contingencies would be another good step.

[Johnny D]

Steve, you know we're talking about SRF ?? (currently)

J~

[Steve Scheifler]

Yes, I'm saying we need the same deal. According to Jim they are already willing to work on a longer lasting rain tire, I'd like to see a longer lasting dry and no contingency.

[FTodaro]

Interesting, I am not sure how I feel about taking away the contingency. I understand it makes the tire cheaper for everyone, but at the same time, I like the incentive, challenge and reward of a contingency program especially when it is as good as Hoosier's program is. I guess I would have to see how cheap the tires are vs. the loss of the contingency program.

 

I wonder if:

 

They are going to do this in SM

 

and

 

If they would let us vote on the choice up or down?

[Johnny D]

Yes, I'm saying we need the same deal. According to Jim they are already willing to work on a longer lasting rain tire, I'd like to see a longer lasting dry and no contingency.

So you're perfectly unhappy with currently everything ?? 

 

J~

[JRHille]

No contingency?! Could there really be that significant of a price drop that would make this worth it?

The contingency is the only thing keeping me racing. Probably not many, but I'm sure there are a couple others..

[Steve Scheifler]

So you're perfectly unhappy with currently everything ??

J~

Not at all, but a good contract is about negotiating the best all around deal, and in my opinion the contingency program has never been a net positive. I've said that from day 1 of debate about having a spec tire, still feel the same.

The math should be pretty simple since I believe the contract includes a certain minimum payout. Isn't that why all Runoffs SM entrants were given several tires?

[Johnny D]

Sorry, but didn't you just say that the Wet tire, Dry tire and contig all currently need work ??

J~

[speedengineer]

Yeah...I am not in favor of this.  Even if I don't win any tires next year, (as Frank puts it) the incentive, challenge, and reward are a good thing!

 

If I want to be cynical:  What's next, instead of the top three getting trophies we draw randomly who gets them?  How about we ask Mazda to change their (currently excellent) contingency program and instead spread that money out evenly to everyone who starts the race?  Forget I mentioned that, lol.  Somebody here might just propose that.

 

Some racers work harder than others to be the best driver they can possibly be.  They put the most time and preparation into their race cars.  When they win, they should be rewarded for their diligence and effort.  Contingency is one way to do this.  Taking this away is a move in the wrong direction, in my opinion. 

[Steve Scheifler]

Sorry, but didn't you just say that the Wet tire, Dry tire and contig all currently need work ??
J~

Give me a break. I am very happy that we have a spec tire. Once upon a time that was a big debate and a lot of "notable" drivers opposed that. But anything can be improved. There seem to be a lot of people who agree that the H2O is too expensive to run given that we have a spec tire and max performance at any cost should not be the goal. Clearly the same considerations should be given to the dry tires and IF they can be made more economical then they should be. That doesn't mean I think the current tires are terrible by any means. So called contingencies are an old topic worth revisiting whenever possible. I suspect that a straight vote might be pretty lopsided, though I could be wrong if there are enough small regional fields where people pick up a few tires.

[Johnny D]

I'm not trying to bust your balls.

I personally agree that the wet and dry need work on cost and durability but that's just me.

Different stroke for different folk. It's all what your looking for and why and what your doing in this class.

Support made in USA, etc. etc.

I get it.

Carry on,

J~

[Steve Scheifler]

speedengineer, I respect your opinion but I don't see it as even remotely similar or related to a trophies for all mentality. Tires are the most expensive recurring cost and should be controlled as much as possible. Historically, the point of a contingency program is to promote the brand over other options a racer might have. Our tires are more expensive to run, but they are fast and if you win we'll help subsidize that expense. Simple marketing old as the hills, but totally irrelevant in a class with a single spec tire. One of the reasons to spec a tire is, in theory, to help control costs by getting the lowest contract price. That should benefit everyone in the class. Buy more, run stickers every session and save more, but let's all get the discounts.

[speedengineer]

speedengineer, I respect your opinion but I don't see it as even remotely similar or related to a trophies for all mentality. Tires are the most expensive recurring cost and should be controlled as much as possible. Historically, the point of a contingency program is to promote the brand over other options a racer might have. Our tires are more expensive to run, but they are fast and if you win we'll help subsidize that expense. Simple marketing old as the hills, but totally irrelevant in a class with s single spec tire. One of the reasons to spec a tire is, in theory, to help control costs by getting the lowest contract price. That should benefit everyone in the class. Buy more, run stickers every session and save more, but let's all get the discounts.

 

Your point isn't invalid; it has merit. However, the real issue that we are discussing here is distribution of wealth, so to speak.  It cost's Hoosier some amount to make each tire, it probably doesn't matter to them if they're charging more but paying contingency vs charging less but not paying contingency.  What matters is how WE as spec miata racers feel about contingency.  I personally feel that those who put in the effort to win should get some free tires, at the small expense of those who don't win having to pay a smidge extra for theirs.

 

If I worked in a restaurant and I was the best waiter in the building and regularly received $$$ tips, I'd be ticked off if I had to split those tips with all the other wait staff who didn't put in the same effort that I did.  There are restaurants like that.  Do WE (spec miata) want to be like that?  I don't think we should.  I think we should reward those who do put in the effort.  My opinion.

[Steve Scheifler]

I'll take issue with that analogy as well, just not comparable. But you also say that what matters is what the SM racers want, so we can agree on that at least. If I recall correctly there was an informal poll once long ago and it wasn't as lopsided as I expected, but it may be different now that people have lived with it this way for a long time and they know where they stand.

[Steve Scheifler]

Serious question: Would you favor a larger discount on parts from Mazda for the winners who "put in the effort" to finish up front? If not why not? Take the same question as far as you want, cheaper SCCA dues, lower entry fees, ...

[Ron Alan]

Anyone who is racing...even a lowly spec Miata, gets zero sympathy from me if they complain about the cost of consumables. Whether it's $150 per tire or $170 per tire...it's not going to make or brake your budget. If you don't or can't race to win, why expect those who do to give up what comes at way more cost than the little bit you may save if contingencies ended?

I'm all for a company who can provide a good product at a reasonable cost. But don't ask them to eliminate contingencies in lew of knocking a few bucks off the cost of each tire. A small piece of gold at the top of a mountain motivates the human spirit to climb it. Let's not mess with what works!

[Steve Scheifler]

What makes you think it works?? Works how exactly, to what benefit? Would like to know why SRF has abandoned it (if not the obvious).

Same question to you Ron, is it OK if Mazda decreases their discounts for the masses to increase them for the winners?

[FTodaro]

Contingencies are a fact of life in club racing. There are not many justifications for our obsession with this hobby. We like to win, we get a trophy, we have bragging rights. Winning some tires or the chance too, from time to time gives us a little justification for our insanity. There is nothing wrong with rewarding the accomplishment of a win or podium. My analogy, giving everyone a trophy.

 

As i said above, what would the numbers look like. Saving 10.00 a tire is not going to move the needle for most folks or change the balance of power in the paddock.

 

Looking at this from the other side of the glass, by Hoosier giving away a percentage of tires allows them to write off the retail price of the tire against profits, Tax deduction. Who doesn't like a good tax deduction this time of year.