Groovy, baby!

Groovy, baby!

Post by Dave Bu » Fri, 23 Aug 1996 04:00:00


Autosport:
Both Goodyear and Bridgestone are said to have agreed in principle with
grooving.

As Damon plays guitar, will this give him an advantage?????

Actually, folks, this is the latest on the 'increase braking distances'
front: the FIA are considering making the teams used grooved tyres.

--  
 The campaign to save the World Service: http://www.longitude0.co.uk/save-ws

 My web page: http://www.man.ac.uk/~zlsiida (officially open! not very good)
JUNK EMAIL: Storage costs money.  I charge for spool space: rates on web page

 
 
 

Groovy, baby!

Post by Dillon Pyro » Fri, 23 Aug 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Autosport:
>Both Goodyear and Bridgestone are said to have agreed in principle with
>grooving.

>As Damon plays guitar, will this give him an advantage?????

>Actually, folks, this is the latest on the 'increase braking distances'
>front: the FIA are considering making the teams used grooved tyres.

I've raced on grooved tires before, and one characteristic is to throw chunks
off when they get hot enough.  If a FF can do this, you can bet a F1 can.
Unless they are talking about grooved cut with a fine razor, which will have
little net effect on braking, but make those iffy dry-wet decisions a lot
easier.

BTW, shaved tires have almost no grooving left, are are, at best, marginal as
street legal tires.  I have a friend with a race-prepped 914 who can expound on
this experience.
--
dillon

PADI OWSI-54909  USPSA A-26031

 
 
 

Groovy, baby!

Post by Robert M. Mihal » Sat, 24 Aug 1996 04:00:00

Why just demand a minimum "softness" (durometer, I think is the
technical term?) of the tire. In other words, the manufacturers can
only supply hard *** tires (hard being relative to the current F1
race tire), or require that the tire last the ENTIRE length of the
race. The GP race bikes, which don't have downforce, do not have tire
changes when racing. It could be done in F1.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


University of Pittsburgh, Department of Anesthesiology
1995 VFR750 "Irving"   1996 NSR500 (in my dreams)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Groovy, baby!

Post by Peter G. Olivo » Sat, 24 Aug 1996 04:00:00



Quote:
>Why just demand a minimum "softness" (durometer, I think is the
>technical term?) of the tire. In other words, the manufacturers can
>only supply hard *** tires (hard being relative to the current F1
>race tire), or require that the tire last the ENTIRE length of the
>race. The GP race bikes, which don't have downforce, do not have tire
>changes when racing. It could be done in F1.

Nice theory.  Won't work in practice.  The "art" of tire compounding is much
more complex than this kind of simplistic exercise.  Not to mention the tire
companies having no interest in such a proposal.  Every attempt at such
rules has met with ultimate failure.  Perhaps the most notable was the
SCCA's fiasco with spec tires for FF1600.  Tire companies have a great deal
of power in racing.  Even the FIA can't force them to do something they
don't want to do.  The only reason the ban on one-lap-wonders happened was
because the tire companies request the rule, not the other way around.
--


 
 
 

Groovy, baby!

Post by David McAuliffe - Acronym Computi » Sun, 25 Aug 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

> Perhaps the most notable was the SCCA's fiasco with spec tires for FF1600.

What happened there? We've been using spec tyres in FF in Oz since I
first ran them. We've run Dunlops and Avons over the years, and since
everyone has the same tyres & problems. there's no big deal.
Ciao,

McA.

 
 
 

Groovy, baby!

Post by Peter G. Olivo » Sun, 25 Aug 1996 04:00:00



Quote:


>> Perhaps the most notable was the SCCA's fiasco with spec tires for FF1600.

>What happened there? We've been using spec tyres in FF in Oz since I
>first ran them. We've run Dunlops and Avons over the years, and since
>everyone has the same tyres & problems. there's no big deal.
>Ciao,

Goodyear didn't want to do it and no other U.S. tire manufacturer was
capable of supplying U.S. FF1600 needs, including service at the track.  In
the end the whole thing was abandoned and quietly swept under the rug.  The
major difference, I suspect, between the U.S. and Oz is the FF1600 here run
on full race ***.  I don't know the economics of your situation, but it
has been repeatedly calculated that slicks are cheaper for the vast majority
of the field than shaved radial street ***.  While slicks may no longer
be optimal after a single session, they don't wear to the point of being
unsafe as quickly as shaved radials.  We have "Showroom Stock" cars making
that point weekly.
--