FF Next spec tire

[Eric Little]

I know this may not be very popular and I know a lot of people like the Hoosier radial. I have expressed my concerns before but I will list them here with a bit more evidence of why I think our next tire should be something else. I am posting this to hear opinions before I go to the trouble of writing the CRB. Oh, and I am not going to advocate for going back to open tires. I think there is great merit in having a spec tire, I just want the one that is of the most benefit for the racers.

Radial v. Bias: Hoosier is a radial. It took a lot to get the amount of camber that I needed. I was able to do it with extra long heim joints so the cost was not huge but.... I am rather uncomfortable with that much thread exposed. No problems so far so maybe it is a reaction not necessary. That aside, most of the cars out there were produced to run on a bias ply tire. Those that were designed to run on radials generally seem to have the ability to run the bias without making parts replacements.

Cost: The Hoosier is not a cheap tire and since Hoosier claims to be cutting us a deal, there is no contingency program. I know that in the open tire days, they were higher cost and did not last long but in a spec world, there is better out there. My last set came in at $900 with shipping compared to the spec tire I had before (AR) which came in at $650 with shipping.

Weight: Class weight went up 10 pounds to accommodate this tire. Don't know about you but I would rather run lighter. Particularly rotating mass.

Longevity: Running up near the front, I have 7 heat cycles on this set and they are done. They will now be test tires. 4 of those cycles were Willow Springs which eats tires. So I am not complaining. That is about the same amount of heat cycles as I (and others) got out of the AR so that is not different. Cycles per dollar though was much better with the less expensive tire.

Lap times: Last weekend at Willow Springs, the best lap of the weekend in FF was 1:26.367 set by Denny Renfrow in a Piper Honda. This weekend, VARA is at the same track with weather conditions that are very similar. Pole today was 1:26.123 set by Stewart Paterson in a Crossle Ford. So the lap times are not very different at all.

My conclusion, the Hoosier is not the best tire for us as racers. I am glad we made the jump to a spec tire and if the Hoosier served that purpose then great. But as we look forward to what serves us best, I am not certain that it continues to be the best option.

So what say all of you? If everyone likes the Hoosier and I am simply pissing up a rope, I can let it go. If on the other hand, we want more bang for the buck, I would love to see us move to someting better suited.

By the way, anyone know why the spec tire was an RFP rather than the club selecting a tire and saying, "run this"? I know we have to be sure that there will be enough supply but an RFP does not seem necessary for that. What am I missing on this one? I am asking that as an honest question because I really dont know the genesis of the RFP.

Thanks
Eric Little

[bhayes]

I’m a fan of the Hoosier tire. When I ran FF prior to 2010, tires were open. And it was a mess. Skinny tires for some tracks, wide tires for others, softer compounds if you really needed a fast lap.

I returned to FF in 2016. And the spec Hoosier tire was one of the reasons I came back to this class. I like the idea of club racing using the same tire as the pro F1600 series. It allows easy crossover between the two series. Encourages some of the Pro teams to run club races and Runoffs. And budget conscious drivers can pick up low heat cycle tires from the Pro teams on the cheap. In general, having more groups running on the same tire rule will help everyone. Ideally we could have every FF group across the country running the same tire.

I also like the radial tire. Quality control from tire to tire is much improved over bias ply tires. Tires are the same diameter. Performance is consistent.

It seems that FF has been growing in participation over the past couple of years. The spec tire is a big factor in that. I would like to see that continue. And I think changing to a different tire could hurt the positive momentum that our class currently has.

I have never run the AR tires. So I can speak for or against them. I do understand the attraction to the lower price.

Oh yeah...I’m originally from Indiana, so it’s gotta be Hoosiers ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[reidhazelton]

Hey Eric - thanks for the well written post. I am interested to see what others think as well.

It doesn't really matter much to me, as I've been out of FF for a while. My only 2 cents would be that any change is a contract, after significant testing, for a 3-5 year period. If we change tires every couple of years that will really get expensive with development and testing. Also, to me, if the tire is the same speed I don't really care if it's a radial or a bias ply. I'd be very leery of the AR after the disaster that was the first year of the FE tires.

Speaking only for myself, and RFP/RFQ is standard procedure with this in type of thing in most industries. Open bids give transparency (or so it's supposed to) and attempts to eliminate sweetheart deals and back door negotiations. Can you imagine the conspiracy theories if SCCA issued a ruling for a mandatory tire without a bid process? The RFP also defines the needs clearly as to not hose the competitors. Can the mfg supply enough? At track support? Reasonable guarantee of quality and consistency?

Thanks again, and you might want to put on your helmet when the replies start rolling in.

[Raceworks]

Cost: The Hoosier is not a cheap tire and since Hoosier claims to be cutting us a deal, there is no contingency program. I know that in the open tire days, they were higher cost and did not last long but in a spec world, there is better out there. My last set came in at $900 with shipping compared to the spec tire I had before (AR) which came in at $650 with shipping.

Experience on the East Coast is different. The only competitive club racing tire was the R35 bias plys if you were going to win a national / majors race. R45's lasted alittle longer but both compounds were the same price as the radials. You could run other tires but you were going to be off by a good 2 seconds or more.

Radial v. Bias: Hoosier is a radial. It took a lot to get the amount of camber that I needed. I was able to do it with extra long heim joints so the cost was not huge but.... I am rather uncomfortable with that much thread exposed. No problems so far so maybe it is a reaction not necessary. That aside, most of the cars out there were produced to run on a bias ply tire. Those that were designed to run on radials generally seem to have the ability to run the bias without making parts replacements.

It's more a question of age. The Piper DF-5 we ran was even more adjustable than the Spectrum 014's we run now. They figured out a lot about how to make cars better since the 1990's.

Longevity: Running up near the front, I have 7 heat cycles on this set and they are done. They will now be test tires. 4 of those cycles were Willow Springs which eats tires. So I am not complaining. That is about the same amount of heat cycles as I (and others) got out of the AR so that is not different. Cycles per dollar though was much better with the less expensive tire.

Define "done?" On a Pro / Runoffs / Majors level we only got 2-3 heat cycles out of R35 bias plys, and maybe another 2 out of the R45's before times dropped around 0.5 seconds on average from the front runners. For regional races I could get another couple cycles out of a set of R45's (usually 7 maximum). On the radials the "pro" level is now 6-7 heat cycles and I've been able to run up front in regionals with tires of up to 15 heat cycles.

Lap times: Last weekend at Willow Springs, the best lap of the weekend in FF was 1:26.367 set by Denny Renfrow in a Piper Honda. This weekend, VARA is at the same track with weather conditions that are very similar. Pole today was 1:26.123 set by Stewart Paterson in a Crossle Ford. So the lap times are not very different at all.

I would suggest that Danny needs to step up his game. Over here the current FF's lap about 2 seconds faster than the Club Ford guys, and probably a good 5-7 seconds faster than the vintage guys on their treaded tires.

My conclusion, the Hoosier is not the best tire for us as racers. I am glad we made the jump to a spec tire and if the Hoosier served that purpose then great. But as we look forward to what serves us best, I am not certain that it continues to be the best option.

So what say all of you? If everyone likes the Hoosier and I am simply pissing up a rope, I can let it go. If on the other hand, we want more bang for the buck, I would love to see us move to someting better suited.

By the way, anyone know why the spec tire was an RFP rather than the club selecting a tire and saying, "run this"? I know we have to be sure that there will be enough supply but an RFP does not seem necessary for that. What am I missing on this one? I am asking that as an honest question because I really dont know the genesis of the RFP.

Maybe you weren't around when the decision made but a number of active SCCA FF drivers & car preppers went on this forum did research on a spec tire for FF that was more durable than the soft-compound bias plys that were the standard. If I recall correctly this was mainly the effort of Reid Hazleton and either Greg Rice and/or Steve Bamford, as well as yours truly.

We and a LOT of others discussed this to death over about a year, and came up with 3 choices for a spec tire that were actually available at the time: The R60 bias ply used in Club Ford, the Toyo R888 radial, and the Hoosier R60 Radial. We then put it up for a vote via survey and the Hoosier won, then we wrote a bunch of letters to the SCCA. We also tried for a "race what you qualify on" rule similar to what they use in Formula Mazda & Formula Enterprises but that didn't make out of the letter writing stage.

[holmberg]

I know that the Club FF drivers here in the San Francisco region are pretty happy with the American Racer bias-ply tire. $490 a set vs. $764 for the current FF spec tire. Similar lap times, similar competitive heat cycles. Very light weight. I'm sure one of them will offer their opinion here soon.

Another tire to consider is the Hoosier Club Ford tire, 43130 and 43307. Also used by Formula First. It's a bias-ply tire with the same R60A compound as the current FF spec tire. $656 a set.

Brand	Part number	Size	Radial or bias	Notes	Tread width inches	Weight lbs	Cost	Circum inches	Diameter inches
Hoosier	43327	205/60	radial	hard R60A	8.0	18.0	$191	71.40	22.73
AR	JCDHD	22.5x7.5	bias	hard 133	7.5	14.5	$136	70.00	22.28
Hoosier	43307	22.5x7.2	bias	hard R60A	7.3	18.0	$179	71.00	22.60
Hoosier	43309	22.5x7.2	bias	soft R25, R35, R45	7.3	15.0	$266	71.10	22.63
Hoosier	43322	185/60	radial	hard R60A	6.4	16.0	$191	68.80	21.90
AR	JCDNA	20x6	bias	hard 133	6.0	10.5	$109	64.00	20.37
Hoosier	43130	20x6	bias	hard R60A	6.0	10.0	$149	65.00	20.69
Hoosier	43127	20.5x6	bias	soft R25	6.0	11.0	$221	65.70	20.91

[holmberg]

Looking at the options as sets of tires:

Brand	Set	Mix or Fronts	Radial or bias	Hard or soft	Tread front inches	Tread rear inches	R/F tread ratio	Weight lbs	Cost	Total width inches	Cost per width $/inch	Weight per width lbs/inch
AR	CF	mix	bias	hard	6.0	7.5	1.25	50.0	$490	27.0	$18	1.85
Hoosier	CF	mix	bias	hard	6.0	7.3	1.21	56.0	$656	26.5	$25	2.11
Hoosier	FF-spec	mix	radial	hard	6.4	8.0	1.25	68.0	$764	28.8	$27	2.36
Hoosier	FF	mix	bias	soft	6.0	7.3	1.21	52.0	$974	26.5	$37	1.96

[Eric Little]

I’m a fan of the Hoosier tire. When I ran FF prior to 2010, tires were open. And it was a mess. Skinny tires for some tracks, wide tires for others, softer compounds if you really needed a fast lap.

To be clear, I am not recommending going back to open. I am contemplating which spec tire is in our best interest. I agree that the mixing of front and rear and the latest gumball compound is not in our best interest unless we want to spend F1 budgets to figure it all out. While I like FF being a formula, there are limits to the madness that I will accept. A spec tire seems a reasonable step.

I returned to FF in 2016. And the spec Hoosier tire was one of the reasons I came back to this class. I like the idea of club racing using the same tire as the pro F1600 series. It allows easy crossover between the two series. Encourages some of the Pro teams to run club races and Runoffs. And budget conscious drivers can pick up low heat cycle tires from the Pro teams on the cheap. In general, having more groups running on the same tire rule will help everyone. Ideally we could have every FF group across the country running the same tire.

I am fine with crossover as well. It would be great if we had the entire continent on the same tire but that is an awfully big dream. My version of budget concious is to have a race set and a test day set. Once the race day set has seen two race weekends, it is a reasonable test day set for the next two while a new set of stickers get mounted for the next two race weekends. I know some run take-offs from others but the quality control of this is far worse than....

I also like the radial tire. Quality control from tire to tire is much improved over bias ply tires. Tires are the same diameter. Performance is consistent.

I have to say that my entire time running the ARs I found them to be very consistent. Measurements were within reasonable tolerance and the balance of handling did not change. New tires back-to-back with another set of new tires were indistinguishable. I agree that quality control is important and if it became an issue, I too would be concerned but that was not my experience on the AR.

It seems that FF has been growing in participation over the past couple of years. The spec tire is a big factor in that. I would like to see that continue. And I think changing to a different tire could hurt the positive momentum that our class currently has.

Again, we agree. I want the class to continue to be strong. I want increased participation (because finishing 3rd at a Major is way too high up the order for me ) I do wonder though if the increase is because of the Hoosier, or generically a spec tire, or some other reason. I personnaly think that any spec tire that is reasonably quick, is affordable, is of high quality, is well stocked, and is well supported is a positive for the class.

I have never run the AR tires. So I can speak for or against them. I do understand the attraction to the lower price.

Oh yeah...I’m originally from Indiana, so it’s gotta be Hoosiers ;-)

I do think the best way to go about this is to purchase a number of sets of candidate tires. Get some good engineers that can set up the car for the tire. Get some drivers that will provide honest feedback. Then do some testing to see; 1) out right lap time, 2) longevity; and 3) how quickly lap times fall off. Then we can debate cost per laptime, cost per duration, etc. It is a healthy process to look at the alternatives. If the best is still the Hoosier, then I will put them on the car, shut-up, and drive it as well as I am capable.

Eric Little

[Eric Little]

Hey Eric - thanks for the well written post. I am interested to see what others think as well.

Thanks Reid. I am definitely not trying to pick a fight. As I mentioned in my post above, I think it healthy to consider the alternatives and come to a well considered conclusion. If the result is the group feels the Hoosier is best, I will race it. But I would be remiss in not bringing the topic up when I feel it is an important consideration for us to make.

It doesn't really matter much to me, as I've been out of FF for a while. My only 2 cents would be that any change is a contract, after significant testing, for a 3-5 year period. If we change tires every couple of years that will really get expensive with development and testing. Also, to me, if the tire is the same speed I don't really care if it's a radial or a bias ply. I'd be very leery of the AR after the disaster that was the first year of the FE tires.

I should have been more clear, I am not looking to blow up the current deal (unless the contract is evergreen). I do not know when the current deal ends. I expect the current deal is a 3-5 year deal which puts us in the second season. If the deal is a three-year deal, then now is about the time to start considering the next step. I would not propose changing the length of future deals for the reasons that you mention (unless there is some catastrophic issue with the tire under contract but that is a different animal). I do think that asking people to learn a new tire every year is not productive. I do think the manufacturer should be expected to provide support in what settings their tires need (Hoosier did do this so I am not stating this as pointing to a problem but simply that it should be an expectation). I do understand the concern with the FE issues. However, AR has been doing FF tires for a while and have been run here in the west sucessfully in both CF and FF. I seriously doubt we would see a repeat but I would encourage wide testing of candidate tires by a variety of drivers in a variety of chasis on a variety of tracks to make sure there is not a problem.

Speaking only for myself, and RFP/RFQ is standard procedure with this in type of thing in most industries. Open bids give transparency (or so it's supposed to) and attempts to eliminate sweetheart deals and back door negotiations. Can you imagine the conspiracy theories if SCCA issued a ruling for a mandatory tire without a bid process? The RFP also defines the needs clearly as to not hose the competitors. Can the mfg supply enough? At track support? Reasonable guarantee of quality and consistency?

Thanks again, and you might want to put on your helmet when the replies start rolling in.

Thanks Reid. I am not sure how transparent the Hoosier deal was. I am not stating that as a slight on the deal, Hoosier, or the SCCA. I simply was not involved in SCCA when it happened. I appreciate the information and agree that consipiracy theories will arise. That said, depending on who you talk to, there are conspiracy theories on every rule change ever made in any class and FF is no exception. Some will be happy, some will not, and other will be indifferent. The difficult part is the ones you tend to hear the most from are only the ones that are not happy. Sometimes difficult to figure out if that is simply a vocal minority problem or indicative of a larger issue.

I do hope I don't need a helmet for the replies. This should remain a civil discussion. I have no problem with learning from the groups experience and if I am wrong, I can accept that. I hope that others can view things likewise. Trust me, until last weekend, I was beginning to think the decision to allow the H motor was a terrible one. Then I got everything sorted and run with the lead group. The only F motor against newer equipement and we could run with them. I guess maybe the H motor did not really kill the F motor portion of the class (now I just need more people to believe that). I learned and I am fine with admitting that my thinking was heading down the wrong path (at least until the next race )

Again, thanks for the feedback. Still trying to put together what is the best option.

Eric Little

[Eric Little]

Experience on the East Coast is different. The only competitive club racing tire was the R35 bias plys if you were going to win a national / majors race. R45's lasted alittle longer but both compounds were the same price as the radials. You could run other tires but you were going to be off by a good 2 seconds or more.

Thanks Sam. I appreciate the feedback. I do have a question about this statement though. Was this in the realm of open tires? The R35 I thought was a pretty soft tire. I too would select that over the AR as it is a hard tire. If winning is the objective (winning is the objective right?!?) then you are correct, it is a no brainer to take the R35 over the AR.

But I am speaking of a spec tire here. There is a group that runs CF and FF on the AR as a spec tire (they also run vintage but they use an appropriate vintage type tire) and it has been a successful group. I think the race this weekend saw 20 - 23 entries. I doubt we would have seen that size of field with an open tire rule. But with an affordable bias ply tire, it looked like a well attended weekend.

It's more a question of age. The Piper DF-5 we ran was even more adjustable than the Spectrum 014's we run now. They figured out a lot about how to make cars better since the 1990's.

No doubt that as the chasis evolve, they will be more adjustable. But I would hate to go to a tire that rules out older cars. Mine is not even from the '90s. The rules in this class have allowed for new technology but fortunately that new technology has not completely made any of the modern aero cars obsolete. I am not saying that the Hoosier has done this, but you have to admit, the amount of camber necessary from this tire is well beyond the original design parameters of some cars making the changes necessary potentially costly.

Define "done?" On a Pro / Runoffs / Majors level we only got 2-3 heat cycles out of R35 bias plys, and maybe another 2 out of the R45's before times dropped around 0.5 seconds on average from the front runners. For regional races I could get another couple cycles out of a set of R45's (usually 7 maximum). On the radials the "pro" level is now 6-7 heat cycles and I've been able to run up front in regionals with tires of up to 15 heat cycles.

I suspect I define "done" the same way you are. When the drop off is sufficient that they are no longer competitive for your relative capability. I know that for Willow Springs, I will have to be able to run in the 1:26 - 1:27 range. If the tire is not capable of getting to that lap time, it is done as a race tire and is now used as a test day tire. Yes, I know that some of you test on stickers so that it will be the same as it is during the race/qualifying. I do not. I find that if the balance is the same (i.e. under-steer v. over-steer), the only thing the new tire does is gets grip everywhere better without changing that balance. So it is simply faster lap times and the only adjustment is carrying more speed into through and out of the corner than on the worn test tire. My experience on both the AR and the Hoosier is that after 6 - 7 cycles, they are ready for testing duty. And that was my point, the AR turns similar lap times, with similar longevity at a lower price. In regionals here in CalClub, when I ran one, I was the only FF. So I could have run on the rims and been "competitive". I only have experience with competition in the Major/Super Tour events as that is what draws FF for SCCA on this coast. My experience on the AR came with a group that runs under a different sanctioning body. Some of them do run tires into the 12 cycle range but they are not at the front end of the field.

I would suggest that Danny needs to step up his game. Over here the current FF's lap about 2 seconds faster than the Club Ford guys, and probably a good 5-7 seconds faster than the vintage guys on their treaded tires.

I will be sure to let him know. Although, you should understand Stewart and his CF. It is like no other Crossle on the planet. It has been refined over the years as has the driver (I am biased as he engineers my car and is my driver coach as well). He is generally 2 seconds faster than any of the other CFs out there as well. What he can do while pushing the brick-wall shaped front end of that car through the air is pretty incredible.

Maybe you weren't around when the decision made but a number of active SCCA FF drivers & car preppers went on this forum did research on a spec tire for FF that was more durable than the soft-compound bias plys that were the standard. If I recall correctly this was mainly the effort of Reid Hazleton and either Greg Rice and/or Steve Bamford, as well as yours truly.

I was not around and I am not questioning whether they made the right decision under the circumstances at the time. I have said here that I think the spec tire is a good outcome and do not want to over-throw that decision. But as we look forward, I do find it perfectly reasonable to ask if we are continuing to make the best decision with information known or knowable now.

We and a LOT of others discussed this to death over about a year, and came up with 3 choices for a spec tire that were actually available at the time: The R60 bias ply used in Club Ford, the Toyo R888 radial, and the Hoosier R60 Radial. We then put it up for a vote via survey and the Hoosier won, then we wrote a bunch of letters to the SCCA. We also tried for a "race what you qualify on" rule similar to what they use in Formula Mazda & Formula Enterprises but that didn't make out of the letter writing stage.

Perfect! And now that a fourth alternative has been brought to the attention of the group, I simply ask that we consider it as a candidate as well. Then we test (multiple chasis, multiple drivers, multiple tracks) and see if new information changes the opinions. If not, I will race the Hoosier and have fun. But if others think an alternative is better for the class, then this is exactly the debate we should have.

Again, thanks for sharing your experience in how we go to where we are. There is a lot of benefit to knowing that in helping guide where we go from here.

Eric Little

[Eric Little]

My only 2 cents would be that any change is a contract, after significant testing, for a 3-5 year period. If we change tires every couple of years that will really get expensive with development and testing.

Can anyone tell me what the term length of the current Hoosier deal is? When does it expire? I cannot seem to find documentation of it but may not be looking in the right spot.

Thanks
Eric Little

[reidhazelton]

I'm not sure myself. I remember the details being briefly mentioned in a FasTrack maybe? I'd try to contact SCCA but I assume they will give you the 'it's confidential' answer.

[jharvey]

I have worked with the American Racer's since they were McCreary's. Yes, they are cheap. And for good reason.

The consistency is an issue. I have seen new tires that are junk, literally. No grip whatsoever. And I've seen this more than once. It has gotten better in recent years, but is still an issue. There are also inconsistencies in circumference, a good setup guy will check and adjust as necessary. If you don't check them your corner weights will be off from set to set.

I could be way wrong, but I bet a lot of guys running new FF's are not wanting the AR's simply because they do not want a gauge in which to be measured. Putting a 40 year old car against a new car with the same tires and turn similar lap times would really get people scratching their heads, especially if they have $50k wrapped up in a car. The Hoosier is a faster tire. The east coast guys have more competition and have to push harder than us west coast people, otherwise I doubt you would see a Crossle turn a faster time than a Piper, assuming both cars are legal.

My vote is for the Hoosier. Maybe not the radial, but definitely the Hoosier.

[Eric Little]

I have worked with the American Racer's since they were McCreary's. Yes, they are cheap. And for good reason.

The consistency is an issue. I have seen new tires that are junk, literally. No grip whatsoever. And I've seen this more than once. It has gotten better in recent years, but is still an issue. There are also inconsistencies in circumference, a good setup guy will check and adjust as necessary. If you don't check them your corner weights will be off from set to set.

I could be way wrong, but I bet a lot of guys running new FF's are not wanting the AR's simply because they do not want a gauge in which to be measured. Putting a 40 year old car against a new car with the same tires and turn similar lap times would really get people scratching their heads, especially if they have $50k wrapped up in a car. The Hoosier is a faster tire. The east coast guys have more competition and have to push harder than us west coast people, otherwise I doubt you would see a Crossle turn a faster time than a Piper, assuming both cars are legal.

My vote is for the Hoosier. Maybe not the radial, but definitely the Hoosier.

Exactly why testing with multiple chassis, multiple drivers, and in multiple locations is important. Everyone will dismiss lap time information as being due to different drivers, different competition, etc. That is why we need back-to-back testing of the candidate tires by each driver with the setup optimized to see how fast it is and how long it lasts. Then and only then can we say whether tire X was better or worse for the same driver in the same car. The idea of different chassis and different locations is for the same comparison of one tire against another with the same car/driver but accounting for a multitude of chassis and driver styles. The aggregate data of all test is useful as well looking at all cars, drivers, and locations.

I do have to say though, if an individual because of driving and set-up talent can make a 40 year old car as fast or faster than a guy in a $50k car, then good for him/her. If we test the tires to not unduly disadvantage a particular make or model (new or old) then the winner is simply the person that put the equipment to the best use.

I do think it a fools errand to try to compare the east coast and west coast racers. There are many miles separating us and very few easterners come out west and very few westerners that go back east to have a meaningful comparison of how competitive their lap times are. Again, testing helps with this since the relation of faster v. slower, more durable v. less durable is likely to be consistent between a fast driver compared to a slower driver. The fast driver will drive each tire to a lower lap time and wear it out quicker than a slow driver but both are likely to find tire A faster than tire B even if the faster driver was up by 3 seconds on the slower driver on each tire.

Finally, if AR has consistency problems, this too would show up in the testing I am suggesting. It could show up in any of the competitive tires and should be part of the decision making process.

Eric Little

[TimH]

I still don't understand why anyone cares which tire is faster. If everybody's on the spec, what difference does it make?

I DO care how quickly it goes off..

[reidhazelton]

I still don't understand why anyone cares which tire is faster. If everybody's on the spec, what difference does it make?

I DO care how quickly it goes off..

Well shoot, then let's all mount up these dudes! $60 bucks!

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires...omCompare1=yes

I do care what tire is faster. A big part of the fun is the speed, the g-force. We're all junkies for that stuff or we wouldn't do it. If we are splitting hairs over speed, then I agree it doesn't much matter. If a tire is slower than the current radial, then I would think people will begin to care. I know I sure would. FF is already slower than F500/600 now. Any slower and you'll start turning some people off.

[Eric Little]

Well shoot, then let's all mount up these dudes! $60 bucks!

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires...omCompare1=yes

Again with the radials!

Eric Little

[LenFC11]

Radial tires are more consistent in diameter then bias plys... This is important for set up

[stonebridge20]

Radial tires are more consistent in diameter then bias plys... This is important for set up

Only if your lazy.

[Steve Bamford]

Part of the process is also track support isn't it? How many tire companies offer track support & which ones are they? This is part of the cost of the Hoosier tires you are currently paying for so please keep that in mind. Many may not care about that but the expense needs to be included in the tire costs.

[Dave Harmison]

I'll chime in here as a current CFF driver and owner of a parked Reynard.

I have been happy with the CFF R60 spec tires and had hoped either that tire or something similar would have been the FF spec tire.

My Reynard is a FC car, but with the engine creap over in FC land, I have considered converting it to FF and racing it, but the combination of radials needing lots of camber and the fact that the rain tire is a different diameter (boy is that dumb) has made me want to sit on the sidelines with that car.

For my money, I think the current spec FF tire missed on several points:
1) because it's a radial, the suspension adjustment issues
2) dissimilar rain tire
3) change in outside diameter vs. the old tires

From talking around the paddock, I don't think us CFF drivers will ever migrate to the spec FF tire, so that potentially makes the CFF tire an even more niche market and I fear Hoosier/Continental will discontinue it.

In summation, I think the people that selected the current FF tire tried but missed on the three points I mention above. I would have selected almost any then current FF tire in preference to the radial and speced a compound. And then maybe evolve that tire from there with different compounding or deleting the cantilever or whatever.

[John LaRue]

Exactly why testing with multiple chassis, multiple drivers, and in multiple locations is important. Everyone will dismiss lap time information as being due to different drivers, different competition, etc. That is why we need back-to-back testing of the candidate tires by each driver with the setup optimized to see how fast it is and how long it lasts. Then and only then can we say whether tire X was better or worse for the same driver in the same car. The idea of different chassis and different locations is for the same comparison of one tire against another with the same car/driver but accounting for a multitude of chassis and driver styles. The aggregate data of all test is useful as well looking at all cars, drivers, and locations.

Great idea, but one question: Who pays for all of this?

At some point all of the layers have been peeled back and there isn't much more in the way of cost savings that can be had. I am not saying that FF is there with regard to tires, but there is a reality check that race tires do go off at some point and require replacement.

[reidhazelton]

Great idea, but one question: Who pays for all of this?

At some point all of the layers have been peeled back and there isn't much more in the way of cost savings that can be had. I am not saying that FF is there with regard to tires, but there is a reality check that race tires do go off at some point and require replacement.

Bingo.

Well, with the current spec tire, Hoosier paid for it. The spec tire was first designed for the SRF and later adapted to FF. To see if it worked, and to get some basic alignment info, Hoosier did some testing with a few chassis and drivers. The test data they made available and is listed on the Hoosier website. Now, look how the AR FE tire went. They claimed to have done testing, but that is doubtful. Positive camber was required, tires were widely inconsistent, and no at track support.

You get what you pay for. Hoosier isn't making an unreasonable profit, and I assume AR isn't either.

[swiftdrivr]

I did not like the fact that a radial was chosen, but by now, people have made their adjustments. I doubt many want to go through that again. I am significantly off [even my] pace on the radials, but that is my fault, not the tire's. Others in similar cars are much faster on them than I. Almost everyone I have talked to in SARRC have been very happy with the radial, and I am buying far fewer tires [might be some of my pace issue, but not all of it] FF in the South East has seen an increase in numbers, because of or in spite of [choose your side] the spec tire and [dare I say it?] the Honda. I think another change, especially after the fights and squabbles the first change entailed, wouldn't be good for FF. I am, however, a certified addict, so I will run whatever the majority want to run. Just my two cents worth.