The SCCA today announced the exclusion of the Vitour Tempesta P1 from both its Time Trials and Solo programs in categories where tires are restricted to 200tw.
Citing both member and media testing results, the Time Trials Board declared the outsized performance of the P1 to be “inconsistent …
Wow that was fast. Not a surprise at all but fast lol.
I wonder if that might force the price of current inventory down.........you know for Challenge reasons.
In reply to DeadSkunk (Warren) :
I'm thinking this might be a Michelin PSC2 competitor (for people who want dual-duty tires and don't care if they're SCCA-legal) so probably not.
sounds like it's time for TW to become more of a standard rating across all brands and manufacturers should voluntary offer to re-certify every so many years. This might allow the NT01 to be bumped up to a 200TW since it really isn't any faster than the goodyear SC3 which is a 220tw but is not legal for SCCA time trials because of it's 110tw rating. It might also allow the Hankook RS/4 which is a much harder wearing tires than it's 200tw to get a higher rating indicating its non-competitive but highly practical use for lap day folks who don't care about the absoulute fastest lap time.
sammy gonna be pisssssssssssssssssssssssssed
So might be on sale later you're saying...
ClearWaterMS said:sounds like it's time for TW to become more of a standard rating across all brands and manufacturers should voluntary offer to re-certify every so many years. This might allow the NT01 to be bumped up to a 200TW since it really isn't any faster than the goodyear SC3 which is a 220tw but is not legal for SCCA time trials because of it's 110tw rating. It might also allow the Hankook RS/4 which is a much harder wearing tires than it's 200tw to get a higher rating indicating its non-competitive but highly practical use for lap day folks who don't care about the absoulute fastest lap time.
You know manufacturers can do all of that already, right?
As someone who buys Hoosiers I find this issue novel (note Hoosier is the only company that makes the tire I need for both cars).
dps214 said:ClearWaterMS said:sounds like it's time for TW to become more of a standard rating across all brands and manufacturers should voluntary offer to re-certify every so many years. This might allow the NT01 to be bumped up to a 200TW since it really isn't any faster than the goodyear SC3 which is a 220tw but is not legal for SCCA time trials because of it's 110tw rating. It might also allow the Hankook RS/4 which is a much harder wearing tires than it's 200tw to get a higher rating indicating its non-competitive but highly practical use for lap day folks who don't care about the absoulute fastest lap time.
You know manufacturers can do all of that already, right?
Yep...this.
Manufacturers are allowed to "derate" a tire's treadwear to suit their own marketing purposes. Lots of older, slow 100tw tires carry that marking because it leads people to believe they are sticky. Marketing is an amazing thing.
"Can I interest you in a nice inland plot of Florida "land"?
dps214 said:ClearWaterMS said:sounds like it's time for TW to become more of a standard rating across all brands and manufacturers should voluntary offer to re-certify every so many years. This might allow the NT01 to be bumped up to a 200TW since it really isn't any faster than the goodyear SC3 which is a 220tw but is not legal for SCCA time trials because of it's 110tw rating. It might also allow the Hankook RS/4 which is a much harder wearing tires than it's 200tw to get a higher rating indicating its non-competitive but highly practical use for lap day folks who don't care about the absoulute fastest lap time.
You know manufacturers can do all of that already, right?
I was under the impression that different manufacturers measured TW differently leading different tires having different characteristics and wearing at different rates.
The Hankook RS/4 vs the RE71 is a perfect example of two different tires that if you put the same tire size on the same car with the same driver one will last alot longer and wear slower.
Andy Hollis said:dps214 said:ClearWaterMS said:sounds like it's time for TW to become more of a standard rating across all brands and manufacturers should voluntary offer to re-certify every so many years. This might allow the NT01 to be bumped up to a 200TW since it really isn't any faster than the goodyear SC3 which is a 220tw but is not legal for SCCA time trials because of it's 110tw rating. It might also allow the Hankook RS/4 which is a much harder wearing tires than it's 200tw to get a higher rating indicating its non-competitive but highly practical use for lap day folks who don't care about the absoulute fastest lap time.
You know manufacturers can do all of that already, right?
Yep...this.
Manufacturers are allowed to "derate" a tire's treadwear to suit their own marketing purposes. Lots of older, slow 100tw tires carry that marking because it leads people to believe they are sticky. Marketing is an amazing thing.
"Can I interest you in a nice inland plot of Florida "land"?
So is the Vitour just a better tire (i.e. they found a way to make a sticky tire that lasts as long as other 200TW) or is it a cheater tire (it's actually a softer tire that doesn't last as long and the manufacturer found a way to get certified as 200tw)
This might also be a factor:
Can Vitour supply the entire field of autocrossers and time trialers in the country? In the initial two sizes, only 50 sets were imported for each. And with the wear rate we’ve seen, those will need to be replaced more frequently than current offerings.
A total of 100 sets imported?
ClearWaterMS said:dps214 said:ClearWaterMS said:sounds like it's time for TW to become more of a standard rating across all brands and manufacturers should voluntary offer to re-certify every so many years. This might allow the NT01 to be bumped up to a 200TW since it really isn't any faster than the goodyear SC3 which is a 220tw but is not legal for SCCA time trials because of it's 110tw rating. It might also allow the Hankook RS/4 which is a much harder wearing tires than it's 200tw to get a higher rating indicating its non-competitive but highly practical use for lap day folks who don't care about the absoulute fastest lap time.
You know manufacturers can do all of that already, right?
I was under the impression that different manufacturers measured TW differently leading different tires having different characteristics and wearing at different rates.
The Hankook RS/4 vs the RE71 is a perfect example of two different tires that if you put the same tire size on the same car with the same driver one will last alot longer and wear slower.
I don't know the exact test standard if there is one but it's not tested at elevated temperatures or slip angles so the result is a rough indication but not remotely conclusive of the life expectancy of a performance tire. Put those two tires on the same car and set the cruise control at 70 on the highway and they could very well wear exactly the same, that's much closer to what the treadwear rating is testing. And like Andy said, it's a wear rating, not a grip rating. There's nothing stopping anyone from taking an 800TW all season and stamping 100TW on the side. Similarly there's nothing stopping a manufacturer from making a 200TW tire, rating it 140, and then later revising the rating to 200TW with no material tire changes. Which IIRC is exactly what toyo did with the R1R when the SCCA requirement moved from 140TW to 200TW.
There is a real test...done by driving in convoys on a prescribed course in San Angelo, TX...measured against a standard tire (Uniroyal brand built by Michelin). Usually done under contract by third parties.
Google "UTQG Testing Setvices" to find out more.
There is also a good white paper on the topics on the Tire Rack site in the Tech Info area.
This assumes that the manufacturer has actually done the test. NHTSA doesn't police this stuff particularly aggressively.
Well that didn't take long. Being in a Mod class for Solo, I don't have much holding me back in regards to tires, apart from budget, but I still like to stick with 200tw stuff, to keep the car on a somewhat level playing field with particularly fast friends in Cam-C...
Ho hum, put those tires next to the "6.5 hp" air compressor and "5 hp shopvac", and it'll be right at home.
I'm sure this has nothing to do with sponsorship and ad money from large tire manufacturers.
BAnning a tire because we can;t find them? Were RE71's banned before?
but don't worry, they have 11 new classes!
DaleCarter said:I'm sure this has nothing to do with sponsorship and ad money from large tire manufacturers.
BAnning a tire because we can;t find them? Were RE71's banned before?
What sponsorship and ad money?
Glad I didnt buy a pair. Guess if it's not on TireRack via infinite backorder, it's not eligible
In reply to ClearWaterMS :
Its a cheater tire. They decided to be far less conservative (legally) with their rating. I am happy to see SCCA ban it from Time Trials and Solo. Although I have my doubts about the SEB generally; for now they got this right. And I saw that Optima also banned it, and they will stick by their ban. They've really figured out how to have rules that aren't 1000 pages long but are able to keep non-streetable cars out of the series. Part of that is how they class and part is the "Design & Engineering" scoring. Bring a "race car with a license plate" and they will see right through it and give you very few points to ensure that you don't get rewarded.
In reply to Andy Hollis :
This is true. However the test doesn't produce a single number or result. It produces a range. Then the manufacturer determines what it wants to rate the tire at. In some companies, engineering determines the rating. In others, the marketing department leads the way. The TW number needs to be supported by the data, but that's it. It's why a tire may have one TW rating for years, and then if rules change in an important series, the same tire magically gets a new rating. Generally with no change in compound.
bslarsen728 said:In reply to Andy Hollis :
This is true. However the test doesn't produce a single number or result. It produces a range. Then the manufacturer determines what it wants to rate the tire at. In some companies, engineering determines the rating. In others, the marketing department leads the way. The TW number needs to be supported by the data, but that's it. It's why a tire may have one TW rating for years, and then if rules change in an important series, the same tire magically gets a new rating. Generally with no change in compound.
In light of the Vitour situation, I have been doing a bunch of "investigative journalism" regarding both "DOT approval" and UTQG. Lots of eye-opening stuff told to me off-the-record -- from multiple tire company insiders and also from within NHTSA. Will be writing it up for print soon.
bslarsen728 said:This is true. However the test doesn't produce a single number or result.
I have heard it said that Hoosier's test data on the R7 could support a "200" treadwear rating if they really wanted it to.
You'll need to log in to post.
