USCC (leave your axe outside)

[MoMedic9019]

A set of dry compound is about $1600, around $400 a tire.

Just for comparison...an off the shelf Michelin is about $150 more.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

I know this is sarcasm, but yes they should be ashamed. Top-level racing series should be pushing the envelope in every regard.

I found it ridiculous when at Le Mans, teams could quadruple-stint their tires, while Pirelli were making tires which could barely do half a dozen laps without completely dropping off.

There still seems to be confusion in this thread - there is no control tire in the WEC. Michelin isn't even a de facto control tire. Anyone is welcome to make an LMP1 tire, it's just that everyone goes with Michelin because they are the best in the business and their tires are the most impressive in world motor sport.

Going back to TUSCC, how much money does a control tire save the teams? The P2s have to do a heap of testing and development work to make their cars work with the dodgy Conties. Once they have got used to them, if they want to race in Europe, they have to do the same thing in reverse. It's put Muscle Milk off going to Le Mans.

Let's be honest here, Pirelli was told to make tires with that kind of fall off.

[Dimension]

Yes, and everyone openly "admitted" to it, including Pirelli and FIA. The fall off is a feature to increase the value of strategy and create passing opportunities. It is widely regarded as a good thing.

[truebeliever]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

A set of dry compound is about $1600, around $400 a tire.

Just for comparison...an off the shelf Michelin is about $150 more.

Last I heard, current 2014 Continental DP tires were $2,056.00 per set.

[Scooter185]

Originally Posted by Dimension

Yes, and everyone openly "admitted" to it, including Pirelli and FIA. The fall off is a feature to increase the value of strategy and create passing opportunities. It is widely regarded as a good thing.

As much as I enjoy f1, the pirelli saga was a bit ridiculous. Hopefully the new regs with less down force help. The fall apart rubber was only necessary because the FIA painted themselves into a corner with the aero.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by truebeliever

Last I heard, current 2014 Continental DP tires were $2,056.00 per set.

Fair enough! Bit more than I remember.

[Fogelhund]

How do you fix the issues though, when it appears the main issue really is incompetence? I mean it is either that, or these things have been done wilfully.

I'm not sure how many second first chances they deserve.

[Lagunaseca_4life]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

How do you fix the issues though, when it appears the main issue really is incompetence? I mean it is either that, or these things have been done wilfully.

I'm not sure how many second first chances they deserve.

But....but....they only had one chance to get it right....

[belt driven]

Why don't we spin off a spec series (PC?) and invite (pay) different tire makers to supply them? We could call it ITSA or USTR.

Is anybody but P2 teams complaining about Continentals? Too many cautions and current pit rules don't give teams any incentive to do so much of the timme, but DPs have commonly double-stinted them at Daytona in the past. Gainsco won at COTA doing so.

I do not want a tire war. F1 has had them in the past and it sometimes created great IMbalance of performance. Spec tires were not originally mandated in F1; rather a tire supplier was required to be ABLE to supply all teams that wanted to buy. The fiasco at the 2005 USGP ("Michelin: Unsafe to Race!") brought about the one tire contract. And yes, I know Indy was a historic/stupid course for F1. Michelin did bid on the F1 contract for 2011-2013.

I'm not buying the "wrong tire for Le Mans" argument, and frankly woudn't change them for that reason anyway. How do we know Michelin saw sufficient marketing value in the US beyond equipping GTLM in the single road racing series?

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by belt driven

Is anybody but P2 teams complaining about Continentals?

I'm not buying the "wrong tire for Le Mans" argument, and frankly woudn't change them for that reason anyway. How do we know Michelin saw sufficient marketing value in the US beyond equipping GTLM in the single road racing series?

Who else would complain? PC and GTD aren't eligible for LM, so it is a completely irrelevant point for them.

As far as the "wrong tire for LM" argument, the fact is that the P2's have larger restrictors and are still several seconds slower than they were before being required to use the Contis. Nobody in their right mind would try and use Contis anywhere they weren't required.

[LouisTheShark]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Who else would complain? PC and GTD aren't eligible for LM, so it is a completely irrelevant point for them.

As far as the "wrong tire for LM" argument, the fact is that the P2's have larger restrictors and are still several seconds slower than they were before being required to use the Contis. Nobody in their right mind would try and use Contis anywhere they weren't required.

You can make that argument for an control tire. Most series with spec tires end up with tires that are safer, less aggressive, and will not push the technology envelope. The only reason it is even that much of a discussion in sports cars is that some series have open rules and some don't. Therefore it is easy to make comparison as the race cars using them are either the same or very similar, making the tire the visible performance difference.

But how about the fuel? Everyone now is pretty much on spec fuel. I remember the days of F1 home brews and oil company sponsors on the side of the cars providing the latest and greatest in fuel chemistry to those teams. F1 tried to use control samples so that teams had to race throughout the year with the same fuel they presented at the beginning of the year. That didn't work either and cheating was still everywhere.

While it is true that sanctioning bodies financially benefit from a control tire or single tire supplier, a single tire supplier also reduces some competitor risk as long as the tire supplier builds a safe tire. We can argue that point about F1 as that is about the one series where that is not the case.

Neil Bonnett, Michele Alboreto and others died or were injured due to a tire failure. What do these incidents have in common, a tire war.

So the real question is, does anyone really go to a race to root for one tire manufacturer over another? Do the tire manufacturers have any real technology transfer from race to street tire? I would think not. And if a tire war is so desirable, why not go back to a fuel war? How many fans during the open fuel era of F1 rooted for Esso over Shell or vice versa?

I look at tires the same as I look at fuel. That is not why I watch racing so to me that stuff can stay spec.

[Fogelhund]

FWIW, I wasn't making any argument as to why someone should, or shouldn't use spec tires in a series at all.. just pointing out why P2 were the only ones complaining, and that the times achieved on Contis are slower than one could achieve with the other tires available.

[LouisTheShark]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

FWIW, I wasn't making any argument as to why someone should, or shouldn't use spec tires in a series at all.. just pointing out why P2 were the only ones complaining, and that the times achieved on Contis are slower than one could achieve with the other tires available.

Sorry it came out strong in a reply. I had been thinking about this for a while how a spec tire is really not that different from a spec fuel in the grand theme of things and my views should really not been a reply to your post, but a post on and by itself.

[ACFlinn]

Originally Posted by LouisTheShark

They did not have these officiating issues as both had pretty solid lead officials. ALMS was borne out some quality people left from PSCR and mid 90s IMSA and Grand-Am was borne out of people from the 80s/90s IMSA. So you had a good split of solid sports car officiating talent on both sides. The main difference being philosophical differences in rules and race operations but as far as making the right calls within their rule books, they both did a pretty good job.

Back in 1983, IMSA red-flagged the race when they discovered they didn't have enough racing fuel to service all of the competitors (a record 84).

Bob Akin (Sebring Hall of Fame inductee) claimed that his Porsche 935 was afflicted by water in the gas, and cost him the victory.

But you know what? Akin and the fans soon got over it.

I'm not sure that could happen in the current environment.

Andy Flinn

[Scooter185]

Originally Posted by LouisTheShark

You can make that argument for an control tire. Most series with spec tires end up with tires that are safer, less aggressive, and will not push the technology envelope. The only reason it is even that much of a discussion in sports cars is that some series have open rules and some don't. Therefore it is easy to make comparison as the race cars using them are either the same or very similar, making the tire the visible performance difference.

But how about the fuel? Everyone now is pretty much on spec fuel. I remember the days of F1 home brews and oil company sponsors on the side of the cars providing the latest and greatest in fuel chemistry to those teams. F1 tried to use control samples so that teams had to race throughout the year with the same fuel they presented at the beginning of the year. That didn't work either and cheating was still everywhere.

While it is true that sanctioning bodies financially benefit from a control tire or single tire supplier, a single tire supplier also reduces some competitor risk as long as the tire supplier builds a safe tire. We can argue that point about F1 as that is about the one series where that is not the case.

Neil Bonnett, Michele Alboreto and others died or were injured due to a tire failure. What do these incidents have in common, a tire war.

So the real question is, does anyone really go to a race to root for one tire manufacturer over another? Do the tire manufacturers have any real technology transfer from race to street tire? I would think not. And if a tire war is so desirable, why not go back to a fuel war? How many fans during the open fuel era of F1 rooted for Esso over Shell or vice versa?

I look at tires the same as I look at fuel. That is not why I watch racing so to me that stuff can stay spec.

Well I would have been obliged to root for anything branded Texaco, as my father owned 4 service stations. I have quite the collection of die cast #28 Texaco Winston Cup cars.

[joeb]

Goodv article written by a marshal at Sebring.http://motorsportsmusings.wordpress....he-new-series/

[chernaudi]

I know that there's been some talk on Atherton and Bennet being quiet since the merger. Well, Scott has spoken out in an interview with Marshall Pruett that Marshall says will be released tomorrow (according to his Twitter) that'll look at the Sebring issues in detail.

Don't know if it'll make a lot of us feel better, though, unless some hint's at major changes are being made.

[belt driven]

Originally Posted by joeb

Goodv article written by a marshal at Sebring.http://motorsportsmusings.wordpress....he-new-series/

Excellent article. In the time between the Viper fire starting and the driver getting out, I thought about a past incident.

During the 1972 Road Atlanta Can-Am race, Denny Hulme went airborne at 8 in his McLaren M20. The car came to rest inverted, minus wing and all bodywork, against the tires/earth embankment on driver’s right 80 yards short of Black Flag. There was no fuel system breach and no fire. A dozen-odd spectators immediately jumped the fence and down the bank/tires and righted the car. Hulme was conscious but none too chipper, so, wisely, nobody attempted to remove him from the car. A few small to medium sized vehicle and campers’ fire extinguishers were on the bank by the time any marshals reached the car. Officially, such actions were unauthorized, deplorable, and dangerous. I don’t know if spectators could have handled a fire. Had there been one, Hulme would have had slim chance of survival waiting on official help

[nkoske]

Originally Posted by Dimension

Yes, and everyone openly "admitted" to it, including Pirelli and FIA. The fall off is a feature to increase the value of strategy and create passing opportunities. It is widely regarded as a good thing.

True, but back in 2007 the Pirellis on the AMR DBR9s didn't hold up either . So I think there's still question whether Pirelli can make a 'good' tire.

[Dimension]

I think they can. The reason they fell apart last year was due to the FIA changing the rules and demanding to replace the kevlar components with steel in order to cut costs presumably. This was not on Pirelli's initiative.

Pirelli probably tried, but there were a lot of factors out of their control (such as the intricacies of certain cars, using exhaust gas to seal off the diffusor and teams cross-changing tires) so it was them trying to improve on a deeply flawed concept that was put upon them by the rulemakers. As soon as they went back to 2012 carcasses the problem was gone.

This is my personal take though. force india employed several ex-bridgestone engineers on their team and they had a somewhat different view, though I don't recall what exactly their argument was.

this is getting quite off-topic however.

In any case, I think the spec tires aren't really the issue here. Overall BoP should accomodate for that, and if Sebring is anything to go by, we're approaching the target here. though I secretly think that the reason P2 was so strong was that they actually had stronger driver pairings than the DP teams.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I know that there's been some talk on Atherton and Bennet being quiet since the merger. Well, Scott has spoken out in an interview with Marshall Pruett that Marshall says will be released tomorrow (according to his Twitter) that'll look at the Sebring issues in detail.

Don't know if it'll make a lot of us feel better, though, unless some hint's at major changes are being made.

I have little doubt it's going to be much more than PR dribble from a puppet.

We are looking a this, we are looking at that, we know there are problems, we need time to figure them out, just stay patient, trust us, and....

If you only knew what was coming!

[EricS]

As tweeted by Hindy, US TV ratings are in for Sebring on FS1:

181k live (first 3 hours)
135k highlights

[Ephaeton]

ouch.

[Victor_RO]

And according to Hindy, compared to the last hours of the Bathurst 12h live in Australia... half the watchers for 20 times the population. (Bathurst getting 350k in Australia for a population of about 15-20 million)

[David Land]

Alex Job seems to think there will be a breakaway series.

Honestly I can't see how this would work especially seeing how TUSCAR has most of the manufacturers in its pocket.