May FasTrack

General discussions about Solo

Moderator: Mike Simanyi

User avatar
John Stimson
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 124

Re: May FasTrack

Post by John Stimson »

Nothing, because durometer correlates only loosely with wear. And only loosely with performance, too. Some people use durometer measurements to determine when a particular tire has gotten old, because they took a measurement when it was new. That's what it's good for.
Gary Thomason
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Car#: 0

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Gary Thomason »

Mako Koiwai wrote:How hard would it be for the SCCA to do their own durometer testing. Compare A6's/710's to the ST tires. The ST tires have to be X harder then R's
Mako, Durometer readings would not be a good way to do this for many reasons. Everything else being equal, there is a definite correlation between durometer and things like wear and grip, but everything is rarely equal. There are just too many other factors that go into making a tire that have at least as much effect on both of those measures of performance to rely on even a properly measured and compared durometer reading to be of much use when comparing brands. I'm sure you are aware that in road racing qualifying tires tend to be softer and wear faster than the tires used in the race (depending on the series), but in that case everything is pretty close to being equal - same manufacturer and construction, same air pressure, same size, etc. OTOH, trying to compare 2 tires made by different companies or even different models from the same maker is not anything like that.

The other huge problem is like almost any test measurement, the conditions the test is conducted under have a very large effect on the results. Even a few degrees difference in temperature can and will change a durometer reading a great deal, and that means a temperature controlled room with tires that have been sitting in it for many hours to do it right. Plus, barely used tires and new, never run tires will not measure the same in many cases. Even the technique used when taking the measurement is crucial to get repeatable results - from experience I can assure you that you and I are unlikely to get the same results on the same tire when both of us are standing right over it watching each other, let alone Sam in Kansas and Joe in Florida. Even the gauges themselves are notoriously inaccurate. Not a viable option, and as I said, while there is a correlation, it is by no means even close to absolute. Steve is right, durometer alone proves very little.

I'm a little mystified by the overreaction to the Fastrack on several forums - all they are asking for is feedback....
GT
User avatar
John Fendel
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 23
Location: Lake Forest, CA

Re: May FasTrack

Post by John Fendel »

Craig said:
This proposal is so left field to myself and my competitors, we don't understand why it is being raised?
I believe what SCCA is looking for is how much resistance there is to changing the wear rating from the current 140 to 200. SCCA may be the only organization using the 140 rating. I think the Goodguys program is using 180 and the American Muscle Car group is using 200. They both have a small autocross at their events. SCCA is probably thinking that if we change the wear rating to 200, we might be able to attract some of the competitors from the other programs to come and run with us. This probably has nothing to do with which tire manufacturers currently have competitive street tires, but about making our street tire index compatible with what the other organizations use and attracting new competitors from those programs.
#ALSaware, GRC Performance, Red Line Oil
User avatar
Craig Naylor
Posts: 1973
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 80
Location: Long Beach

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Craig Naylor »

Eric Clements wrote:Looks like the new guy has it figured out! When the SEB asks for member input that's what they want.
Yes I think this proposal is a good idea or no it's not. Maybe add a little bit as to why you think one way or the other. From my time on committees I'd say Craig letter is going to go into the "why'd he bother writing such a long letter and never tell us if he likes or dislikes the proposal?" category.

I spent an hour with two other STS competitors on the phone the night before last. Each of us had a different idea as to why the proposal was being made. None of them correlated with the other, and our answer(s) would have no bearing on each others concern as to why the change is being proposed.

Eric & John, my point was, the proposal gave no basis for what they were trying to solve. I highly doubt they were proposing a change for change(s) sake. Changes are typically to solve a past, or prevent a future, issue. Input would depend on the reason for the change. Being open about their reason for the proposal would allow it to be addressed. As it is it's open to our imagination.

Is it for: performance on course, purchase cost, manufacture contingency's to competitors, manufactures funding of contingencies via SCCA etc, what other organizations use. Each and everyone of those could bring a different answer as to whether I like it or not respectfully: exclusion list if factual cheater (Toyo) by some measurable parameter, no change if conjecture; no; yes; no; and who cares!

Mako, I addressed the Toyo, because it's the tire rumored to be a cheater in a specific size (maybe more than one). I draw no conclusions one way or the other. Rumors are just that, I only care if it can be factually backed up. If it's fact, the SEB has a way to address it via a exclusion list, if not (can't)... who cares what people claim. I did not address the Dunlop that you mentioned, as it would be unaffected by the proposal, it has a 200TW rating.
David Barrish
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 58
Location: Lake Arrowhead

Re: May FasTrack

Post by David Barrish »

Has the "size" of the tire's available been posted yet. Is the SCCA going to require the production for the 13" and 14" inch rims in addition to the larger sizes?

Yes, a shameless request for the older cars.
User avatar
Mike Simanyi
Former Club Chair
Posts: 2460
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: No$
Car#: 6

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Mike Simanyi »

We - the SEB - spent a huge amount of time on this subject over the past half year, most recently presenting an array of questions to the manufacturers' reps. We specifically asked about durometer as a possible metric vs UTQG (and vs anything else, for that matter) and the answer on durometer was it's a useless measure for these purposes. The interesting comment about that was that static durometer varies considerably from the value at temp and load, and that relationship is *not* linearly correlated.

A number of the most outspoken comments on the various forums seem to be theorizing this is how we are trying to deal with the 195 Toyo. That's not the case. It is certainly a factor for the health of the RT experiment, but John's comments are closer to the money in my opinion.

Furthermore the new generation of tires that are going to be released are expected to eclipse - by a good margin - the performance of the current 140 tires. When that happens those who wish to remain competitive will naturally move to those tires.

Since none of us are here to lose, people *will* be running those tires. They'll have better performance and longer life, at least until one of the manufacturers incorporates those new technologies into a shorter wearing tire, at which point that will be the must-have tire and we'll begin the cycle again.

One of the arguments people like to present on the pro-140 side is "But what will happen when someone shows up with 140 tires from the factory!?!" The same thing that happens if they show up with 80 UTQG tires: they'll run them until they're worn out and replace them with a tire appropriate for the prep level, be it Stock, RT or Street Touring. Yes, Stock is a prep level. And yes, they should expect to be protested locally if they start winning their class...

These are some of the issues in front of the subject. There are certainly others. But there is neither a conspiracy against the Toyo nor the Civic, and there certainly isn't any merit to the assertions that it's due to tire companies throwing around bribes. That's just nutty that anyone would even present it in their arguments.

Write in. Let us know your opinions - briefly please, if you really expect us to read all of what you write. If you think longer tire life, the same or better performance shortly, and cross-pollination with people set up for other sanctioning bodies is healthiest for the Solo program, let us know. If you disagree, tell us that too.

Mike
Last edited by Mike Simanyi on Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Mike Simanyi
Former Club Chair
Posts: 2460
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: No$
Car#: 6

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Mike Simanyi »

David, the current standards don't require specific rim sizes in the mix, either at the small end or the big end.

Please write in with that as a separate matter if you believe the SEB should consider the idea.

Mike
User avatar
Mako Koiwai
Posts: 6490
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:25 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 34
Location: South Pasadena, CA
Contact:

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Mako Koiwai »

Silly SEB even suggesting a Durometer test! :gpower:

Meanwhile we'll all use the proven fingernail test. :D

Craig ... I know what the different tire wear numbers are, I was just saying that the Toyo isn't necessarily the best tire for all ST cars just because it's nice and soft.

WE self regulated by buying the 205 R1R instead of the 195. :P :oops: :roll: :cry: (It was suppose to be a compromise track rain tire ... I can testify after the last event, when the Vette developed a problem, that a worn down 205 has little grip on a Miata!)

Vis a vis street tires on a high horse power ST car like our Z06, you should ask Nick what he thinks of our XS combination, 315/18 and 335/17's. He's driven it a number of times and has always been impressed. As Henry said, he's "giddy" on how decent it is. Don't look at my times ... Nick put some decent (but dirty) times down in the Jan (Feb?) practice with it. Of course Steve E and Marshall will disagree. 8-)
User avatar
Sebastian Rios
King of Fastrack!
Posts: 1656
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 397
Location: Out to lunch

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Sebastian Rios »

Image
I love this image, I've been posting around the web. Artwork by Nicole
User avatar
Mike Simanyi
Former Club Chair
Posts: 2460
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: No$
Car#: 6

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Mike Simanyi »

Is that the Ekstrandmobile? :lol:
User avatar
Sebastian Rios
King of Fastrack!
Posts: 1656
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 397
Location: Out to lunch

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Sebastian Rios »

Mike Simanyi wrote:Write in. Let us know your opinions - briefly please, if you really expect us to read all of what you write. If you think longer tire life, the same or better performance shortly, and cross-pollination with people set up for other sanctioning bodies is healthiest for the Solo program, let us know. If you disagree, tell us that too.

Mike
I don't know Mike, that statement sounds an awful lot like a campaign.
User avatar
Kurt Rahn
Posts: 3923
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:29 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 88
Location: Pasadena

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Kurt Rahn »

John Stimson wrote:*moot
...and "their/there/they're." Pet peeves.
==============
Oversteer is better than understeer because you don't see the tree you're hitting.
User avatar
Davin Swanson
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 8:09 pm
Club: CASOC
Car#: 979

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Davin Swanson »

Mike Simanyi wrote: Write in. Let us know your opinions - briefly please, if you really expect us to read all of what you write. If you think longer tire life, the same or better performance shortly, and cross-pollination with people set up for other sanctioning bodies is healthiest for the Solo program, let us know. If you disagree, tell us that too.
Mike, thanks for providing some context. I was a little surprised that the FasTrack announcement had no reasoning or context, just a statement that a shift to 200 was being considered. Then again, I'm a newb and I don't know how rule change inputs are normally handled... I figured that perhaps no context is normally given on purpose so as not to color the tone of the input, and allow for some "outside the box" thinking.

That said, considering the huge threads on multiple forums about this full of conspiracy theories (including one such post by me in this thread :o ) and the fact that this is a very emotional, heated issue, some context would likely improve the quality of replies that you'll get. I haven't sent in feedback yet, but probably will now that there's a little more context.

The information about new tires is very interesting, and lines up with what Andy Hollis has been writing about for the past couple of months.
User avatar
Marshall Grice
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 1617
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 11

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Marshall Grice »

Mike Simanyi wrote:We - the SEB - spent a huge amount of time on this subject over the past half year...{snip}
apparently you guys ran out of time before writing the fastrack request as it wouldn't take more than about 15 seconds to write that. There's got to be some sort of justification for the proposal, but as written it just seems to be SEB pot stirring. Even now you won't actually say why the proposal went out even though you're dropping a lot of hints and making people read between the lines. Seems shady to me.

oh and yeah, carbon nanotubes are the shiz apparently. if what I read turns out to be true the treadwear index might as well just get thrown out the window because you should be able to add carbon nanotubes to an A6 and get huge treadwear ratings out of them.
User avatar
Mako Koiwai
Posts: 6490
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:25 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 34
Location: South Pasadena, CA
Contact:

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Mako Koiwai »

See Jason's SPORTS CAR article on Road Tires: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6455" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Mike Simanyi
Former Club Chair
Posts: 2460
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: No$
Car#: 6

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Mike Simanyi »

Marshall Grice wrote:
Mike Simanyi wrote:We - the SEB - spent a huge amount of time on this subject over the past half year...{snip}
apparently you guys ran out of time before writing the fastrack request as it wouldn't take more than about 15 seconds to write that.
It wouldn't matter what we wrote - the Black Helicopter Conspiracy Theorists would just run away with it anyway.

Ultimately, the SEB is serving as a managing board for the "business" that is Solo. We're trying to run the business successfully so it continues stronger over the next 10 years than it has over the past 10. Whatever anyone thinks, the BoD is overseeing us and making sure we're consistent with SCCA and Solo philosophy. We don't just whip stuff out of our butts, but anything presented can be assaulted from every side.

I learned quite some time ago - in my current gig in Auto Finance - that the moment you let a dealer know the specific reasons for a turndown, they will sequentially address each individual item and "sell" the finance company on buying the deal as structured. When the finance company does that, they typically end up with a loss sooner or later down the line. The underwriting process takes into consideration dozens of data points, coming to a single conclusion. You can't change the credit score by explaining away all the individual faults and getting to the "buy it now" conclusion. It's best just to tell the dealer "do (a), (b) or (c) and we can reevaluate for you."

In much the same way, we - the SEB - doesn't disclose all the points being considered when certain subjects are addressed. This was one of those. And despite what I explained earlier, there are more issues on the table than that, and those issues are going to remain in the domain of the SEB. I'm not trying to be disruptive with that; we have a fiduciary responsibility to the SCCA to maintain privacy, and I probably shouldn't have even commented with as much info as I did. You'll know I blew it if you see a blurb in the next Fastrack that we're now accepting applications to the SEB and thanking me for my service.

In any case, a number of people will support the proposals. A number won't. We want to hear from our members. Write in, please. If you think you have a brief bit of support that strengthens your opinion, please say "I do / don't agree with proposal X / Y / Z. In addition, here's what might be a unique perspective for you to consider..."

Mike
User avatar
Mike Simanyi
Former Club Chair
Posts: 2460
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: No$
Car#: 6

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Mike Simanyi »

Marshall Grice wrote:
oh and yeah, carbon nanotubes are the shiz apparently.
Mmmmmm... carbon nanotubes. With bacon!
User avatar
Marshall Grice
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 1617
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 11

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Marshall Grice »

Mike Simanyi wrote: We don't just whip stuff out of our butts, but anything presented can be assaulted from every side.

In any case, a number of people will support the proposals. A number won't. We want to hear from our members. Write in, please. If you think you have a brief bit of support that strengthens your opinion, please say "I do / don't agree with proposal X / Y / Z. In addition, here's what might be a unique perspective for you to consider..."

Mike
well currently there is *no* side to this proposal so how is one to even form an opinion. I'm not going to waste my time free form brainstorming trying to figure out all the various perspectives to evaluate this decision by. I'd give the SEB and F in debate 101.

maybe next month you could solicit comments on how long a piece of string is.

If it's a business decision as you claim, then just do it. you don't put the scca insurance underwriter out for membership feedback, why would this be any different.
User avatar
Rick Brown
Current Solo Director
Posts: 5115
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:25 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 240
Location: Lake Elsinore, CA

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Rick Brown »

Image
Since light is faster than sound...many people look bright until they speak...
User avatar
Steve Ekstrand
Solo Safety Steward
Posts: 7482
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 15
Location: This space left intentionally blank
Contact:

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Steve Ekstrand »

Mike Simanyi wrote:Is that the Ekstrandmobile? :lol:
Its my cousin Sergei in the old country.
Dr. Conemangler
aka The Malefic One
2015 Wildcat Honda F600
User avatar
Steve Ekstrand
Solo Safety Steward
Posts: 7482
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 15
Location: This space left intentionally blank
Contact:

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Steve Ekstrand »

I can't see tire makers wanting to make UHP or Race Compound tires that last a very very long time.

Tire companies prefer things like Runflats that cost $400+ and separate sidewall belts at the first sign of an emerging pothole.
Dr. Conemangler
aka The Malefic One
2015 Wildcat Honda F600
User avatar
Steve Ekstrand
Solo Safety Steward
Posts: 7482
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 15
Location: This space left intentionally blank
Contact:

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Steve Ekstrand »

Similar to Marshall's sentiments. If the membership didn't cry out for it, my response is why change? But if there is something the SEB knows that's going to hit us, give us the dilemma to ponder and opine on.
Dr. Conemangler
aka The Malefic One
2015 Wildcat Honda F600
User avatar
Kurt Rahn
Posts: 3923
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:29 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 88
Location: Pasadena

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Kurt Rahn »

Steve Ekstrand wrote:
Mike Simanyi wrote:Is that the Ekstrandmobile? :lol:
Its my cousin Sergei in the old country.
Don't you mean Sven?
==============
Oversteer is better than understeer because you don't see the tree you're hitting.
User avatar
John Stimson
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 124

Re: May FasTrack

Post by John Stimson »

If the most (or only) convincing reason for making the change is a new development that most people aren't aware of, it doesn't seem really productive to ask the membership at large whether to make the change without presenting the reason it's being suggested. I sort of feel that if you can't tell the membership why you want to make a change, then you're being way too proactive and you should probably wait to do it until you are able to explain the reasons to the members. Equipment manufacturers sometimes lie to the SEB, in my experience.
User avatar
Craig Naylor
Posts: 1973
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 80
Location: Long Beach

Re: May FasTrack

Post by Craig Naylor »

Marshall Grice wrote:well currently there is *no* side to this proposal so how is one to even form an opinion. I'm not going to waste my time free form brainstorming trying to figure out all the various perspectives to evaluate this decision by.
This is exactly what I attempted to do... address all the various perspectives, and got reamed above for it. But with such an open question, and no "side" what else can one do. Else-wise I might be writing in on a matter that's not what the SEB is reviewing.
Marshall Grice wrote:If it's a business decision as you claim, then just do it.
This was one of my responses.

Grump mode on... I think I hit each of Mikes items, in my NOT brief response. Unfortunately it appears as a competitor were not to see the multiple possibilities the SEB does, were only to be simple minded as address one possible problem and / or agreement. I'll remember that in the future, probably by just not responding, it's what I usually do anyway.

Back on Marshall's point though, if the membership can't be trusted to address the potential real issue that needs to remain confidential (and I do understand the possibility such could exist), how can we, or even should we, be asked to comment in the first place.

In all seriousness though Mike, you mentioned wanting to change the future via your service. The best way to do it for some of us, is removing the veil of the "Secret" vs. "Sports" Car Club of America. Thank you Mike for sharing what you did share. If you're punished for such, maybe change isn't really wanted by ones who would do such, and therefore it's not worth your considerable time either.
Post Reply