Member Input: DOT radials weight break?

[blamkin86]

With the near 10 page discussion on the topic, I thought I'd throw out a poll on the DOT radial weight break.

There have been a number of interesting points brought up in the other thread, both for and against: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16056

I am personally biased towards approving this change, as it greatly benefits my finances.

Poll ends on Friday 3/20/15.

 

[Chris Schaafsma]

I like the idea of DOT tires being a viable option, but I think they may be close enough in performance already to make a weight break inappropriate.

I will run at least a few races on DOTs myself, just to shake some rust off and remember how the tracks go...

 

[Jason Stine]

Keep the weight the same and run whatever tire you want. That is your choice.

 

[dryenko]

This changes my opinion for sure :
"Everyone has to run the weight for dog boxes, but then you can run whatever box you want"
This change should be put in the PCS at the same time as the DOT tires are refused a weight break.
The shoe is in the other foot, so to speak.
Let the whining begin.

 

[bfloyd]

If the dot radials are better then the market will
choose them. But a weight break is not the way to
find out. Let the current rule set stand.

Bryan Floyd

 

[Dayle Frame]

If the dot radials are better then the market will
choose them. But a weight break is not the way to
find out. Let the current rule set stand.

Bryan Floyd

What he said.....

+1

Dayle

 

[Protech Racing]

Remember Prod before limited Prep? Without those cheaper to build cars we would not be here now.

 

[Al Seim]

Hey Mike -

I totally get your argument and I'm glad you raised it. I'm also a long time advocate of Limited Prep and looking for ways to try to reduce costs even though it's not easy.

But on reflection I voted against weight breaks for DOTs based partly on spotty size availability of the R7/A7 tires but more because I suspect the R7/A7 may not need a substantial weight break to be a very good choice for many racers if available in the right size. And I strongly suspect that the DOTs will continue to improve faster than non-DOTs.

Al Seim
HP VW Scirocco 1.6

 

[Frogeye]

No weight change. allowed now and some date posted seems to show they are close. Future development could further close the gap, maybe even reverse it. the we would be debating adding weight. Let the market decide.

 

[Protech Racing]

1) Maybe @ 2.5-5%, they will look good enough for more to try. and many currently parked IT (and prod), cars to come take a look at Prod. More cars= good.

2)Any cost reduction will see an increase in participation. (marketing 101 that I did well in.)

3) The current cost per hr @ majors? maybe 2000$ ??( just tires, fuel, entry)
The current cost per hr @ some endurance race- 250$. It doesnt take a math genius or engineer to figure out a cost effective way to race.

Our program needs to look better to these younger engineers. IMHO.

4) Flushing 1200$ on tires per hr or two , when options exist for a far cheaper competitive outcome is illogical .

5)As prior posted, we need more than one choice for competitive tires. For sizing, for market power, etc.

 

[michael heintzman]

1) Maybe @ 2.5-5%, they will look good enough for more to try. and many currently parked IT (and prod), cars to come take a look at Prod. More cars= good.

2)Any cost reduction will see an increase in participation. (marketing 101 that I did well in.)

3) The current cost per hr @ majors? maybe 2000$ ??( just tires, fuel, entry)
The current cost per hr @ some endurance race- 250$. It doesnt take a math genius or engineer to figure out a cost effective way to race.

Our program needs to look better to these younger engineers. IMHO.

4) Flushing 1200$ on tires per hr or two , when options exist for a far cheaper competitive outcome is illogical .

5) As prior posted, we need more than one choice for competitive tires. For sizing, for market power, etc.

This is just a be careful what you ask for set of comments ...

1 - If the decrease in weight does make them competitive don't think for a minute the front runners will sit around idle.
2 - Any cost reduction will mean a person with the means will now run new tires for practice, new tires for qualifying, and new tires for each and every race.
3 - The cost for maintenance on a well prepared car will bring those costs per hour back in line with each other. Also, feeding the 'crew' and the increased hotel costs etcetera need to be factored in.
4 - Slicks can be used for more than for one race. People just choose to swap them out since they will not be prime choice tires for the next race. See item 2 above as this already happens.
5 - Goodyear is back in the market for 15" tires so now we have Avon, Hoosier, and Goodyear as competitive tires.

Once item 2 above comes clearly into focus the next rule that will be cycled about will be the "race on the tires you qualified on" and Tech will have to mark all tires.

I've never seen limited prep as a more cost effective way to prepare a car, it just required jumping through more hoops. Then you find the weakest link ... I.e., connecting rods, crankshaft, lifters, or whatever and petition for a rule change to reduce the costs of aerating the cylinder block or whatever. ... and the cycle begins again.

YMMV ...

 

[Protech Racing]

Marking Qualifying tires is what most pro series do, why not?

 

[Joe Harlan]

Marking Qualifying tires is what most pro series do, why not?

Because Tech cant get done what is on their plate now. This is not Pro-Racing and we should stop trying to be.

 

[dhrmx5]

Michael is so right.

If there is one thing Pratt convinced me of, it's that building the car right in the first place is always cheaper in the long run.