Saving FF Runoffs Races

[Phil Creighton]

I think it all depends on the rules set for CF or Vintage FF - how strictly authentic do the cars have to be

[Garey Guzman]

I think it all depends on the rules set for CF or Vintage FF - how strictly authentic do the cars have to be

My solution was to just get another car. I had the Swift for Nationals, then got a Zink for Regionals. Two FFs aren't a big deal after getting one....

While I don't personally see a need for this, I'd be more supportive if the national rules made things easiest for current owners, such as STRICTLY following the already-existing Monoposto rule set, especially including the tires. Maybe specify the Hoosier VFF tire as spec. I know every Vintage organization modifies that rule set a little bit, it seems like a sound basis for a class that can vary Region to Region in the US.

Here's the rule set:
https://app.box.com/s/jrq4tp8034mbir7g3gu7ll194bbjoy43

[Hardingfv32]

In general.... what are some of the common restrictions for CF's? Out board shocks is what I always thought was the main one. What are some others?

Brian

[problemchild]

Let us remember some of the reasons why modern FFs don't go to the Runoffs.

You have to do a minimum of 3 SCCA Majors events and score in the top 50% of your area.
Significant entry fee.
You have one session (perhaps 18 mins or 22 mins) per day.
3-day race schedule (so perhaps 2 days with no tracktime)
Overloaded paddock with many on distant grass.
Expensive lodging, perhaps with extended travel times.
Scales and rule enforcement.
etc

[John Nesbitt]

Let us remember some of the reasons why modern FFs don't go to the Runoffs.

You have to do a minimum of 3 SCCA Majors events and score in the top 50% of your area.
Significant entry fee.
You have one session (perhaps 18 mins or 22 mins) per day.
3-day race schedule (so perhaps 2 days with no tracktime)
Overloaded paddock with many on distant grass.
Expensive lodging, perhaps with extended travel times.
Scales and rule enforcement.
etc

All true.

However, those factors do not prevent SM, FP, etc. from putting up strong entry numbers. So there has to be more to it than simply Runoffs configuration.

[problemchild]

All true.

However, those factors do not prevent SM, FP, etc. from putting up strong entry numbers. So there has to be more to it than simply Runoffs configuration.

Agreed. Classes that have alternatives are more affected by those factors than classes that don't.
FRP for FF,FC,FB, FA and TA2 for GT1 ........ being examples.

My specific point was that the vintage CF racers also have alternatives that don't require 5 figures of expense and a week on the road to have a 25 minute race. You cannot just start running invited groups with more attractive formats, otherwise it is unfair to the other 400+ racers spending 6-10 days at their Runoff races. Any new groups need to be subject to the "full" Runoff experience.

I am guessing that a typical vintage CF racer would rather spend $3K to race at the Wild Hare event for a long weekend than spend $7500 for a long week at the Runoffs, just as a modern F1600 racer would rather spend $6K at the 3-day FRP event at Mid-Ohio than $10K doing the Runoffs. If I race FV or FE2, the alternatives are much different and the Runoffs may be more attractive.


Note:Please don't get hung up on my $ numbers. I just projected rough numbers including operational costs, travel, time off work, etc. Obviously, some racers would spend half of my projections, and others, much more.

[Garey Guzman]

...I am guessing that a typical vintage CF racer would rather spend $3K to race at the Wild Hare event for a long weekend than spend $7500 for a long week at the Runoffs, just as a modern F1600 racer would rather spend $6K at the 3-day FRP event at Mid-Ohio than $10K doing the Runoffs. If I race FV or FE2, the alternatives are much different and the Runoffs may be more attractive.

Note:Please don't get hung up on my $ numbers. I just projected rough numbers including operational costs, travel, time off work, etc. Obviously, some racers would spend half of my projections, and others, much more.

This is EXACTLY my reasoning. It was also a reason to get a CF in addition to the FF. The harder CF tires lasted even longer than what I could get out of the previous bias soft tires we used to use in FF. Due to other circumstances, I really haven't gotten a handle on the radials for FF but I've really enjoyed the treaded tires in Vintage!

[mmi16]

Note there are 3 FF's registered at the VIR Major this weekend.

[stonebridge20]

Note there are 3 FF's registered at the VIR Major this weekend.

1 at the summit point major last weekend.

[Rick Kirchner]

While I don't personally see a need for this, I'd be more supportive if the national rules made things easiest for current owners, such as STRICTLY following the already-existing Monoposto rule set, especially including the tires.

The problem with this Gary, is that the Monoposto "people" don't seem to have a committee to try to unify the rules set. They just do what they want without asking the rest of us, and hope to declare victory by the number of people that go along with it.

Personally, I'd like to see the VMC take on the rules, but I don't think they have the staff or processes for it.

[Garey Guzman]

The problem with this Gary, is that the Monoposto "people" don't seem to have a committee to try to unify the rules set. They just do what they want without asking the rest of us, and hope to declare victory by the number of people that go along with it.

Personally, I'd like to see the VMC take on the rules, but I don't think they have the staff or processes for it.

The link I provided shows the rules. They seem clear to me. The only modifications I have come across have been the weight and tire requirements. Some Regions allow additional models into CF but I think the list is adequate.

My experience with the Monoposto group has been straightforward. I contacted them regarding a model not listed in the FB eligible car list and my friend noted a model missing from the HFF list and both models got reviewed and included over this winter.

[Matt Clark]

As someone with no dog in the fight yet, but looking at F1600/2000, seeing CF get a Runoffs shot would be kinda cool. I could see it being one of the largest classes there, after SM & SRF. Obviously you guys have hit the main points already here, but I think you may have to work at this in steps to see how well it plays out.
Sure, the top FF guys may not want CF in their group at the Runoffs... but in a couple years, it may come down to that or not even being a Runoffs class.
It also was mentioned about the larger fields with other organizations, simply because they are not SCCA. As a Challenge Cup FV & FRP guy, I absolutely get it. But if SCCA was simply allow CF per the discussion here, they could still gain some entries. They have zero to lose. This is not a "new" class to them, it is relaxing their control to improve an existing class... like they did with USF2000/FX cars into FC.

- Existing legacy cars only, most likely best from an "approved" list like Monoposto. No building a new design to exploit the rules. However, this may drive up prices on the limited number of ideal cars a ton.
- Hoosier VFF tire. We all know that SCCA would only allow a Hoosier for this, and I think the treaded tire is a good idea to equalize cars & reduce costs.
- Be a sub group to FF, as Phil mentioned. Do a split start, but get scored separately. You simply are not getting a separate run group for a while.
- Honda engines are a tough one. I am in favor of them, but also think CF should be an "in period" class with only Fords. Plus, not allowing would help sell the effort to the nay-sayers.

[Lotus7]

As someone with no dog in the fight yet, but looking at F1600/2000, seeing CF get a Runoffs shot would be kinda cool. I could see it being one of the largest classes there, after SM & SRF. Obviously you guys have hit the main points already here, but I think you may have to work at this in steps to see how well it plays out.
Sure, the top FF guys may not want CF in their group at the Runoffs... but in a couple years, it may come down to that or not even being a Runoffs class.
It also was mentioned about the larger fields with other organizations, simply because they are not SCCA. As a Challenge Cup FV & FRP guy, I absolutely get it. But if SCCA was simply allow CF per the discussion here, they could still gain some entries. They have zero to lose. This is not a "new" class to them, it is relaxing their control to improve an existing class... like they did with USF2000/FX cars into FC.

- Existing legacy cars only, most likely best from an "approved" list like Monoposto. No building a new design to exploit the rules. However, this may drive up prices on the limited number of ideal cars a ton.
- Hoosier VFF tire. We all know that SCCA would only allow a Hoosier for this, and I think the treaded tire is a good idea to equalize cars & reduce costs.
- Be a sub group to FF, as Phil mentioned. Do a split start, but get scored separately. You simply are not getting a separate run group for a while.
- Honda engines are a tough one. I am in favor of them, but also think CF should be an "in period" class with only Fords. Plus, not allowing would help sell the effort to the nay-sayers.

It occurs to me that what you just described could be arranged as soon as this year. All it would take is for a bunch of CF guys to agree to go to the runoffs under normal entry circumstances, practice and qualify as normal, request a split start, then "crown" their own unofficial champion after the race.The only wrinkle I see would be that there would be no post-race tech for the CF's (presuming the best CF wasn't top 3 overall), so your class would be on the honor system. Perhaps after a couple of successful years of this you could sell the idea to scca to add tech and formalize the winner.

[Matt Clark]

It occurs to me that what you just described could be arranged as soon as this year. All it would take is for a bunch of CF guys to agree to go to the runoffs under normal entry circumstances, practice and qualify as normal, request a split start, then "crown" their own unofficial champion after the race.The only wrinkle I see would be that there would be no post-race tech for the CF's (presuming the best CF wasn't top 3 overall), so your class would be on the honor system. Perhaps after a couple of successful years of this you could sell the idea to scca to add tech and formalize the winner.

Exactly.
But I think it could be argued that it would only take 1 year to get "official" rules set & then have a formal National champ for 2025.
Again, it really only requires a little flexibility by SCCA & for CF guys to show up. "Vote with your feet". We can ask for anything & everything, but it means zero until people start entering events. Despite the sometimes deserved frustration for SCCA, they still want money & entries. And to get started down that path, it will take a grassroots effort at first... much like the big push in F2000 & B-spec the other year.

[Larry H]

Since the SCCA regions can't get the numbers up, let the successful clubs feed the Run-Offs.
Require the clubs to run the Run-Off tire. It should be either VFF or Toyo or ?? Whatever it is, it has to be a tire that will not drop off after 4 races/2 weekend and cost less than $1000 a set. May even last the entire Run-Off weekend.
Prioritize qualification to the Run-Offs based on # of participants in the subgroup. Have a waiting list.
Create 3 to 4 FF Run-Off subgroups based on technology with a grid size of around 50. Clubs and regions could pick one or two or whatever suites their demographics.
At the Run-Offs award top 3 medals for each sub-group and for the top 3 overall give them trophies.

[problemchild]

I may have the wrong perception, but I don't think the current vintage CF community will buy into this "official" CF National Champion process with all the associated SCCA BS (see my list post #44). How many will want to do three SCCA events (in the same division) and spend a week at the Runoffs doing 18-22 minute sessions once per day? Please excuse my ignorance if my perception is incorrect, but I think SCCA rejection is part of the vintage racing mindset.

Please do not think that SCCA will bring in new race groups and ignore/bypass all the eligibility requirements. If they would ever do that, there would be 50 groups bidding for those race spots on the Runoff schedule (including modern FFs), many of whom would have some manufacturer funding behind them. There would also be 400+ piss't off racers in the 45 other SCCA classes

[Lotus7]

I may have the wrong perception, but I don't think the current vintage CF community will buy into this "official" CF National Champion process with all the associated SCCA BS (see my list on March 30). How many will want to do three SCCA events (in the same division) and spend a week at the Runoffs doing 18-22 minute sessions once per day? Please excuse my ignorance if my perception is incorrect, but I think SCCA rejection is part of the vintage racing mindset.

I concur. My suggestion above was only to point out what was immediately possible. We all know that ideas are easy, it's the herding cats aspects that tends to derail many ideas.
Honestly, I don't know why any CF people would want scca politics versus the current alternatives they have now...

[Matt Clark]

Since the SCCA regions can't get the numbers up, let the successful clubs feed the Run-Offs.

How many will want to do three SCCA events (in the same division) and spend a week at the Runoffs doing 18-22 minute sessions once per day? Please excuse my ignorance if my perception is incorrect, but I think SCCA rejection is part of the vintage racing mindset.

I do agree with this issue as well... SCCA would again have to be flexible enough to allow outside groups to get credit towards the Runoffs. Much like they did for FRP/Pro weekends. Except for the part where they basically made you pay for weekends you did not run.
Again, I have no dog in the fight at the moment. Just throwing ideas out there, based on what I am reading & my own thoughts. Maybe I am naive & don't know enough, but it seems to be doable in my mind. If SCCA is already not getting money from the CF guys at the Regional/Divisional level because they are racing elsewhere, why not at least try to pick up the money at the Runoffs?

[E1pix]

Speaking mostly as Fanboy now…

But if this worked and helped return the Runoffs to its former glory, I think SCCA could not only heal a lot of wounds — but also show proper respect to *the class* that produced more Pro careers than any other it’s ever run since the very beginning.

It could also well be enough to get some of us on the fence to re-commit to racing, and fund greater event profitability at the same time.

I also suspect there’s a lot more like me than the Club may realize. Short-term profit is never a valid substitute for long-term passion.

[Larry H]

I’m just newbie, just been racing FF for one year, so please excuse the ignorance

Let the clubs run their rules but when they get to the runoffs, it’s strict SCCA rules. This might encourage club racers to run at least one SCCA race. Might up SCCA regional events attendance. if the tire expense was minimized, I would consider running the runoffs with subgroups. I think it’s important to include all formula fords.

I’m a big Toyo fan and think they are an excellent tire for wear versus constant performance. At least 2 weekends and no performance drop. They might be good for 3. Plus the Canada Toyo series is well attended, so they are doing well.

[CF56]

I think some may be mixing up CF with VF. CF is very simple. A GCR compliant FF with outboard suspension on at least one end of the car. Typically, with a specified hard tire like the Hoosier R60 bias ply tires. I'm sure Toyo's or other similar tires would work fine. A good CF can compete with some more modern cars. When the FRP F1600 series started I ran a lot of races with my Crossle. I was never going to win but I enjoyed beating DB-1s. When the DB-1s left the series there was no point entering the Crossle anymore. Now I have both an FF and the CF. I'm not about to enter the Runoffs with a FF in a small field but I would enter the CF with a bunch of other CF cars.

[Larry H]

Speaking a bit selfishly as I have a 93 FF, I’m suggesting let all “FF” run, included are; CF, FFN, PCF, modern, post modern etc all on Toyos. Toyos seem like a big equalizer looking at the Canada Toyo Series. Maybe it’s the tracks they race on. To encourage Runoff attendance subgroups would be needed but heck maybe a Crossle 32 could beat the modern FF or give many of them a heck of a race.

[John Nesbitt]

I hate to be the turd in the punchbowl, but all this happy talk about CF-as-Runoffs-class and allowing Runoffs qualification from other sanctioning bodies is just that – a pleasant daydream.

1. As Greg Rice (problemchild) points out, making CF a Runoffs class by fiat, with or without its own race group, is impossible.

2. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I have not sensed any groundswell of demand for CF-as-Runoffs-class. That is a far bigger lift than a few posts on Apexspeed. How many pre-DB1 cars do we ever see at the Runoffs? Or at a Super Tour?

3. There is nothing to stop CF drivers from qualifying in FF (it should be fairly easy in most Divisions), requesting a split start, and awarding their own private CF trophy.

4. I seriously doubt that SCCA would create a Runoffs path for other sanctioning bodies. There are a number of reasons. First, it is the “SCCA Runoffs”, not the “Y’all Come Runoffs”. This is SCCA’s headline event, and I doubt that they want to invite others to piggyback.

5. Second, this proposal ignores the reality of SCCA organization and governance. SCCA is not a unitary top-down institution. It is more like a confederation of Regions. Directors are (or should be) acutely tuned into the interests of their Divisions’ Regions. One of the principal business (as opposed to sporting) drivers for participation requirements is that Regions live and die on event entries. Anything that reduces entries is fatal to Regions’ survival.

(For example, consider this weekend’s HST event at VIR. The Region is assuming all the business risk, and depends utterly on entry count. Anything that reduces entries is potentially fatal to NCR finances.)

6. We talk about restoring Runoffs glory. Events evolve and change over the years. Headline class(es) change. That is the nature of things. To paraphrase Dr. Seuss, do not be sad because FF is no longer the top class. Be happy that it was.


Finally, and again I hate to rain on this parade, it is time to put to rest the notion that there is some magic bullet that will revive the glory days of FF, or open wheel in general. Those days are past; open wheel is in secular decline. The best that we can do is to manage that decline. That does not make me an SM fan; that simply acknowledges the truth that classes are born, grow and prosper for a time, then decline and are replaced by newer classes more suited to the times. It was ever thus.

Let's deal in the real.

[TimH]

heck maybe a Crossle 32 could beat the modern FF or give many of them a heck of a race.

Todd Strong in his Titan can spank nearly anything...

[DaveW]

...Finally, and again I hate to rain on this parade, it is time to put to rest the notion that there is some magic bullet that will revive the glory days of FF, or open wheel in general. Those days are past; open wheel is in secular decline. The best that we can do is to manage that decline...

I was lucky enough to race FF back in the '70's and '80's when June Sprints FF fields were 50 or more cars. At least once, there were 100+ FF's in that race. As I've said several times, those years were the heyday of formula racing.

[E1pix]

Thanks Dave, I’ve been questioning my memory that a June Sprints once *started* 99 cars… maybe in the ‘75-‘76 range?

I recall hearing Kim Dyer announcing “Green flag!” while a ton of cars were still between 13 and 14… awesome.

[DaveW]

Thanks Dave, I’ve been questioning my memory that a June Sprints once *started* 99 cars… maybe in the ‘75-‘76 range?

I recall hearing Kim Dyer announcing “Green flag!” while a ton of cars were still between 13 and 14… awesome.

Sherrie thinks it was 1975.

[Lotus7]

6. We talk about restoring Runoffs glory. Events evolve and change over the years. Headline class(es) change. That is the nature of things. To paraphrase Dr. Seuss, do not be sad because FF is no longer the top class. Be happy that it was.
Finally, and again I hate to rain on this parade, it is time to put to rest the notion that there is some magic bullet that will revive the glory days of FF, or open wheel in general. Those days are past; open wheel is in secular decline. The best that we can do is to manage that decline. That does not make me an SM fan; that simply acknowledges the truth that classes are born, grow and prosper for a time, then decline and are replaced by newer classes more suited to the times. It was ever thus.

Wonderfully expressed!
Lots of us old Formula farts may bitch about current situations, but we also sincerely agree and appreciate that we were very fortunate to have spent numerous decades enjoying what we felt to be the heyday of Formula racing.... and those thousands of SM and SRF3's aren't ruining racing, they're just expressing what's important to todays racers. Embrace or move on

[mmi16]

Wonderfully expressed!
Lots of us old Formula farts may bitch about current situations, but we also sincerely agree and appreciate that we were very fortunate to have spent numerous decades enjoying what we felt to be the heyday of Formula racing.... and those thousands of SM and SRF3's aren't ruining racing, they're just expressing what's important to todays racers. Embrace or move on

To my observations - SM and SRF3 have removed RESPECT from SCCA racing. They have introduced the NASCAR version where only rubbing or punting is racing.

Open wheels demand RESPECT.

[Lotus7]

To my observations - SM and SRF3 have removed RESPECT from SCCA racing. They have introduced the NASCAR version where only rubbing or punting is racing.

Open wheels demand RESPECT.

reiterating my open wheel background, I'd suggest you also watch current F1 and Indycar more closely before implying that only open wheel cars show respect for each other :-)

[LarryWinkelman]

To my observations - SM and SRF3 have removed RESPECT from SCCA racing. They have introduced the NASCAR version where only rubbing or punting is racing.

Open wheels demand RESPECT.

Disagree. One of the reasons why I sold my FE2 and went back to SRF3 is because there were drivers I couldn't trust not to run me off the road, interlock wheels, etc. And the consequences are obviously more severe in an OW. There is sometimes contact in SRF3 but the fast guys don't need to be dangerous to beat you. My very limited experience is SM was somewhat different, and worse.

[hdsporty1988]

Thanks Dave, I’ve been questioning my memory that a June Sprints once *started* 99 cars… maybe in the ‘75-‘76 range?

I recall hearing Kim Dyer announcing “Green flag!” while a ton of cars were still between 13 and 14… awesome.

This got me looking back at some old records. In 1995 there were 46 FF entrants for the Sprints. In 1996 there were 37.

[E1pix]

Haha, those are *new* records in my tattered book.

[Jim Nash]

To my observations - SM and SRF3 have removed RESPECT from SCCA racing. They have introduced the NASCAR version where only rubbing or punting is racing.

Open wheels demand RESPECT.

I raced open wheel for 27 years before going to SRF for the last 7 years. Respect among drivers is the same. Your observation is BS.
Jim

[sauce_racer]

To my observations - SM and SRF3 have removed RESPECT from SCCA racing. They have introduced the NASCAR version where only rubbing or punting is racing.

Open wheels demand RESPECT.

So from my experience, it really depends on the driver and not the car they're driving.
Some drivers are great and respect each other in all instances regardless of what class they are in. I've been hit by F5's ,FV's, FM's, FE's, and FF's. I've hit other drivers too, only one time was it because I punted someone.

What makes a difference is learning from it and making an effort to A) apologize and discuss what went wrong with the other driver, and B) treating other competitors the same way you want them to treat you.
I've raced in SCCA since I was 16 and started racing karts at 10. I've learned that even though I've been racing for 24 years I'm not always right.

Some of us in SCCA could learn from that if they would only be willing to admit they're not always right, and if they admit that no competitor is perfect.

Just my two cents.....

Meg Sauce-Grenier
SowDiv FF#10

[billtebbutt]

Speaking a bit selfishly as I have a 93 FF, I’m suggesting let all “FF” run, included are; CF, FFN, PCF, modern, post modern etc all on Toyos. Toyos seem like a big equalizer looking at the Canada Toyo Series. Maybe it’s the tracks they race on. To encourage Runoff attendance subgroups would be needed but heck maybe a Crossle 32 could beat the modern FF or give many of them a heck of a race.

Larry, I don't get your point. At all. Why would Brand X be a greater equalizer than Brand Y, as long as everyone runs that same tire?

And as Toyo series competitor up here, let me say this about Toyo as a company: they are an incredible sponsor, and produce what seems (to me) to be a very consistent product.

Having said that, if you think the guys at the front are running a set for four race weekends, well no they are not. Some are using a new set every weekend. A few years ago, the Steering Committee was forced to enact a "race what you qualify on" rule to try to level the playing field a little. But the old rules apply here and newer tires will always give an advantage, however small it may be.

Could a Crossle 32F driven by a great driver beat a RF90 with a good driver on Toyos at Shannonville? Maaaaaaybe, and I would sure like to see it. But the aero advantage over the older cars at say Mosport would be too much to overcome. Until it rained, then all bets are off.

cheers,
bt

[Hardingfv32]

[QUOTE=billtebbutt;663588]Why would Brand X be a greater equalizer than Brand Y, as long as everyone runs that same tire?/QUOTE]

Street tires have a much flatter Silp Angle/Cornering Force Curve than a race tire slick. This allows a big tolerance in chassis setup and makes it easier for the driver maintain near maximum cornering force.

Street tire are simply more forgiving with setup and driver inputs.

Brian

[billtebbutt]

[QUOTE=Hardingfv32;663589]

Why would Brand X be a greater equalizer than Brand Y, as long as everyone runs that same tire?/QUOTE]

Street tires have a much flatter Silp Angle/Cornering Force Curve than a race tire slick. This allows a big tolerance in chassis setup and makes it easier for the driver maintain near maximum cornering force.

Street tire are simply more forgiving with setup and driver inputs.

Brian

The fact that Dave W agrees with you (you know, that famous tire engineer dude!) makes this even more difficult to write as I suspect I am technically wrong. However, I have had many years of both slick experience and street tire experience (albeit always in FF) and my view is that slicks are far easier to drive quickly on, sooner. I am not saying "better" or "longer lasting" or "more economical", but easier.

I will quote Brian Graham here in a discussion we had only a few years back on this very point: "Slicks cover up a lot of driver's mistakes: street tires do not". At least that was close to what he said. And I agree with him (I can't believe I actually said that - maybe it is the effect of the eclipse just now????????)

bt

[DaveW]

The fact that Dave W agrees with you (you know, that famous tire engineer dude!) makes this even more difficult to write as I suspect I am technically wrong. However, I have had many years of both slick experience and street tire experience (albeit always in FF) and my view is that slicks are far easier to drive quickly on, sooner. I am not saying "better" or "longer lasting" or "more economical", but easier.

I will quote Brian Graham here in a discussion we had only a few years back on this very point: "Slicks cover up a lot of driver's mistakes: street tires do not". At least that was close to what he said. And I agree with him (I can't believe I actually said that - maybe it is the effect of the eclipse just now????????)

bt

Whether slicks or street tires are easier to drive on depends on a lot of things. These include construction, compound, car suspension setup, etc., etc., etc. For a decent race driver, slicks should indeed be easier to drive fast (i.e., near the limit) on than street tires, especially on a car intended for racing.

IMO, generally speaking, normal DOT treaded street tires have less cornering force and a more gentle breakaway characteristic than a race slick. They have to be that way because a majority of people who drive on the street have no clue what the handling limits are for their cars. So to save the average (read unskilled) drivers' butts, street tires have to have very benign handling characteristics to minimize chances of losing control.

For tires used in most OE applications, the tire characteristics are specified and tested by the manufacturers to make their cars as benign handling as possible.

[Larry H]

Is the Toyo Proxis R888 tire really a DOT/street tire? It looks like race/slick tire with a few grooves.