> But why is it that only the
> classes you have "invented" or "co-invented" are ok in your book.
That has nothing to do with this discussion. This is not a case of me
"liking" or "disliking" a concept or whatever. This is good old fashioned
science, engineering, and law.
(If you see somebody with a flat tire, getting ready to go out on course,
do you tell him about it, or do you let him find out on his own?)
> There is NOTHING wrong with STS NOW.
You're ignoring history Alan. The tire manufacturers HAVE played games with
tire construction in the past. The are almost certain to do so again in the
future.
> If in the future tire manufacturers
> start playing then the SEB will do something.
What will they do?
For that matter, how can someone prove to the SEB that there is a problem?
Let's say that Brand X goes out and builds a tire, stamped as 200
treadwear, that is signifigantly faster than the current crop of tires.
Let's say you're on a Brand Y tire, in a similar car. The Brand Y tire is a
"real" 200 treadwear tire, in so far that it has the wear characteristics
that the STS creators envisioned as representing a "street" tire.
Let's also assume that Brand X does not manufacture a current known R tire,
so we're not faced with the simplest schenario of an existing R tire cast
in a street tire mold.
How can you, as a competitor on Brand Y tires, defend yourself from the
Brand X tire?
A protest will result in the following action by the event protest
comittee:
a) Is the treadwear rating on the sidewall greater than that
specified in the STS rules?
b) Is the tire on any STS tire exclusion list?
If the tire passes those two test, then it's legal. You have no recourse
there.
So let's say then that you pick up a set of these tires, try them out, and
go a lot faster. Let's also say that you're a crusader for the integrity of
the STS concept, and you're determined to prove that the Brand X tire is
not what it is supposed to be. It's an "80" tire stamped as a "200".
So you go out and buy a couple of sets of other brand's 200 treadwear
tires, and test them to see how they compare to each other. And lets say
that the Brand X tires test out as softer, they have less tread depth, and
they last about 1/3rd as long on your mechanical tire wear simulation
machine. Armed with this data, you go to the SEB.
Problem. The DOT definition of treadwear rating (paraphrased) is "an
indication of average expected tire life as compared to a ***manufacturer
defined*** standard tire (which need not physically exist)"
The kicker here is that there is no independant standard of what represents
a unit of treadwear. Not only that, but the reference treadwear is defined
on a per-manufacturer basis. Each manufacturer defines, in house, what it
thinks a "100 treadwear" tire is, and then stamps its tires accordingly.
But independant of racing, what "100 treadwear" actually defines is
different from manufacturer to manufacturer.
For that matter, I'm not sure if there is a requirement for the "standard
tire" to be uniform from tire model to tire model within a manufacturer's
product line.
Presented with a soft, fast wearing 200 treadwear tire, the SEB cannot find
the tire "illegal" per sae, because the "standard tire" as defined by Brand
X may well be half again as soft and wear-resistant as the tire in question
- so it really "is" a 200 treadwear tire from a Brand X perspective, that
just so happens to be 1/3 as hard as your "real" Brand Y 200 treadwear
tires.
As a competitor, the best you can hope for is to put the Brand X tire on
the exclusion list. But for that to happen, you're going to need
overwhelming, compelling evidence that cars on the Brand X tire have an
advantage, and you're going to have to show that it's the TIRES, not the
cars or the skills of the competitors (the best drivers naturally gravitate
to the best equipment) that is responsible for the disparity in times.
In short, it's going to take a lot of time and research - at least one full
season, more likely two or three - before you'll be able to make your case.
And by that time, the damage will be done.
Incidently, I don't think that the greatest danger is the "sudden death"
schenario where a manufacturer of an existing R tire simply makes a
production run in their street tire molds. I think the more likely
schenario is two or three manufacturers continually improving their tires
by small increments, until, over time, you wind up with the top tires being
of a performance level where you MUST have one of the top tires to be
competitive, where they are fairly short-lived, and probably (due to
development expenses) more expensive than the run-of-the-mill tires. It
won't be a sudden jump, it'll be a smooth (if rapid) progression.
When that happens, you're left with de facto R compounds. They may not work
as well as the latest generation of "real" R compounds, they may last a
little longer. But you'll be swapping wheels at events and you'll be buying
at least one set of new tires a year - which defeats the purpose, in the
end.
There is evidence that this has already started.
STS is an illustration if the law of unintended consequences. The rationale
behind requiring street tires in the first place was to help cash-strapped
newbies have a place to play without requiring an investment in additional
wheels and multiple sets of competition tires. Instead of attracting the
newbies, STS instead attracted, as the majority and the core, existing
competitors who for a variety of perfectly valid reasons, didn't want to
have to deal with R compound tires.
Note that I don't have a single problem with that! It's not something that
appeals to me, but there's nothing offensive about the concept. And as far
as the "dilution" argument goes, I'm of the opinion that if an existing
competitor changes classes, then the new class provides him with something
that makes the new class more attractive and fun for him, and so is a net
win - so I have no problem at all with the fact that STS is not quite the
home of the newbie that was first projected. (SM has similar issues as
well)
But the problem is that STS is all about the tires, but the rules that
enforce the tire issue are, as written, unenforcable. The foundation is
rooted in sand. And furthermore, there is evidence that the area that the
castle is built on is prone to earthquakes.
Left unattended, the castle WILL fall down.
The question is, what do the STS folks intend to do about it?
DG
****************************************************************************
The information contained in this transmission, which may be
confidential and proprietary, is only for the intended recipients.
Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this
transmission in error, please notify me immediately by telephone
or electronic mail and confirm that you deleted this transmission
and the reply from your electronic mail system.
****************************************************************************
/// autox@autox.team.net mailing list
///
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe autox
///
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|