SCCA going to 180 minimum treadwear. What's FAST doing?

[Gerry]

I just heard that SCCA announced the minimum treadwear rating for their stock street tire classes will be 180, up from 140. Their prepared classes will still allow a rating of 140. Is FAST following suit (since our rules are loosely based on their, mainly classing)? This would make the Toyo R1R and Hankook RS-3 legal only in the mod classes, but not stock.

What does everyone think? It would sure as hell make it cheaperto be competitive. LOL!

[Loren]

We're not making any more rule changes for this season. I'll leave it at that for now.

We can discuss a possible change for next season... but with the RS-3 almost becoming our "spec tire", I'm not sure we can justify telling half of our people "you can't use that tire".

And here's the thing: It won't take more than a year for companies like Hankook and Falken to come out with a new tire, or a revision of a tire that magically fits the 180 treadwear limit. Remember, treadwear ratings are totally made up by the tire manufacturer! So, the "RS-4" will grip better than the RS-3, be more responsive, maybe even last longer (technology is a wonderful thing)... but it will very likely be stamped with a 180 treadwear rating.

Net benefit of this 180 treadwear requirement change after about 2 years? Zero.

This all started back in the 80's (well before my time, but Doug remembers)... SCCA declared that all tires used in stock classes must be "DOT approved", as in "street tires"... manufacturer's quickly started developing early versions of what we see now as the the Kumho Victoracer and V700, Hoosier Autocrosser, Toyo R888, etc. They carry a DOT approval, but not really "street tires"... and certainly not what SCCA intended when they came up with that rule.

So, based on all of that... we're not likely to change our tire rules anytime soon.

I did propose a low-budget "real street tire" class last year. A fair amount of discussion ensued, but no real interest.

[twistedwankel]

Like Loren said he had a great idea but I guess we couldn't agree on one tire design, manufacturer, good street manners, safe, with a big enough selection of sizes. All of us knowing the wear rating is meaningful only for each manufacturer. Now if Hoosier would just come out with their 180 tire

Hankook and Dunlop have sort of met our criteria (in common sizes) while maintaining a semi-decent price and tire life. Bridgestone on the other hand is nuts on price. (At least for my 18" car.) If a nice quality bragging rights Shirt is not important to you there are tons of low price, long wearing, good handling, green road tires out there.

Someday if SCCA ever finds enough volunteers to restart the West Central Club I'll actually care what they do again. Private clubs are my only access to autocross anymore.

Doug

[Jamie]

The whole cost arguement is based more on emotion than fact. From the Tire Rack's website, all in 205/50-15 the RS-3, which doesn't come in the narrower size (and of the others, only the Toyo comes in 225/xx-15). Just for giggles, I threw in an R-compound tire as well.

Hankook Ventus Z214 (C71) - 40 UTQG, $165
Hankook Ventus Z214 (C51) - 40 UTQG, $153
Bridgestone RE-11 - 180 UTQG, $138
Dunlop Star Specs - 200 UTQG, $131
Toyo Proxis R1R - 140 UTQG, $127
Hankook Ventus RS-3 - 140 UTQG, $123 (225/45-15)

Of course, this is just one sample, but I can already tell you for a similar size on a 16-inch wheel (which is what I run, that being my stock wheel) Z214 R-compounds are about $10/tire more than Star Specs, which are about $10/tire more than R1Rs...and RE-11s go rocketing up well above any of them.

The whole pissing contest about treadwear is a reaction against two tires: the Hankook RS-3, and even more, the Toyo R1R. The SCCA National Office has always been unwilling to use the tire exclusion list built into the rules...we went through this when Falken brought out their first Azenis, and even earlier when Yokohama brought out their first A-001R. It's possible to argue cost against useful life with R-compounds if you must have the latest Hoosiers, or you're doing events on concrete every weekend. There's pretty much no credible argument about making the treadwear rules more complicated.

Moreover, the whole Road Tire experiment going on within SCCA right now has some distance to travel -- I've heard speculation on everything from RT evolving into a "stock" counterpart of Street Touring (unlikely) to an intent to drive R-compounds out of the Stock Category. It's the silly season...let it play out elsewhere before we start making our ruleset more complex.

[Loren]

let it play out elsewhere before we start making our ruleset more complex.

This. For sure.

[Gerry]

What's wrong with the Hankook RS-3 and the Toyo R1R?

[twistedwankel]

What's wrong with the Hankook RS-3 and the Toyo R1R?

Absolutely nothing. They appear to be comparable. Go with the best price/total deal including shipping.

The RT/stock thing has been a "provisional class" so far with a pax finish. I think that is the one they are talking 180 or harder.

Kumho XS is the main tire with that rating at the moment. You might be pushing STR in your car by their rules?

If you want to try some Toyo's R1R (140) I found http://www.tiresdirect.net out of IL using Fedex who are very reasonable, quick service and only charge $15 each for shaving each tire to three different tread levels (6/32",5/32",4/32"). $20 if you want 3/32" or 2/32". Tirerack charges $25ea. Unfortunately they don't handle Hankook.

This is something to consider if you plan on doing alot of racing on your new tires and not street driving. Will last maybe 50% longer? Tongue in cheek. I've seen you drive.

[Gerry]

^^ Remind me to talk to you about this tomorrow.

[Native]

I'm a little late to the party, but I'm running R1R's. I've got 205/50s which are exactly the same section width as 225 RS3's.
They stick nicely.

[rojna]

My new R-S3 tires are rated at ...

There you go SCCA lol