Hoosiers?

#121

Fooshe…let my NASA license expire in 2010. I had raced with them since the inception of the GTS series and was in strong disagreement with the rules making process which would have caused me to render my winning SCCA car non competitive in SCCA to be competitive in GTS. BUT…that is not the point. There are gross philosophical differences between a for profit organization and a volunteer one.

In NASA its damn near impossible to get a rule changed by the racing membership. In SCCA that has changed and requested rule changes are becoming easier. They are not, however, based on how much money a certain manufacturer contributes to the organization. I feel that will be a major problem for NASA (Spec E30) should Toyo not go back to the good long lasting compound.

One other point on the Spec E30 subject. I have worked on enough E30s to know that every car will not work on a spec suspension. Some will be too loose, some will not rotate and push. This, I suppose, would come under the “warts and all” theory, but if I were to build a car that would not work on the spec suspension, I would be very pissed!! Chuck

#122

[quote=“Fooshe” post=62044][quote=“Foglght” post=62041] I was never concerned with how well the car handles. You drive the car to its limits, whatever that may be. We drive slow cars.

All I am concerned with is making the tire last as long as possible, or moving to another tire that is more suited to our suspension setups.

As someone mentioned, the tire rolls under a lot. Probably because the sidewall is soft. There are plenty of tires with stiffer sidewalls, which would allow for less negative camber, and probably better transitional responses.[/quote]

Well, I can now see better what you are saying and we are actually on the same page.

I agree that there are tires out there that have better sidewalls. Now, the $64,000 question(s)…What do they cost? What are their contingency program numbers? Or do they have one at all? and can they handle the production needed to support a race program?[/quote]

Hoosier SM6 tires show $166 each.

Last time I looked, Hoosier runs 2 free tires for a win, 1 for second place. That was it. I could talk with the Hoosier guys and see if they would work something else out. I kind of doubt it, but it may be worth a shot.

I never had an issue to get 205/50/15’s on any of my SS cars.

Actually, now that I know those tires are available that cheap, I will definitely buy a set of them for next year and not have to worry about the shaving…ever.

On my old Civic Si, I used to get 9-10 heat cycles before they corded or fell off. That was also back when I ran 45 minute races and wasn’t allowed any camber changes. This would only be a band-aid to the problem though.

If at some point a few years down the line we could revisit the issue and contact some people who know their stuff with shocks and get an appropriate shock/spring for the car as a set, and get it to work with a cheap spec tire. All will be well.

#123

This tire wear issue is the best argument I’ve read for weight loss.

The weight loss discussion occured within a framework of “cheap and easy”. But what if there was a different context…like “remove weight to save tire $$” and we went at it with new aggressiveness. Thinking out of the box…remove the rear and side windows, allow plexiglass for the windscreen, that’s gotta total 100lbs right there. Another example…if I thought that weight was the key to paying less for tires, I wouldn’t buy the biggest heaviest car battery I could find.

Would a 200lb lighter car be significantly easier on tires? I have no idea.

How about this one…allow 4deg front camber and give folks “some” flexibility on how to achieve it. That would make tires last longer.

My favorite idea of all tho is to just go for a cheaper tire. There seems to be anecdotal evidence that there’s a Nitto and a Falcon that last as long as an RA1 for a fraction of the price.

#124

[quote=“cwbaader” post=62066]Fooshe…let my NASA license expire in 2010. I had raced with them since the inception of the GTS series and was in strong disagreement with the rules making process which would have caused me to render my winning SCCA car non competitive in SCCA to be competitive in GTS. BUT…that is not the point. There are gross philosophical differences between a for profit organization and a volunteer one.

In NASA its damn near impossible to get a rule changed by the racing membership. In SCCA that has changed and requested rule changes are becoming easier. They are not, however, based on how much money a certain manufacturer contributes to the organization. I feel that will be a major problem for NASA (Spec E30) should Toyo not go back to the good long lasting compound.

One other point on the Spec E30 subject. I have worked on enough E30s to know that every car will not work on a spec suspension. Some will be too loose, some will not rotate and push. This, I suppose, would come under the “warts and all” theory, but if I were to build a car that would not work on the spec suspension, I would be very pissed!! Chuck[/quote]

Hence the reason I qualified the statement with saying it was regarding what happens in CA or the pacific region.

#125

ffrc cars are 2450# w/ driver and run a 255 ra1, comparing that to our setup makes me wince.

#126

Were those Phil prices shaved?

#127

those are full tread prices

#128

[quote=“Ranger” post=62072]This tire wear issue is the best argument I’ve read for weight loss.

The weight loss discussion occured within a framework of “cheap and easy”. But what if there was a different context…like “remove weight to save tire $$” and we went at it with new aggressiveness. Thinking out of the box…remove the rear and side windows, allow plexiglass for the windscreen, that’s gotta total 100lbs right there. Another example…if I thought that weight was the key to paying less for tires, I wouldn’t buy the biggest heaviest car battery I could find.

Would a 200lb lighter car be significantly easier on tires? I have no idea.

How about this one…allow 4deg front camber and give folks “some” flexibility on how to achieve it. That would make tires last longer.

My favorite idea of all tho is to just go for a cheaper tire. There seems to be anecdotal evidence that there’s a Nitto and a Falcon that last as long as an RA1 for a fraction of the price.[/quote]

A lighter car seemingly would be better on tires, but it is not guaranteed.

I don’t think these issues can be addressed without some serious data aquisition. If you guys are unwilling to take that step, you are shooting in the dark with maybe an educated guess.

If I was going to shoot in the dark, I’d take the shot with a familiar gun. In this case it would be hoosiers. Very familiar with those. I’ve never had good experiences with Toyos. In fact, it was the scariest green tire I’ve ever run.

Just my .02

#129

I know the title of this tread is Hoosiers, but if we actually want a change to be made we have to be realistic here. and to up and switch tire makers is not realistic while NASA and Toyo are ganna be buddy buddy. Nor is a really expensive change going to happen either. All i am saying is that just because someone likes a tire better doesn’t mean its the best choice. i am not saying Hoosiers are bad as I’ve never used them, I’m just saying i don’t see the spec e30 series changing to them any time soon. Someone really needs to experiment with some wider RA1s and compare tire wear. Id do it but I’m not experienced enough to know when a tire has lost its grip.

#130

One person experimenting with a wider RA1 tells us very little.

#131

I’ve hardly ran anything but 225 width tires. New regional only class next year Spec E30 CSL. Drop 200 lbs and run unshaven 225/45/15 and see who spends the least on tires. I’ll go first.

#132

I have run 225/45/15 RA-1’s, Hoosiers, Hankooks, and Kumhos when my car was in KP. Considering that we will not be changing our suspensions or going to wider wheels (lots of expense there), I don’t know that we want to add a whole bunch of grip. That will only make the issues with our suspension and limited camber worse. We need to keep on topic of improving tire life and consistency within the limits of our current wheel sizes and suspensions.

Personally, I would be very interested in moving to the Hoosier SM6’s (considering that we don’t need to shave them, the price is almost the same). We have to have some data that we can pull from the SpecMiata folks. At least preliminarily until we can confirm on SE30’s.

Secondly, I don’t think that losing weight could hurt the issue at all, but we know how that discussion is turning out… (23 in favor and 9 against weight loss via the poll).

#133

While i can’t say your wrong, and i may be wrong in thinking this, but my motivation to go bigger on the tire is to lessen the stress of a small tire by reducing the amount of heat in the tire and lessening the chance of overheating the tire which leads to faster wear. Basically using a bigger tire meals cooler rubber essentially. Please correct me if i am wrong as id prefer to be properly educated in the art of the tire

Everything i know about suspension design which is limited is that if you use a wider tire, there will be less roll over on the tire and therefore the tire will retain its shape better, which in turn would lead to more even wear across the tire as well.

#134

Lower profile wider tires require less -camber because they deflect/roll over less.

I definitely agree with speedracer that wider tires will run cooler, and I think that the 225/45/15 will not only grip better but last longer for the money than the 205s.

I think there is a potential to switch to wider Toyo’s right now as apposed to switching to Hoosier’s when Toyo’s stops paying NASA in a few years if ever.

I’m a fan of Hoosier’s for winning grip but since it’s a spec class there is no reason for tire choice other than dollar per weekend.

I’m willing to cut down weight until my car is nothing but bare metal and full of lightening holes but the votes that count are regional directors. It’s like the electoral college the majority really doesn’t matter. What that count like?

#135

I asked this question before and didn’t get any answers -

Hoosiers don’t or won’t wear any better than a Toyo. Going to full treads is not a good option, believe me - Do you guys not like having to shave the Toyo? Or is it the inconsistency in the shaving?

#136

[quote=“philstireservice” post=62110]I asked this question before and didn’t get any answers -

Hoosiers don’t or won’t wear any better than a Toyo. Going to full treads is not a good option, believe me - Do you guys not like having to shave the Toyo? Or is it the inconsistency in the shaving?[/quote]

You’re right, Hoosier’s don’t wear any better. In fact, data we saw from running the 25 hrs. at Thunderhill would suggest the opposite using the Hoosier R6 vs Toyo RA-1 vs Nitto NT01. For consistantcy and wear, the order went Nitto, Hoosier then Toyo.

I think there is more than one issue people don’t care for with the current Toyos. For most people I talk to, they don’t like 1. Additional cost, 2. inconsistency in the shaving, 3. availablity of shaved tires and 4. the current compound is inferior to the old one.

As for tire size, I have already chimed in on that one. 225/45/15 is what I would like to see.

On chassis weight, I have potato chip like doors, roof, hood and trunk. With an empty tank, car and driver are 2,657. Yes, I am the size of a small country. However, this is why if we go to a lower weight allowence, I will be unable to make weight in my current state. As it is, all that weight is already on one side of the car, which in itself, is a disadvantage. I wish I could run balast on the right side. For the lighter guys, you can get more weight out of your cars…I have nothing more I can do to the car.

I know, I know…I’m working on my “handicap” so thanks for the suggestings that I am sure you are ready to type.

#137

I don’t see how a wider tire will run cooler. If there is more rubber available to create grip with, we will use it. We will always drive to the limit of our equipment.
Secondly, the sidewall of the 225/45/15 is (for all intensive purposes) the same as the current tire. So, more grip will only cause it to deflect slightly more.

Phil: as for shaving, I don’t like it. It adds a variable into the equation. It’s not as big a deal as the inconsistency in the tire compounds and heat cycling though.

#138

The weight loss idea didn’t work because the justification wasn’t strong. But the tire wear issue could add a lot to the justification…if we had compelling info that losing 100lbs would make noticeable difference. Personally, I don’t see how a ~2% change in weight is going to make a noticeable difference, especially since the reduced weight will just mean we corner fast so the net stress on the tires ought to be pretty similar.

Allowing more front camber seems like an easy step in the right direction.

Nitto’s are cheaper than Toyo’s, right? There’s an easy win.

And what about Falcon Azenis? They are a lot cheaper. Not as soft as a RA1, but I’ve done many Lemons hours on them and they wore a helova lot better than RA1s.

Given that wider tires are more expensive, they’re going to have a hard time saving us much money. In order to be a bargain it wouldn’t be enough for the wider tire to simply wear better, it would have to wear a whole lot better and that’s a high bar.

#139

There is no such thing as too much tire…only not enough horsepower. That said, the reason tires heat is slippage. The more you slide the car, the hotter the tires become. Increase the width of the tire, and you will mitigate slippage. Go faster? Maybe, maybe not. Camber? Don’t know a tire on the market that wants more than you are allowed. Only suspension change I would consider would be stiffer sways to limit body roll thus limiting positive camber gain on the front.

Hope you all had a Merry Christmas. Chuck

#140

Tires also heat from flexing. It is hard to say which affect (slippage or flexing) will dominate in the general case.