Depends on the weather. In the wet Kumhos are king.
--Pat K
cobracrosser@jps.net wrote:
> Don, and everyone else thanks so much for the information on tires!!!
>
> I think I will probably go with the Kumhos. I will need to go with 16 inch
> rims $$$ to get a large enough tire for my car. The only option I have with
> 15 inch rims are hoosiers. But I think It would be smart for the long run.
>
> Out of curiosity, what would you guess the time difference of the Kuhmos and
> the Hoosiers would be all else being equal with a good driver on a 60 second
> course?
>
> Again thanks for all the responses. I hope this will be a fun year :-).
>
> David Borden
>
> >Dave,
> >
> >You wrote:
> >
> >>I am researching the purchase of tires and wheels. I am hoping I can get
> some
> >>advice on the type of DOT approved autocross tire we should buy for the
>season.
>
> >>
> >>
> >>The car is a FFR Cobra Replica, 2200 lbs with about 400rwhp.
> >>
> >>Between the new G Force R-1's, Kuhmo's and Hoosiers or others, what would
> you
> >>recommend?
> >
> >KUMHO'S!
> >
> >We, Steve Hobaugh and Myself, ran 2+ sets of Kumho's (274/40/17 and
> >315/35/17) on the SS Corvette in '99.. After the first couple of events,
> >when they are slow until heat cycled, they get better and better until, at
>
> >about 2/3 worn, they are at their best. From there till we've corded them
> >they have worked well with only slight "fall-off" near the end. On a mixture
>
> >of mostly asphalt but some cement surfaces, we also had very good life. On
>
> >the two complete sets we put on 4400 and 5100 seconds of run time, or 88 and
>
> >102, respectively, 50-second runs. The third set are heading for about the
>
> >same life. They also work well in the rain with close to full tread. For
> >comparison, the previous tire wear experience I had on my '85 Corvette was
>
> >with an number of sets of both 275/45/16 Hoosier Autocrossers (bias ply) and
>
> >255/50/16 BFG 230's. Both of those tires yielded between 2400 to 2800
> >seconds of run time which included switching the Hoosier's inside-outside
> >half way through their life.
> >
> >Later in the '99 year, we ran a set of Hoosier, autocross compound, radials.
>
> >After getting acclimated to the different responses of the Hoosier's (you
> >can drive them "harder", compared with the Kumho's) we felt they were
> >definitely the faster tire, probably on all surfaces in the warm summer.
> >Also, from having previously run Hoosier radials on the '85, they are not
> >good in the rain. Additionally, probably because they don't have a steel
> >belt, I'm told they won't develop enough heat on cold/overcast days to work
>
> >as well as the Kumho's. However, we havn't yet run them, under those
> >conditions, to find out for ourselves. Surprisingly, to us, at about half
> >way through the shallower tread on the Hoosier's, it looks like they will
> >last as long as the Kumho's. I say surprisingly, because from the experience
>
> >with having run several sets of previous generation Hoosier radials on the
>
> >'85 several years ago, they didn't yield any where near the wear-life the
> >'99 tires are producing.
> >
> >I don't have any personal experience with the BFG G-Force. But, from
> >anecdotal information, I've heard, that for many drivers, they are hard to
>
> >drive on the "fast-edge". I've also heard some complaints about wear rates
>
> >compared with the BFG 230's. A key indicator of tire preference is to look
>
> >at the tire brands run at the Topeka Nationals. According to entry lists, in
>
> >'98 the BFG (probably mostly 230's with possibly some "saved" 226's) were
> >the dominant tire brand in stock and SP classes (on 58% of all the entrys,
>
> >73% stock, 24% SP). In '99, Kumho (38% total,39% stock,35% SP) and Hoosier
>
> >(33%, 24% stock, 52% SP) both were on more cars than BFG (27%, 35% stock,
> >11% SP). BTW, the numbers on Hoosier's are somewhat mis-leading since, many
>
> >of the Hoosier's on SP cars are bias-ply autocrossers, not radials. Also, my
>
> >guess is that some of the BFG's in '99 were not G-Force', but previous
> >year's 230's. Interestingly, for some reason, the majority of good '99 BFG
>
> >performances were on front-wheel-drive cars, and only a few of the larger
> >and rear-wheel-drive cars ran BFG's. For the most extreem examples: In the
>
> >combined DS/ES/GS classes BFG's were on 92% of entrys in '98 and still on
> >60% in '99. However, in the '98 class BS, BFG's were on 87% of cars and, in
>
> >'99, only 10% were on BFG's, with 55% 0n Hoosier radials..
> >
> >The "bottom line, as the accountants say, is cost. The Kumho's are
> >considerably less expensive than either the Hoosier's or BFG's. However,
> >since Kumho is in the process of bringing out a "new" tire this year, supply
>
> >of available "old" and "new" replacement tires may be tighter than in the
>
> >past.
> >
> >For some of us the real BOTTOM LINE is which are faster. For that reason,
> >we're going with Hoosier's along with a couple different rain sets on the
> >side.
> >
> > Don
> >
> >
|