Howdy,
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000 Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com wrote:
> It doesn't work like it does in stock...there is no treadwear requirement!
>That
> is the whole problem. It seems pretty simple to me. A rule that is based
> around an unenforceable item like treadwear is bogus. And then have a class
> have a bogus rule - especially when it applies to THE most important thing on
>a
> racecar, tires is ridiculous.
You're missing the point I was trying to make. Probably I didn't say it
well enough.
My point is that a DOT stamp is just as unenforcable as a treadwear stamp.
What's to prevent Kumho from changing their R tire compound to a much
softer compound just before nationals, for instance? :-) What's to
prevent Hoosier from taking a slick, putting two grooves around it, and
slapping a DOT stamp on it?
If you start with the assumption that the tire companies are going to
cheat, _any_ limiting rule on tires that you can't enforce with a ruler
will get beaten.
That said, I'd sooner guess it'd be harder for Kumho to do a special run
of Ecsta 712's (or whatever they are) than their R-tires because
presumably they're selling a lot more of the "street" tires and wouldn't
want to screw up production of those. Maybe.
To me, the fact of the matter is that wherever you draw the line on tires
has to be tacitly agreed to by the tire manufacturers. The fact that ST
draws the line in a different manner than stock does NOT mean that its any
more or less enforcable.
> If you want to keep true street tires, the only 'fix' I see is to have a
> durometer in Impound. You weigh P and M cars, do a tire 'softness' test with
>a
> durometer on the whole class as they roll off...
If you honestly think that such a device would actually measure a tire's
treadwear or traction ability, then you have a lot to learn about tires.
Mark
(so do I, but I know for a fact that tire "hardness" does not always
indicate how well a tire will stick/wear.)
|