Hoosier Spec Tire for FV

[Peter Olivola]

I rather suspect you'd want to base the results of the next presidential election on a poll run on the website of your choice. That's the problem with internet polls. They're self selecting. A red flag in statistical terms.

Hmmm....so we get chastised for using the term majority, when a decent sample size was used to reach a comfortable confidence level, yet you say "Everyone" keeps talking about....

Everyone: every person

Then you go to say what the majority of the FV community wants...

[Daryl DeArman]

I rather suspect you'd want to base the results of the next presidential election on a poll run on the website of your choice. That's the problem with internet polls. They're self selecting. A red flag in statistical terms.

Naaa, just making sure illegal aliens and dead people aren't voting would be a good start.

[Hardingfv32]

Rocket science is not required to speculate what was in the FF RFP. We have all ready discussed the reasons for most of the points:

1) A tire with greater durablity and less cost with comparable performance to the current open spec slicks.

More detail is not required as cost will prevent anyone from getting to far off the reservation. No need to specify construction (bias or radial) as FF has the wheel size to fit either. That will not be the case with FV. If more than one manufacture had responded to the FF RFP the Board would have to decide which tire best met the requirements.

2) Provide trackside service.

3) Enter into a spec tire contract with SCCA.

Discloser of the FF RFP adds nothing to our discussion of a FV spec tire. The structure of the RFP is not up for debate with the membership. SCCA has been issuing spec tire RFPs for a number of years. They know what is require in legal terms. They certainly will not response to online babble on this subject.

Brian

[problemchild]

Yes, Greg, you are a bully. .

Calling people names when their logic cannot be contested really is not productive.

I believe that the formula car communities have been controlled by a vary small group of powerful people for many years, and that is continuing today. I spent 30 years trying to play by the stupid rules. If I can help the community stand up to the bullies, and the bullies now call me a bully, then I will take that as a complement. So, Thank you.

I want to find solutions that help the most number of SCCA racers race and enjoy themselves. I have proposed a compromise. The bullies cannot even accept to let people run their choice at the back of the pack That is sad!

[Peter Olivola]

Your "logic" fails repeatedly to consider that a process exists to move in the direction you want. You have chosen to ignore that process and instead berate anyone who disagrees with you or suggests you follow the process. That process includes the ability to get regions to adopt your compromise. The bullying comes when you refuse to even consider using the mechanisms available to create a member driven approach to achieving your goal and insist that it be imposed from the top down. You have fabricated a justification for that approach by claiming it's the way the club operates. No, Greg, the club is member driven. It's just that the membership hasn't been convinced of the validity of your position and you can't accept that you have more work to do, so you go on internet rants, only proving the point about your bullying approach.

Calling people names when their logic cannot be contested really is not productive.

I believe that the formula car communities have been controlled by a vary small group of powerful people for many years, and that is continuing today. I spent 30 years trying to play by the stupid rules. If I can help the community stand up to the bullies, and the bullies now call me a bully, then I will take that as a complement. So, Thank you.

I want to find solutions that help the most number of SCCA racers race and enjoy themselves. I have proposed a compromise. The bullies cannot even accept to let people run their choice at the back of the pack That is sad!

[problemchild]

Your "logic" fails repeatedly to consider that a process exists to move in the direction you want. You have chosen to ignore that process .

I wrote a letter suggesting a compromise that will avoid a 3 year civil war and disenfranchise a huge portion of the customer base. I repeatedly ask people to write letters to support my letter. I challenge people to dispute my logic. They call me names. They say I am not following the process. I wish everybody was just interested in finding solutions instead of playing the ETPF games.

How many times are people going to claim that two Apexspeed polls with 55% respondents favoring DOT options are invalid or irrelevant? It just removes any credibility to any other logic provided by that source.

[gbmetcalf]

Peter:
Are you a stake holder in the FV community? I'm sorry but not sure of your end game. I know you want the established procedure to be followed but other than that, I have not seen your name here before.
Just trying to see who the players here are.

G.

[Peter Olivola]

You aren't following the process. You've selectively chosen only one option. There are options that provide a means to getting where you want to be. They require more than writing letters and making FUD posts on the internet. That the world isn't groveling at your feet to receive the wisdom you wish to bestow is reminiscent of the Who's Tommy, not rejected logic.

Two ApexSpeed polls or 20 are just as statistically invalid. Self selection is the plague of internet polls and the reason they're not considered valid.

I wrote a letter suggesting a compromise that will avoid a 3 year civil war and disenfranchise a huge portion of the customer base. I repeatedly ask people to write letters to support my letter. I challenge people to dispute my logic. They call me names. They say I am not following the process. I wish everybody was just interested in finding solutions instead of playing the ETPF games.

How many times are people going to claim that two Apexspeed polls with 55% respondents favoring DOT options are invalid or irrelevant? It just removes any credibility to any other logic provided by that source.

[Peter Olivola]

I want to see the FV community get the rules it wants through the processes available, not because one faction or another can shout the loudest.

Peter:
Are you a stake holder in the FV community? I'm sorry but not sure of your end game. I know you want the established procedure to be followed but other than that, I have not seen your name here before.
Just trying to see who the players here are.

G.

[Rolling Stone]

You aren't following the process. You've selectively chosen only one option. There are options that provide a means to getting where you want to be. They require more than writing letters and making FUD posts on the internet. That the world isn't groveling at your feet to receive the wisdom you wish to bestow is reminiscent of the Who's Tommy, not rejected logic.

Two ApexSpeed polls or 20 are just as statistically invalid. Self selection is the plague of internet polls and the reason they're not considered valid.

I fail to see what a Pinball Wizard has to do with itexcept he drove from Arcade to Arcade on RADIAL Tires..Dunlops if I remember.

[gbmetcalf]

I want to see the FV community get the rules it wants through the processes available, not because one faction or another can shout the loudest.

Peter:
You really didn't answer my question. I take it that you are a concerned bystander who wants to help the down trodden? I commend you sir. Both sides of this topic have used quite heavy handed tactics to try to convince (your bully) the other side to give up. I honestly have grown tired of non-FV drivers interjecting their opinions, but post away it is your right to muddy up this discussion. Which by the way is muddy enough.

G.

If you do what you've always done....... you get what you've always gotten.

[Peter Olivola]

I answered your question before you asked it: http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=579

And I grow tired of partisans on any side of issues who are so burried in self interest they have built a wall around themselves and blocked off all other approaches to problem solving. Platitudes included.

Peter:
You really didn't answer my question. I take it that you are a concerned bystander who wants to help the down trodden? I commend you sir. Both sides of this topic have used quite heavy handed tactics to try to convince (your bully) the other side to give up. I honestly have grown tired of non-FV drivers interjecting their opinions, but post away it is your right to muddy up this discussion. Which by the way is muddy enough.

G.

If you do what you've always done....... you get what you've always gotten.

[gbmetcalf]

I answered your question before you asked it: http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=579

And I grow tired of partisans on any side of issues who are so burried in self interest they have built a wall around themselves and blocked off all other approaches to problem solving. Platitudes included.

Peter:
So you did answer my question. Thank you. You are a steward. Ok you have been around this game quite some time then. I imagine you've seen this topic come and go numerous times. I for one do not see a resolution to this coming any time soon. I don't care what the SCCA decides it will not make everyone happy. A spec tire isn't the magic bullet that will fix everything. The manifold issue continues to drive costs up as well. What I see is all the radial racers are asking is to add an option on the tire/wheel package. I don't see a major issue with that but some do. Do you looking from where you sit see any potential issues with the proposals Greg or Steve submitted?

G.

[Peter Olivola]

At the level of the Majors, yes, I see a problem. Resistance to radials is strongest among Majors competitors. At the level of regionals, no. The regional level is where this should be incubated. That won't be achieved by internet poll or huffing and puffing. It can be achieved by working with FV competitors within the regions. That would also be the way to achieve a real resolution to the tire issue. If successful, one would expect regional participation in FV to increase. That would produce a bottom up scenario for change that would minimize the conflict potential with Majors competitors.

Peter:
So you did answer my question. Thank you. You are a steward. Ok you have been around this game quite some time then. I imagine you've seen this topic come and go numerous times. I for one do not see a resolution to this coming any time soon. I don't care what the SCCA decides it will not make everyone happy. A spec tire isn't the magic bullet that will fix everything. The manifold issue continues to drive costs up as well. What I see is all the radial racers are asking is to add an option on the tire/wheel package. I don't see a major issue with that but some do. Do you looking from where you sit see any potential issues with the proposals Greg or Steve submitted?

G.

[Daryl DeArman]

Nevermind. Not worth it.

[problemchild]

And I grow tired of partisans on any side of issues who are so burried in self interest they have built a wall around themselves and blocked off all other approaches to problem solving. Platitudes included.

You are describing the FV establishment.

I declare my self interest: I want to grow FV racing.

I currently own 4 sets of FV wheels and tires and zero Falken tires or wheels.

The people that want the Falken tire alternate option are not trying to force anybody else to run any tire they may not want to use. That is the entire point. You want them to buy 1000s of dollars of tires every year. They are content to be 2nd-class citizens and fill out the field with their $700 tires every few years. You cannot get blood from a stone, nor can you force people to buy tires with money they do not have. Why not let them pay entry fees instead?

All you ever do is defend a broken outdated system in need of reform. How about helping finding compromise or solutions?

[Peter Olivola]

There is nothing broken about a process that provides a way for you to achieve your goal without imposing it from the top down. The problem for you appears to be it isn't going to happen instantly and will require work on your part.

You continue to ignore the path to achieving your goals.

You are describing the FV establishment.

I declare my self interest: I want to grow FV racing.

I currently own 4 sets of FV wheels and tires and zero Falken tires or wheels.

The people that want the Falken tire alternate option are not trying to force anybody else to run any tire they may not want to use. That is the entire point. You want them to buy 1000s of dollars of tires every year. They are content to be 2nd-class citizens and fill out the field with their $700 tires every few years. You cannot get blood from a stone, nor can you force people to buy tires with money they do not have. Why not let them pay entry fees instead?

All you ever do is defend a broken outdated system in need of reform. How about helping finding compromise or solutions?

[BLS]

If more than one manufacture had responded to the FF RFP the Board would have to decide which tire best met the requirements.

Brian, the problem is that no one knows what is in the RFP, and so the finger pointing begins. Publish it and no one will need to wonder, and there is zero reason not to publish it. No need whatsoever to have people feel disenfranchised by the process.

I've not written a letter as I am unsure what is the best path forward for FV. A choice is probably a good idea. I thought so earlier. I might change my opinion if I knew what a better offering from Hoosier might be. But I don't. There is only speculation, however educated it may be.

Barry

[problemchild]

There is nothing broken about a process that provides a way for you to achieve your goal without imposing it from the top down. The problem for you appears to be it isn't going to happen instantly and will require work on your part.

You continue to ignore the path to achieving your goals.

The FV tire cost problem has been in existence for the 35 years that I have been involved in FV. The class cannot afford a 3 year civil war that has the potential to disenfranchise the people that voted in an Apexspeed poll .... either the 55% majority or the 45% minority. If you consider 36 years "instantly" then I will agree with your statement.

Any system that uses bureaucracy to ignore an overwhelming portion of the community it claims to serve, is broken. Any SCCA politician that denies that, and is not working to find solutions to that problem, is just not doing their job. Any way you look at it, FV racers are SCCA customers, and we all need to find solutions to serve them. I will support any program that best serves the entire FV community.

I have offered a compromise and written a letter. I am actively trying to gather support for that letter. I am actively offering logical arguments to those opposed. I have offered to pay expenses for your elite FV drivers to race on the tires. I previously offered to conduct FV spec tire testing, providing, cars, equipment, and professional race service at no cost. If there is anyone who has worked harder within the SCCA system to find a solution, please tell me who that is.

Please start working to help find solutions to reduce FV costs to all FV racers. That is the only thing that matters.

[Hardingfv32]

... A spec tire isn't the magic bullet that will fix everything. The manifold issue continues to drive costs up as well.

This is exactly why I said SRF or SM would be a better choice for you. First it is the tires and now manifolds. Are the Penske shock packages next (at a much greater cost than the best manifolds)?

A whole lot of people have invested in these expensive parts... you are just a little late to the party. Do you really think they are going to throw those goodies down the toilet without a fight?

Brian

[Peter Olivola]

I find nothing redeeming in your claims as they represent a refusal to work within an existing process. Convince regional FV racers to have their regions adopt your proposal. You could have been doing this for the past 5 years at least as regions have had the freedom to do just about anything within safety requirements. The Club Racing Experience has provided an opportunity to expand on that freedom even further. Just because things aren't going your way doesn't mean they aren't moving forward. Your response of accusing the club of disenfranchising people or conspiring to exclude a particular manufacturer is even more of a reason to consider your approach less than progressive.

The FV tire cost problem has been in existence for the 35 years that I have been involved in FV. The class cannot afford a 3 year civil war that has the potential to disenfranchise the people that voted in an Apexspeed poll .... either the 55% majority or the 45% minority. If you consider 36 years "instantly" then I will agree with your statement.

Any system that uses bureaucracy to ignore an overwhelming portion of the community it claims to serve, is broken. Any SCCA politician that denies that, and is not working to find solutions to that problem, is just not doing their job. Any way you look at it, FV racers are SCCA customers, and we all need to find solutions to serve them. I will support any program that best serves the entire FV community.

I have offered a compromise and written a letter. I am actively trying to gather support for that letter. I am actively offering logical arguments to those opposed. I have offered to pay expenses for your elite FV drivers to race on the tires. I previously offered to conduct FV spec tire testing, providing, cars, equipment, and professional race service at no cost. If there is anyone who has worked harder within the SCCA system to find a solution, please tell me who that is.

Please start working to help find solutions to reduce FV costs to all FV racers. That is the only thing that matters.

[Hardingfv32]

Brian, the problem is that no one knows what is in the RFP, and so the finger pointing begins. Publish it and no one will need to wonder, and there is zero reason not to publish it. No need whatsoever to have people feel disenfranchised by the process.

A choice is probably a good idea.

1) If FV tasks SCCA to provide a spec tire then SCCA administers the RFP the way that they have found successful in the past. SCCA puts in the member requested requirements in a manner that they have found appropriate in the past: durability/cost/performance/service/etc. What is the point in seeing the document? Can you think of a type of criteria that might be used to steer the biding towards one manufacture over another?

2) There is nothing preventing the membership from asking for an wheel/tire option. Go ahead and send your letters in. I am sure the FV Committee and CRB will give the idea consideration.

Brian

[gbmetcalf]

This is exactly why I said SRF or SM would be a better choice for you. First it is the tires and now manifolds. Are the Penske shock packages next (at a much greater cost than the best manifolds)?

A whole lot of people have invested in these expensive parts... you are just a little late to the party. Do you really think they are going to throw those goodies down the toilet without a fight?

Brian

Ok Brian you have suggested three times that FV might not be the class for me. I get it. You have fixated on trying to convince me to leave the class I love broken or not. I'm a little late to this party! So are you throwing this party? What gives you the right to assume that I haven't invested a whole lot of money in FV? Do you think I was playing when I bought the Lazer project? I have invested in tooling up to produce my own FV. You have no clue who I am or what I do. You assume I'm just a newbie that is talking out of his ass. You sir are an arrogant self promoting, pompous know it all who needs to step back and look at what you are doing to the class you say you love.

G.
Admins. I am sorry but I will not be bullied by this person any longer.

[Hardingfv32]

Please start working to help find solutions to reduce FV costs to all FV racers. That is the only thing that matters.

Maybe that is the flaw in your approach... cost being the only thing that matters? Could your approach be a little to simple?

The SFR region used ARs as a Regional spec tire for over a decade. The size of this program was much larger than the Challenge series... yet never in that decade did anyone from the SFR program propose that it become the National solution. There is something very odd about the push from the Falken group on this subject. Could it be you guys are looking for some kind of validation? Maybe you are just more altruistic than the people in SFR.

Regardless let the majority rule on this subject. The FV Committee will no doubt soon publish a survey about the Spec tire. Probably similar to the FF one. Those results will be the basis for a decision by the CRB. Respond to the survey and let the chips fall where they may. The wheels have been set in motion.

Brian

[Amon]

This is exactly why I said SRF or SM would be a better choice for you. First it is the tires and now manifolds. Are the Penske shock packages next (at a much greater cost than the best manifolds)?

A whole lot of people have invested in these expensive parts... you are just a little late to the party. Do you really think they are going to throw those goodies down the toilet without a fight?

Brian

Brian,

What you mention is exactly why the SCCA members feel disenfranchised due to the manifolds,
Penske shocks and now the tires that have been decided by the few for the majority. If the process is working then why do we have these on the entry level formula car?? This should be a product of FF and higher classes, so if you wonder why the membership doesn't have faith in the leadership, consider the moves made without the members consent!

[Hardingfv32]

What gives you the right to assume that I haven't invested a whole lot of money in FV? Do you think I was playing when I bought the Lazer project?

I have no idea why one would invest in the Lazer but I hope if was not a great amount.

My statements are completely logical with regard to your concern about costs. Are you going to tell me that you have acquired: a $1200 manifold/ $1500 stainless exhaust system/ $2000 worth of penske shocks/ etc.? Now after you purchase all this stuff you would be happy being forced to replace then with spec parts at some additional expense? I dare you to say yes!

Brian

[Amon]

Maybe that is the flaw in your approach... cost being the only thing that matters? Could your approach be a little to simple?

The SFR region used ARs as a Regional spec tire for over a decade. The size of this program was much larger than the Challenge series... yet never in that decade did anyone from the SFR program propose that it become the National solution. There is something very odd about the push from the Falken group on this subject. Could it be you guys are looking for some kind of validation? Maybe you are just more altruistic than the people in SFR.

Regardless let the majority rule on this subject. The FV Committee will no doubt soon publish a survey about the Spec tire. Probably similar to the FF one. Those results will be the basis for a decision by the CRB. Respond to the survey and let the chips fall where they may. The wheels have been set in motion.

Brian

Brian,

You actually think the SCCA will respond to the results of the survey and the CRB will respond by providing what the majority has elected? In addition, who is constructing the survey because good pollsters know how to get the responses they want based on the questions they install in the survey. Jaded yes, a realist as well and I may have been born at night, but not last night!

[Amon]

I have no idea why one would invest in the Lazer but I hope if was not a great amount.

My statements are completely logical with regard to your concern about costs. Are you going to tell me that you have acquired: a $1200 manifold/ $1500 stainless exhaust system/ $2000 worth of penske shocks/ etc.? Now after you purchase all this stuff you would be happy being forced to replace then with spec parts at some additional expense? I dare you to say yes!

Brian

Hell yes if it gets more cars back on the track, including yourself!

[Daryl DeArman]

I have no idea why one would invest in the Lazer but I hope if was not a great amount.

....and sometimes I might come across as an ass....

[problemchild]

Clearly, the people with the power are not concerned with disenfranchising FV racers.

Write your letters. Get your friends to write letters. Keep the pressure on!

[Hardingfv32]

What you mention is exactly why the SCCA members feel disenfranchised due to the manifolds,

FACT: FV is possibly the least expensive SCCA open wheel... BUT IT IS NOT A CHEAP CLASS base on its rule set. Nothing has taken FV by surprise relative to the expensive parts we use: manifolds/ shocks/ etc. Every feature was developed over a number of years with the membership having ample opportunity to stop the costly innovation in its tracks. The membership generally choose to do nothing. Any old timer out there will valid this claim... the majority got what they wanted AT THE TIME!

Now where we stand today looks like a costly mistake but for most of us we see no point in making it more costly by going to spec parts. Most of us have no faith that lower car costs will improve group participation... so then what is the point of changing?

This is a very mature restricted class that you will have absolutely no chance to make into a spec class.

Brian

[BLS]

1) If FV tasks SCCA to provide a spec tire then SCCA administers the RFP the way that they have found successful in the past. SCCA puts in the member requested requirements in a manner that they have found appropriate in the past: durability/cost/performance/service/etc. What is the point in seeing the document? Can you think of a type of criteria that might be used to steer the biding towards one manufacture over another?

one by one:

"What is the point in seeing the document?"

Why hide it? The point is to keep any unwanted speculation from occurring as follows -

"Can you think of a type of criteria that might be used to steer the biding towards one manufacture over another?"

Of course I can. So can you. I am not saying it has happened. But there are a whole bunch of unhappy FF drivers that think it might have occurred. End the speculation, publish the RFP.

[Mark Filip]

Clearly, the people with the power are not concerned with disenfranchising FV racers.

Write your letters. Get your friends to write letters. Keep the pressure on!

Get your friends to write letters for something they know nothing about?

[Hardingfv32]

....good pollsters know how to get the responses they want based on the questions they install in the survey. Jaded yes, a realist as well and I may have been born at night, but not last night!

OK... Just to show that you are completely off the reservation with your opinion:

I dare you to demonstrate how the FF survey shows any bias in the decision process? How did the tire chosen not satisfy the results? Anything suspicious/illogical about the questions that were on the survey?

A challenge for any of you conspiracy types out there. Good Luck

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

Of course I can...

But there are a whole bunch of unhappy FF drivers that think it might have occurred..

1) If you can then please specify. People need to see how easy it really is.

2) So there are bunch of so called unhappy FF drivers. Is the majority happy? Are the current Toyo users forced to change anything... I think not.

The Toyo guys just another group seeking validation.

Brian

[fvhopeful]

Thank goodness I am on the east coast , if I had to endure the negative attitude of Brian Harding. I would park my vee in the garage. But thankfully I compete with some opened minded people that want to get the garage queens out on the track. Yes I am one of the original group that competed on Falken radials at Pocono in 2014 .
The prelude to the Challenge Cup Series . Like the name of the Series it was a challenge but with a core group working hard together we were able to deliver .
Our goal was to get more vees out ,have our own run group, and have fun both on and off the track ,keep cost reasonable.
Mission accomplished!!
Brian I don't know you or care to .all I do know is you demean anyone that tries to encourage growth or change I Am sure if you had your way you would putter around the track by yourself while you patted yourself on the back and raised your first place trophy. To the cheers of nobody.
Brian I haven't heard you ever say an encouraging word to help the vee cause.
You should apologize to those that you have offended .
As part of the Falken/Challenge Cup group I don't need any validation , I Am happy running at top notch tracks, with both national and regional drivers in my own run group we averaged 16 entrants per event.
Not bad Brian but am sure you will find something negative to say about that.


Cheers
Desmond Ennis

[gbmetcalf]

I have no idea why one would invest in the Lazer but I hope if was not a great amount.

My statements are completely logical with regard to your concern about costs. Are you going to tell me that you have acquired: a $1200 manifold/ $1500 stainless exhaust system/ $2000 worth of penske shocks/ etc.? Now after you purchase all this stuff you would be happy being forced to replace then with spec parts at some additional expense? I dare you to say yes!

Brian

Yes and honestly heck yes if it meant more FVs on track. I have a DRE carb, manifold, a set of Falken tires and wheels waiting for my next season. Unlike you Brian I am not a legend in my own mind. I am a small time racer who races for the love of the class. I will be a field filler and be damn proud of it.

G.

[Amon]

I have no idea why one would invest in the Lazer but I hope if was not a great amount.

My statements are completely logical with regard to your concern about costs. Are you going to tell me that you have acquired: a $1200 manifold/ $1500 stainless exhaust system/ $2000 worth of penske shocks/ etc.? Now after you purchase all this stuff you would be happy being forced to replace then with spec parts at some additional expense? I dare you to say yes!

Brian

Brian,

I'm sure Kim Madrid appreciates your comments since she's trying to sell a Lazer in your own backyard! Real class act you are!

[BLS]

1) If you can then please specify. People need to see how easy it really is.

Require trackside support even if it is a DOT radial that does not require it.

See how easy it really is.

[Peter Olivola]

The SCCA survey of FF drivers indicated trackside service was significantly important. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If that had been left out of the RFP there would be a different group of people crying foul. The supporters of the Toyo failed to make their case to a sufficient number of FF competitors. Don't make the same mistake with FV.

Require trackside support even if it is a DOT radial that does not require it.

See how easy it really is.