RTTH VII Rules/Ideas

[ACR-Mark]

1: What would the group think about "adjusting" the street tire treadwear rule from 200 to 180? Goodguys is using 180 in their rules, and this would open up some options for lower cost tires, especially the Kumho Ecsta XS. They have some really meaty sizes that would work well, and these tires aren't technically any stickier than any of the best 200's out there. SCCA uses 140 as their minimum rating, as anything on the market lower than that, at least that I'm familiar with, is considered an R-Compound. Except for Miatas running 140 Toyos, most of the winning tires in SCCA autocrosses are 180's and 200's.
I run the Kumho's on my RX-8, in addition to the 200 treadwear Dunlops, and though they don't offer quite the lateral grip of the Dunlops, they are far more tolerant of accelaration and hard braking. This would be beneficial to all the big V8's that have a lot of power to put down, and have huge brakes also in need of grippy tires to slow that powerhouse down.
The reason I ask is that one of the RTTH newcomers is about to buy his first set of extreme performance tires for his 2nd gen Camaro, and my honest recommendation to get the best bang for your buck would be the Kumhos. I think a lot of guys could benefit from the great performance, great tire size choices, and low comparative cost of these tires.

2: How about bringing back 2 driver cars? This can be accomplished fairly easy using any of the following:
A: Run the cars in 2 separate run groups, like Spectre did with their El Camino. The adhesive numbering that Bill came up with was great, easy to read, easy to peel off. When the first driver was done, the first set of numbers were removed, and the next driver applied his numbers for his run group.
B: This would be the method I would prefer: Use an SCCA style grid to line up the competitors, as opposed to the single file line that keeps feeding and moving. With a grid, once a car makes its run, it returns to its spot until the next run. Both drivers can run in the same group this way. You can peel and apply/reapply numbers, or have them both there, with one set covered up, or whatever. Simple details..... I can help with a grid setup next year.
Again, the reason I ask is because of that black 2nd gen Camaro. I am helping him with the car setup & tuning, and would like to drive that car next year instead of the RX-8. I drove it last weekend at an autocross event in Chattanooga. Horsepower is fun...

[Derek69SS]

I agree with all of the above, the SCCA uses 140 min treadwear for it's "street tire" classes, as do most local autocross clubs for their street tire index classes, and the Milwaukee region's "National Street Tire Challenge". The Kumho XS is an awesome tire, and works a little better in the heat than the Dunlops, which makes them a better/safer track day tire too.

I know RTTH isn't SCCA, but some of us RTTH competitors also like to play in our local SCCA clubs, and would like to only need to own one set of tires to be competitive in both, or not have to choose a less competitive SCCA tire in order to be eligible for RTTH.

[TonyBolton]

I'd certainly have no problem going by what the SCCA classifies as a street tire. I'll continue using my Nitto NT05's, but anything that helps broaden the street tire brands can only be a plus.

[wmhjr]

I had a similar conversation with Scott Wahlstrom yesterday. I agree the lower rating doesn't really give a measurable advantage and opens up some options for people.

BTW, we also discussed the use of transponders for all the events, including the MMMC, MCC and RTTH. And we talked a bit about the "year of car" issue. Transponders could help to enable larger fields so you could include some later model cars a bit more easily.

[01badz28]

I don't plan on running ST tires, so I don't have a dog in that fight. Broadening the rule to 140 makes sense, however.

I'd only really like to see the following changes:

1. Do away with the rolling grid.

2. Something (tshirts, plaques, whatever) for the R compound guys.

Otherwise, the event gets better and better every year. The more relaxed environment is a nice change of pace from the SCCA events.

[Scott Parkhurst]

This all sounds great for Kumho. Does the event sponsor (BFG) have a suitable tire to offer?

Unless, of course, Kumho is planning to support this event?

I'm all for more traction, but without sponsors, this event (and others like it that BFG sponsors) won't prosper like they could. Several competitors were on BFGs and gunning for the reward money this year. I must also state that I wasn't one of them (I run Nittos), so I don't have a dog in this fight either. But if a rule change like this eliminates most or all the participants from using a sponsor product, it'll be really hard for them to justify staying on board.

Unless, as I stated, Kumho (or some other mfr with a suitable tire) is willing to step up and take BFGs place as a tire sponsor.

For what it's worth- I'm considering the purchase of some new tires for 2011, so if there is to be some change in this rule, I'd love to know it before I drop the dough for tires and end up with less than the max allowable rating. I was really hoping to step up and get the max allowable tire (200 tw) and I'll hold off for now, if this is up for debate and potential change.

[TonyBolton]

I'm in the process of replacing tires and i'll be going again with the Nitto NT05's. They're about as sticky as you're gonna get for a street tire in "muscle car" sizes.

[tommycomfort]

This all sounds great for Kumho. Does the event sponsor (BFG) have a suitable tire to offer?

Unless, of course, Kumho is planning to support this event?

I'm all for more traction, but without sponsors, this event (and others like it that BFG sponsors) won't prosper like they could. Several competitors were on BFGs and gunning for the reward money this year. I must also state that I wasn't one of them (I run Nittos), so I don't have a dog in this fight either. But if a rule change like this eliminates most or all the participants from using a sponsor product, it'll be really hard for them to justify staying on board.

Unless, as I stated, Kumho (or some other mfr with a suitable tire) is willing to step up and take BFGs place as a tire sponsor.

For what it's worth- I'm considering the purchase of some new tires for 2011, so if there is to be some change in this rule, I'd love to know it before I drop the dough for tires and end up with less than the max allowable rating. I was really hoping to step up and get the max allowable tire (200 tw) and I'll hold off for now, if this is up for debate and potential change.

Well said Scott! I think a lot of us forget that sponsors make a lot of these events possible and for that reason I am more than willing to give them my business. As far as treadwear goes, I am pretty sure that I will never be "competitive" based on the stickiness of my tires...
Tom

[vintageracer]

Why not make the treadwear requirement 400 or higher?

Take the "sticky tire" out of the equation.

Then we can see who the REALLY GOOD driver's are!

[Jim Nilsen]

When it comes to the tire rule for me, it really doesn't matter. I am running Kumho's soley because they had the size tire I was looking for and the 180 treadwear is what it is and I am able to compete in the Goodguys events and since it is just a peanut and under 35 mph I found I might be able to compete there. But to compete at any of the events against the higher dollar cars is futile, so I am going for the fun factor and run what I run.

I am with Scott on the sponsoring from BFG and why would they be there if noone was running their tires. On the other side of it all, BFG doesn't make any tire sizes that work for most people. in 17" sizes you are limited so bad that it only takes a second to see that you have to go somewhere else or go to 18" or 19" wheels. It is sad to me that BFG is so out of the reality about what sizes people want that you couldn't win if you want to because others have wider tires and better compunds that fit the rules.

I also have a bit of thing about how much more traction you get when you go wider and 200 tw vs narrower and 180 tw. At a certain point the wider tire at a lower tw will have as much or more traction than the narrower one at 180 tw in the corners. So how is the playing field ever going to be more even when it comes to tires without tire width also being part of the rule??

I would like to see the cars split up in 2 categories so the guy's that don't have over $50k in there cars can feel like there is a chance to compete with someone just a bit. I am just there for fun for the most part but it would be nice if you weren't lining up to compare apples to oranges in the competition.It would also make the fastest group of cars be able to maybe get better times without cars like mine that don't have the high HP.

All in all I wish I could have ran BFG's but until they step up to the track with some more sizes for 17" wheels it's their loss and if it means that they have no one at an event using there tires except for the sponsors and dealers who are not eligible for prizes maybe they will ask the right question as to why? The writing is on the sidewall and I don't think they are looking past the the sponsors for real world sizes.

Is anyone at BFG even seeing what is happening?

[1969CamaroRS]

I would like to see the cars split up in 2 categories so the guy's that don't have over $50k in there cars can feel like there is a chance to compete with someone just a bit.

That's a good idea. Have a limited class (set the bar with the hobbyist in mind) and a unlimited class where the high dollar cars can slug it out.

[musclecarmatt]

thats would be cool......i was thinking about getting the Kumho's for my car once i get my new wheels...

[Derek69SS]

Why not make the treadwear requirement 400 or higher?

Take the "sticky tire" out of the equation.

Then we can see who the REALLY GOOD driver's are!

The only way to become a good driver is to do a lot of events, and anyone doing a lot of events isn't going to buy crappy tires on purpose... I know I don't want to have to buy another set of tires just to be eligible... I do think that consideration should be given to what the SCCA determines as a "Street Tire", as they are the largest sanctioning body of autocross in the US, and IMHO, it's good for the "Pro Touring" community in general if participants don't have to sacrifice performance in one series to be eligible for the other.

I would like to see the cars split up in 2 categories so the guy's that don't have over $50k in there cars can feel like there is a chance to compete with someone just a bit. I am just there for fun for the most part but it would be nice if you weren't lining up to compare apples to oranges in the competition.It would also make the fastest group of cars be able to maybe get better times without cars like mine that don't have the high HP.

I like that idea... some basic rules that separate the "pro" from the "touring".

Touring class would require full interior and have a tire size limitation (example: 1200mm total adding all 4 widths together) all factory glass, factory type frame or subframe.

Things that would bump you into "pro" would be things like roll cage, gutted interior, tires over X size, more than 2 non-factory body panels of lightweight material, aftermarket frame/subframe, etc. Maybe even allow R-comps in the "pro" class???

These are just ideas... I'd be willing to help with the logistics of putting a "class" system together.

[musclecarmatt]

The only way to become a good driver is to do a lot of events, and anyone doing a lot of events isn't going to buy crappy tires on purpose... I know I don't want to have to buy another set of tires just to be eligible... I do think that consideration should be given to what the SCCA determines as a "Street Tire", as they are the largest sanctioning body of autocross in the US, and IMHO, it's good for the "Pro Touring" community in general if participants don't have to sacrifice performance in one series to be eligible for the other.


I like that idea... some basic rules that separate the "pro" from the "touring".

Touring class would require full interior and have a tire size limitation (example: 1200mm total adding all 4 widths together) all factory glass, factory type frame or subframe.

Things that would bump you into "pro" would be things like roll cage, gutted interior, tires over X size, more than 2 non-factory body panels of lightweight material, aftermarket frame/subframe, etc. Maybe even allow R-comps in the "pro" class???

These are just ideas... I'd be willing to help with the logistics of putting a "class" system together.

i like this idea!...going to run my camaro this year...i know just for fun but it be nice to have separate class like stated for some factory frame and leaf spring setup cars out there......

[Scott Parkhurst]

i like this idea!...going to run my camaro this year...i know just for fun but it be nice to have separate class like stated for some factory frame and leaf spring setup cars out there......

Well...not all of our cars shipped with leafs originally...but I get your drift.

I'd think the logical move would be a class for stock frames (with bolt-ons) and one for aftermarket/custom chassis/custom subframe cars.

As one who has tried to use the best-possible bolt-on suspension goodies without modifiying the stock frame at all, I feel this separates the men from the boys. Once you commit to an aftermarket chassis, the performance should bump up to a level greater than what's possible with the stock frame. That's why it's done, right?

If the stock framerails are complete and unmodified front to rear (not narrowed, c-notched, etc.) and the factory suspension mount points are used, the car would qualify for the stock chassis class. This allows for custom crossmembers (for late-model engines/transmissions etc.) but limits potential suspension upgrades.

The aftermarket/custom chassis class would be for everything that isn't the above.

[tazzz25906112]

Guys just some food for thought because at the end of the day I see it like this,,, the sticker the tire the quicker a qualified driver gets.... The insurance doesn't know who is quick and who isn't,,, they just look at ""risk"" and the risk goes up with sticker tires and speeds. When the risk becomes greater,,,, the events get more expense....

We're just developing as a community and beginning to be recognized as a decent market segment (based on the growth of events and coverage),,,, lets not worry about getting the last bit out of our cars (or ourselves) and concentrate on having a good time at an affordable rate... One bad accident and the insurance will run for the hills (no pun intended) and this will be all over.... Save the cost spread on tires and risk,,,, put it toward attending another event and having a blast...

The more events we have,,,, the more support the manufactures will step up with (both in financial support and product development for our cars).... In the end it's about having a good time without blowing your brains out.... If you want a taste of that just build a car to spec for a race series and campaign it for a season,,,, I'm sure it will cure most of this need for the extra speed...

Just food for thought....

[Derek69SS]

I'd leave room for lots of modification allowances to the stock frame/subframe, but draw the line at a complete aftermarket frame, or IRS... Box it, weld it, reinforce it, gusset it, change pickup points, etc as long as it's still identifiable as a factory frame and retains a solid rear axle, allow it in the lower class. You'd want any rule like this to be pretty wide open, and very clear where the cutoff is, so that there's nobody protesting someone over a perceived "illegal" modification... that would take the fun right out of it real quick. You also don't want a 30-page rulebook to determine which class you'd fall into.

I'd like to hear what Bill has to say on the subject... in the end, it's all up to him, and I respect his decisions either way.

[Ron S]

What has made our events so cool in my opinion, is the diversity of cars running. My fear is our events being taken over by a sanctioning body(NASA,SCCA,ETC.)and then the rule book comes out, and all the crap starts. Up until now its been the wild,wild west, and I for one like it that way.

I think Bill has done a good job keeping it fair, after all, its his blood, sweat, and tears putting these things together. Win loose or draw, I haven't been to one event that wasn't a blast.

Not one of us hasn't looked at the feild and said, I'll never beat that guy. Hell, I thought Kyle, and Penny were never going to get beat, now I think Marks new Camaro is unbeatable. Thats what keeps me tinkering with my junk, it makes me faster every event. I know she's changing it now, but Mary Pozzy's small block, leaf sprung Camaro held off almost the entire feild at optima. Don't care what I'm driving, I want to run with the fast kids, even if I never win. Nobody is stopping you from stepping up.

Pick a tread wear number, and lets race. Be careful what you wish for, rules and different classes could end up destroying what I think is a great thing. Ron

[vintageracer]

. I know she's changing it now, but Mary Pozzy's small block, leaf sprung Camaro held off almost the entire feild at optima.

Hey Ron,

Kinda shows you what good driving ability will do for you doesn't it? All the high dollar parts and equipment will help to a degree but will still not overcome poor driving ability.

A LOT of folks need to consider that the BEST "Bang for Their" Buck is to be investing in themselves by going to a professional driving school and really learning how to drive rather than spending "Mo Money" for more horsepower or other crap on their car. Never underestimate the ability of a great driver to overcome the handicap of lesser equipmen!

[protouring70]

Guys just some food for thought because at the end of the day I see it like this,,, the sticker the tire the quicker a qualified driver gets.... The insurance doesn't know who is quick and who isn't,,, they just look at ""risk"" and the risk goes up with sticker tires and speeds. When the risk becomes greater,,,, the events get more expense....

We're just developing as a community and beginning to be recognized as a decent market segment (based on the growth of events and coverage),,,, lets not worry about getting the last bit out of our cars (or ourselves) and concentrate on having a good time at an affordable rate... One bad accident and the insurance will run for the hills (no pun intended) and this will be all over.... Save the cost spread on tires and risk,,,, put it toward attending another event and having a blast...

The more events we have,,,, the more support the manufactures will step up with (both in financial support and product development for our cars).... In the end it's about having a good time without blowing your brains out.... If you want a taste of that just build a car to spec for a race series and campaign it for a season,,,, I'm sure it will cure most of this need for the extra speed...

Just food for thought....

I agree, it's all about fun and being able spend time with friends. And yes being competitive is part of it. But look at the other cars that are at your levels and go from there. If we make it too complicated then the events might go away. And we don't want that. So come and enjoy yourself!!!!