Yeah, good Rodders :cool:
The question was, are they slicks, or treaded tyres that are worn down ?
Printable View
Yeah, good Rodders :cool:
The question was, are they slicks, or treaded tyres that are worn down ?
Pretty much from about 73/4 onwards(as per JR's Sidchrome Mustang) when Saloons started raced under Schedule E(basically IMSA or Sports Sedans) they went to the wide 14inch rims mostly from F5000 cars hence used whatever tyres the F5000's raced on, im pretty sure they were still treaded? and certainly no radial slicks! also I can remember my Dad sending away worn out wide tires and getting them re-treaded as a slick, the speedway guys done the same except they grooved them, from memory as a kid new wide race tyres were considerably expensive and hard to come by in the day(true Jacmac?).
The Minis were obviously able to get slick tyres earlier,
as Collingwood had them for the first, 70/71, and the second season 71/72.
Yep, thats pretty much it Dale. In fact, Formula 5000 cars were running on treaded bias-ply tyres until the early 1970s, its really all there was, and Formula 1 cars would have been the same. When tyre technology proved that a tyre with no tread provided better grip than one WITH tread, all racing tyres pretty much fell into line, be they for single seaters or sedans. It was really just because of the tyre wars taking place, that manufacturers were constantly looking to improve grip.
Here is Graham McRae's McLaren F5000 on Goodyear Bluestreak tyres, the same as the HMC cars, Historic Trans-Am in the US, etc run now!
Attachment 30102
When I first built the MKII Cortina OSCA car I used rear ( slick ) 15 x 12.5 w from George Beggs F5000 cars ` $30-$50 ea IIRC and some much older 15x 10 intermediates ( Dunlop) from one of the older cars on the front. Was just reading an old tire article that mentioned slicks making inroads to circuit motorsport from 1969 onwards.... gotta remember that saloons took a while for everyone to realise that a wider tire needed a geometry rethink to keep the tread square to the surface for any older stuff. Tires were harder to get, Graeme Lawrence had the Goodyear franchise tied up. Expensive, yes, had to order in advance etc until the import thing freed up.
The slick retreads were crap, tried some at Coronet Peak Hillclimb once, black marks everywhere but bugger all acceleration. Put the GN Begg budget specials back on and went much faster. Biggest worry was finding loose gravel from previous rally guys who have no respect for road width!
Extra, Slick tires were first used by Nascar @ Talledaga in 1969.
There are plenty of period correct classes which allow a slick tyre, for example the Heritage Touring car class at the festival allow slicks because that is what those cars ran in period. Certainly there are plenty of HSC compliant cars which would have run slicks in period as well. Don't forget the proposed HSC cut off is long after the HMC cut off and well into the slick use era. I think it is something that should be considered, not dismissed because HMC don't run slicks.
Steve, after a challenge put out by the H & C Commission a few years back, regarding the T & C Regs, Chris Browne from Alfa Trofeo and myself went through those regs with a very, very fine toothcomb and suggested various changes which we sincerely believed would encompass 95% of those running cars most of us deem classic, probably without modification and the other 5% may not be too far out either.
Our summary was that T & C had to be sufficiently different from Appendix K & Schedule K to warrant its very existence. The commission did adopt one or two suggestions but overall, the points of issue we had then and still have even now, have not been satisfactorily addressed, as there are obvious philosophical differences on several aspects.
Believing that T & C is somehow the panacea for all decisions and guidelines and is set in stone, is the very reason why so many people do not buy into it and therefore do not accept the validity, or the necessity, for a CoD in its present form, despite the mantra pushed out so often by those who either do not understand some of the issues, or choose to ignore them.
We are going over very old ground here and there are about 200+ drivers locally who are accepted into various 'classic' groups who do NOT have a CoD and will not get one. They are NOT running hot rods but nor are they all 100% T & C compliant, though most are - and whilst the Commission fails to recognise those differences and the real practicalities of running some models, then nothing much will change.
A CoD is still seen as an exclusion mechanism by many - rightly or wrongly, but if anyone really thinks that jumping through the expensive hoops to get one is somehow going to actually add value to a bog standard MGB, Alfa Sud, or E Series BMW, then I am sorry, but they are dreaming.
Thankfully, most regular and successful promoters (eventually) saw the holes in the CoD system and have categorically stated that those non-compliant classes will always be welcomed. Others will accept them at specific meetings only and others demand 100% CoD's. It is a matter of commercial choice for a promoter and with local track costs to run a race meeting at about $12,000, then the harsh commercial realty hits hard, a fact that some still seem to ignore, expecting others to finance their race entry fees. Maybe if promoters sold their grids for a fixed price, some attitudes would change very quickly!
Our stance when we went through was that T & C should be a broad set of rules or guidelines whereby specific groups (such as HMC) could adopt TIGHTER rules if they so desired. Specialised one make groups such as Alfa Trofeo are the real experts in running Alfa's and understand all the issues relating to keeping them running and racing, ditto MG and BMW. Whereas BMW seem to have stepped well outside the true classic mould with some of their cars, there are still plenty of their cars that we would still deem classic - yet they may not conform to the current T & C either.
I am sorry Howard but Steve's post #31 clarified HSC stance regarding slicks. He summed up the history behind the reasons why. What applies to Group C and A Touring cars does not apply to HSC...different era. Have a look at the overseas historic racing of the era we cover and they all run tyres that are either Treaded Bias Ply or DOT rated radial tyres.
It is time to bring Historic Saloon Racing in this country to match the rest of the world.
The HMC car cut off is 1974 and 3 years difference is seriously not a reason to alter.
The MSNZ defines the cut off dates for what we propose in HSC and we want to work with in those dates.
And if that is the regulation, no problem. My point (and Gerald's too I think) was that we should consider the options first rather than just blindly follow other classes regulation. Having set the regulation, the class must enforce it along with the CoD compliance etc or we are back to the Hot Rod situation again. There is a good 1.5 to 2 seconds a lap difference between genuine DoT tyres and either slicks or quasi slicks like the Handcooks.
Absolutely my point also Howard. I have been beating my head against a brick wall over this subject of tyres for years as you know. I am only speaking for the Amco mini here, but it was on slicks exclusively for its 2 seasons in 1971/1972, and we have put this to organisers at other events....Manfield, Ruapuna, Teretonga and Highlands Park, and have got dispensation to run on slicks at those meetings.
This is a new class and in my view we dont HAVE to be following other classes slavishly. Now is the time to step back, take a look at what is at stake and perhaps do something about it. We are well into the slick period with these machines and if a cars suspension was designed for them so be it.
As already said, the HSC rules are based on MSNZ T&C and Schedule K. Nothing else. There are already many cars in NZ built to these rules. The MSNZ rules stipulate:
Only tyres suitable for legal road use in New Zealand, or period and
tread pattern correct, bias cross-ply tyres (refer note) may be used.
(ie. road tyres having 1.5mm minimum tread depth across 75% of
the width of the tyre and around the entire circumference). Aspect
ratio is restricted to 50% minimum. The use of semi-slick tyres with
only radial grooves is specifically prohibited.
Note: An example is Dunlop CR65 brand tyres
Really, there is nothing to be gained for the class as a whole to allow either one car, or the entire field, on slick tyres. Although slick tyre technology did begin to arrive within the period HSC has been structured under (pre December 31 1977), the vast majority of these types of cars raced on treaded tyres. When there is ample availability of both DOT radials and treaded bias-ply tyres, why have slicks? It really comes down to wanting a performance gain. If the whole field is on slicks, it negates any performance gain. But, why bother? Slick tyres create extra grip, which then puts greater stress through the drivelines. This is turn creates more unreliability. And for what? Also, slicks have a shorter performance lifespan than treaded tyres, so replacements are required more often, thus increasing costs.
Remember, this is only historic car racing.
Gerald, the photo here shows that sometimes your AMCO Mini did race on treaded tyres. Also, when you say you want to race it on slicks because this is what it raced on in period, I'm guessing you want to race on radial slicks, and not bias-ply slicks? I can virtually guarantee your car didn't race on radial slicks in period. It would have been bias-ply slicks. The technology between the two are quite different, and indeed, a Hoosier treaded bias-ply would be closer in technology to what your car raced on in period than a modern radial slick.
Attachment 30103
Remember, HSC is never going to be all things for all people. It'll either appeal or it won't. The great thing about New Zealand is that there are so many different classes to choose from. This class only creates a haven for those wanting to build and race T&C and Schedule K cars under MSNZ historic rules. I know I don't speak for everyone here, and people go historic car racing for different reasons. But for many, the appeal in racing a 45 year old car is that it looks, feels, and handles like a 45 year old car.
What you are clearly advocating is 'Historic' racing. No problem.
Where we have fallen down here is a set of rules purporting to be 'Thoroughbred & Classic' - T & C, which is something similar and the main issue which has never been addressed, right from day one, is a literal definition.
We can mix Classic, Thoroughbred and Historic on the track, but the definitions have never been quantified. In fact, I think that you'll find (or when I last bothered looking) that there is absolutely no mention whatever of Thoroughbred in those regulations.
So let's please, stand back and sort out a set of rules and a CoD system that was primarily aimed at Historic Cars, to confirm a NZ provenance and therefore add value, and to offer a playground that was indeed representative of an earlier era.
Don't confuse that with a set of rules for Classic cars, often of a much lower value, where replicas (Cooper S, Lotus Cortina, TR7 V8, MG BV8, Capri Perana) are welcomed and encouraged and the rules are a little bit more realistic in enabling these cars to run. They may have been constructed recently, out of age related major components but they have no history, other than the one they are creating, year by year.
Add Thoroughbred, where the make is enough to bestow this title - Ferrari, Maserati, Aston Martin, Porsche etc. and we might be making progress.
But please, all have a place in the sport and any series will develop to cater for those needs so if a series organisation elects to include or exclude a specific sector, that is up to them. Some people seem so strangled with rules and regulations and eligibility that they defeat their own objects. A car is either pre 1977 or it isn't. If it is built to represent a 1977 car, different issue. If it is a 1992 Thoroughbred, so be it.
I think some mischieveous person has photoshopped my tyres !!!!!!!:) :)
Seriously, it may be 'only Historic racing', but it is a race track we are competing on, and NO ONE wants to tour round at the back of the field. If for example, we were just out there having fun, which most of us are, there are cars in the HMC grid whos owners seem hell bent on cranking more and more horsepower out of them.......WHY....HP costs $$$$$$$ Perhaps it is to keep up with, and beat the pesky Australians, and if this is the case I say go for it !!!!! Theyre all, or most of them seem to be falling into this trap. And the 400hp cars are not the ones going over to Oz to compete.
A couple of Festivals ago I had a chat with one or two of the tail-end Charlies in the HMC races, and they all expressed amazement at how fast the front runners were compared to them with their miserable 400hp. needless to say some of these racers have never appeared again.......it is all just too hard. What I am saying is that I am sick and tired of drivers spouting the old story......the cars are the stars....yes....but so is the ego of some drivers, where being on the podium is very important. I dont have a problem with performance enhancing tricks, but please dont pretend otherwise.
Now I know that I am going to get shot down here, but I dont care. I know what I have seen and heard and I am sticking to my story.What has this got to do with this thread.......it is that it is 'only historic racing'....yes, but it is as competitive as any sport, maybe more so, and drivers are always looking for an advantage no matter how small. And if you dont think it is competitive, I suggest you get in a car and try for yourself.......I think you will be amazed.
By the way.......going back to the Amco Mini tyres. I am not sure what these are. A 10 inch CR65 has a much narrower tread than this.....could they be a slick with some radial grooves in them ?? I will ask Rod when I next see him.
By the way.......going back to the Amco Mini tyres. I am not sure what these are. A CR65 has a much narrower tread than this.....could they be a slick with some radial grooves in them ?? I will ask Rod when I next see him.[/QUOTE]
Very good. I would like to see a comparison with a 10 inch Dunlop slick. What size wheels are these for. Is just the small one a 10 inch.
This is only a reference guide for Dunlop Tread patterns of the day. I know that the 65 and 81 patterns were available for the 10" but outside of that I'm guessing.
No doubt about it. The CR65 tread on the Mini was great. Had a half worn set on the car when we bought it in 1984, and even though they were old and hard were still streets ahead of the current stock of DOT radials.
There are 3 reasons why I think this issue should be considered, discussed then once decided we can all leave it alone:
1. Anyone leaning really hard on DoT tyres will tell you that tyre life/ temperature is an issue. An issue made worse by small tyre/ wheel size (eg AMCO Mini), high horsepower (ask any front runners in the BMW Class B) and high temperatures. I have cut out a brand new set of 4 DoT tyres in one January Taupo meeting (3 races).
2. These cars DID run on slicks both here in the BNSW series etc and also Group 2 ETCC. Getting a comparable DoT tyre size can actually be quite hard as witnessed by the Haliday Escort and AMCO Mini (especially in 10 inch).
3. There is an opportunity to equalize the lap times of the HMC/ HSC field which will only add to the spectator appeal of these classes. For those HMC drivers who do not want the "Star" quality of their cars to be diminished, the finish line is always at the end of the straight anyway!
Before anyone assumes that this argument is about personal advantage, unless my current plans fall over, I will not be running in the class for the immediate future.
Spot on Howard. Something that is 100% period and also reduces the out and out horsepower advantage of the monsters, has to make sense - but maybe some of those with the current big horsepower advantage don't really want equalisation? Once again, is it a case of maybe denying spectators a potential giant killing act?
I'm stirring here, but observations over the last few years have made me a little more cynical than I once was - and I am not just talking about this class either.
Actually, Ray, your argument for slick tyres being 100% period is incorrect, because in period, of the very, very few cars that did actually run slicks, they were bias-ply slicks. I'm quite certain those wanting to run slick tyres in HSC are wanting radial slicks. Thats a whole different ball game, not period correct, not likened to what was being used in period. Its modern tyre technology versus old tyre technology.
Consider this: The HMC and HSC cars are all of the same era. If you allow HSC cars to use slick tyres, you also have to allow the HMC cars slicks. Who do you think is going to have the greatest advantage in this situation? Do you think a 600hp car with masses of grip won't just disappear up the road? Currently, its the tyre situation that keeps the HSC cars as close as they are to the HMC cars, as the HMC cars massively lack grip.
Remember also, although HMC has taken over the running of HSC, these are still two separate entities. At events where car numbers exceed that of one grid, the two will be separated into two races. To have some HSC cars on slicks will actually only spread the HSC field.
As I've said, this group is not for everyone, and there are plenty of places to go race for those who want to use slick tyres, including the ERC series, Historic Sports Sedans etc. ERC use a handicapping system to keep the racing close, and to limit the advantage the slick shod cars have. This is obviously a good system that allows people to race what they like, with the handicapping being the limiting factor.
But, different classes are always going to have different appealing aspects. The fact slick tyres are not allowed in HSC will appeal to some, and not others.
I have done a bit of research today regarding Dunlop CR65's verses Dunlop CR81's.
CR81's are a Bias Treaded Intermediate Tyre suitable for the mini to run a 5.5 inch rim and has not been produced for many years. I don't believe the Mini's ran on slicks but these tyres in the years that Gerald has stated and Steve's photo shopped photo adds weight to my conclusion as they look very similar.
CR65's are still produced today with modern technology in rubber and along with the Avon equivalent is what Historic racing Mini's use in Europe. These are suitable for a 4.5 inch rim.
Hoosier H Treaded Vintage 165/70x10s are suitable for a 5.5 inch rim and that is why it is used in the USA and Australia.
These are what we suggest Mini racers in HSC use.
So, thats it is it......the discussion has been had. Well I have no doubt it will please some folk. Now, where did I put those knitting needles!!!!!!!!!! :) :)
Depends on what you call a slick.. http://www.stuckey.com.au/evolution.aspx... guess that means the HMC cars are already on slicks after all.....
Thanks Jac Mac. A really good read.....Cheers
Really Steve??? There are any number of areas of divergence in the HMC regs and Schedule K which is one of the primary standards for the proposed HSC regs. For example under Sched K, if homologated for a particular car it is perfectly acceptable to run fibreglass panels and big wheel arches, a modification strictly prohibited under HMC. Even the 15inch wheel regulation which is central to HMC is not enshrined in Sched K. There is absolutely no reason to mirror everything that applies to HMC in the HSC regs.
What we have is an opportunity to formulate a set of regulations that best represent the style of car to which they apply.
Once again, totally agree Howard. As I put in my waffle earlier, series organisers have every right to either tighten or loosen T & C guidelines (because that is all they are to us) as it suits them.
If the T & C regs were strictly applied, and are set in stone, why does HMC need any additional regs at all, other than maybe an eligibility list as to what constitutes a Muscle car? Or, why not just run to Appendix K? (And good luck with that one...)
All this discussion shows is that series organisers are dipping into T & C when it suits them and ignoring it when it doesn't, so at best, it can only be referred to as 'Guidelines' and at worst, it is totally ignored. That is why the CoD system is a case of pushing water uphill in some sectors and has not gained full acceptance. MSNZ are happy to take your money to get a sheet of paper (or several sheets of paper) but if it reverted to being mandatory, classic racing as we know it would simply shift to non-classic defined meetings. Pity so many people can't see it.
By all means, identify and preserve and encourage the genuinely Historic, but that is a relatively small percentage of those who supposedly come under the broader Thoroughbred & Classic umbrella.
Just to be perfectly clear here, I am in no way criticising the HMC class or its regulations, their regs are a pragmatic and successful set of class rules. Likewise I am fully in support of the idea of promoting a viable Historic Saloon class to foster and encourage period correct cars, both genuine cars with history and new builds like my BMW 2002.
At the risk of boring everyone else to death over endless circular arguments, I merely want to make sure the set of regulations are the best we can make them. Having settled on those regulations we then all need to Shut the F*#@ Up and get on with supporting and promoting the class.
Bloody hell, I’m beginning to see why nobody wanted to take this on. Everyone avoids stepping up to the plate, they’re all too busy, with too many other commitments etc, but then when someone finally does, everyone else jumps on them and tells them they’ve f%@&ed up, and they should be doing it differently! Yikes! What a mine-field.
Anyway, here are some historical facts. Following the 1967 NZ Saloon Car Championship, MSNZ dropped the Allcomer rules in favor of FIA Group 5 rules. Group 5 were being used elsewhere in the world, including the British Saloon Car Championship, European Touring Car Championship, and various European domestic touring car championships. Australia were using what they called Improved Production rules, which, as far as I can tell, where very similar to FIA Group 5 up until 1970, when they began adjusting the rules to suit.
For 1970, the BSCC, ETCC, and other European championships switched to Group 2 rules, which allowed a few more freedoms than those of Group 5. In NZ, we continued with Group 5 until around 1973, when we switched to a set of locally concocted rules called Schedule E. These rules were almost like the old Allcomer rules, in that you could stick a Chev V8 in an Escort, or a Victor, etc. Initially, not much changed, the Group 5 cars continued to set the pace under Schedule E, but over time, it was with these rules cars such as Jack Nazers Victor Chevy, Red Dawsons DeKon Monza, the PDL II Mustang etc all raced. These rules ultimately brought about the demise of big bore sedan racing in the NZ Saloon Car Championship as they were essentially too expensive.
Now, Rod Collingwood won the 1972 NZ Saloon Car Championship in the AMCO Mini now owned by Gerald Fogg. At the time, NZ was using Group 5 rules. But Collingwood won the title because of the way the points system worked. It rewarded class wins which counted towards outright points. So, by gaining better placings in his 1 litre class than the V8 guys did in the 6 litre class, he was able to win the title. He didn’t win the title because his car was faster on the track than the V8s, because it wasn’t.
Typically, the V8s were faster than the smaller capacity cars. That’s just the ugly truth. This was the case the world over. During the Group 5 era in NZ, the only car that actually genuinely outpaced the V8s was Paul Fahey’s 1,800cc Escort FVC. He won the 1971 championship by being outright the fastest car on the track. In Australia, Pete Geoghegan was the last driver of a small capacity car to win the Australian Touring Car Championship. He won it in 1964 in a Cortina GT. Throughout the entire Improved Production era, and into Group C from 1973 through 1984, a V8 won the championship every year from 1965, through to 1983, when Allan Moffat won in a Mazda RX7 during the latter stages of the Group C era. The fact is, V8s are just faster. As Bruce McLaren once said: “A good big’n will always beat a good little’n”.
Here is a photo from 1971, when NZ was using Group 5 rules. The V8s are at the front, with only Paul Faheys Escort in the mix. Next are the 1,001 - 4,200cc class cars, followed by the 0-1,000cc class cars.
Attachment 30114
Here is a photo from 1973, when NZ had just started using Schedule E. The rules have hanged, but the situation hasn't. Its still the V8s at the front. The fact is, you probably need a V8 to beat a V8. This was the case 45 years ago, and its still the case now.
Attachment 30115
Now, with regards the arguments here for allowing some of the HSC cars on slicks. According to Gerald Fogg, his AMCO Mini was racing on slick tyres as early as 1970. I consider Gerald to be an upstanding and very honest person. So I have to believe he genuinely believes this. According to the excellent link Jac Mac added in Post #65 above, slick tyres didn’t appear in Australia until 1972. Therefore, Rod Collingwood somehow got hold of a set of slick tyres a full two years before they first appeared in Australia. This could well have been the case. I’ve posted a photo that shows the AMCO Mini fitted with treaded tyres. Gerald said that Collingwood ran the entire season on one set of tyres. Is it possible they were treaded tyres that had done so many racing miles the tread had worn off? Maybe they really were slicks. Certainly, they’d have been some of the very first slicks to appear on a race car anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere. But this could well have been the case.
Regardless, lets just say Collingwood did indeed have slicks on the AMCO Mini as early as 1970. While the AMCO Mini was possibly the very first car fitted with slick racing tyres in NZ, whats certain is that by 1972/73, every other car racing was also fitted with slicks. Therefore, if the AMCO Mini can have slicks, then so can everyone else in HMC and HSC.
I'm only quoting these old historical facts because you guys are using history as the reason for wanting slicks accepted.
Now, what you guys are effectively suggesting is that the rules be changed to manipulate falsified results by allowing some (or all?) HSC cars on slicks so they can compete equally with the V8s. How does this benefit HSC as a whole if one or two small capacity cars are able to battle the V8s? There appears to be an assumption that HMC took on the running of HSC with the objective of creating falsified racing between large and small cars that never actually happened in period. But this isn’t the case. It took on HSC to provide a safe haven for owners of T&C and Schedule K cars who were sick of being put in groups against either modern race cars and/or heavily modified cars built way outside either T&C or Schedule K rules. The fact that some T&C and Schedule K cars are as fast as the fastest V8s is really only a happy side-effect. And, the two groups do look cool together.
The fact is, at many events, HMC and HSC will have to have separate grids, because car numbers will be such that there are too many cars for one grid. That being the case, if the AMCO Mini is fitted with slick tyres and racing in a field of small capacity HSC-only cars all on treaded tyres, its clearly going to romp away into the distance. How does this benefit HSC? How are the other HSC racers going to react to this? Whatever happens for HSC, has to be good for the group as a whole, not one or two individuals.
I appreciate you guys like the idea of the small capacity cars being able to match it with the V8s, but there is no way we could allow either one, or two, or a handful of HSC cars to be fitted with slicks, without causing a riot among everyone else. If you let one guy on slicks, you have to let everyone else on slicks.
Answer me this:
1: Which HSC cars should be allowed on slick tyres? Just the actual original cars with period history? All the Schedule K cars? Or all the HSC cars including the T&C cars?
2: Should these cars be fitted with bias-ply slick tyres as used in period, or modern radial slicks?
3: Is there an assumption here that everyone who owns and races an HSC car will want to race on slicks? What if the majority don’t? How do we manage a situation in which some people are not happy that some cars are fitted with slicks?
4: By allowing slicks, are we promoting chequebook racing over historic racing?
5: Some of the HMC car owners are already uncomfortable with racing against the small capacity cars, because their behavior is so different and they are able to duck and dive in and out of the HMC drivers blind spots. If the HSC cars are on slicks, they’ll be even more nimble. How do we then manage this situation with the HMC drivers?
6: In the cases where the HMC cars and the HSC cars are divided into their own separate races, should the HSC cars still run slicks?
Its all very well throwing around ideas for the sake of appealing to one or two people, but the good of the class as a whole always has to be put ahead of the good of single individuals.
Its really best to view HMC and HSC as two completely separate entities, with their own separate races. By doing so provides clarity on understanding why it is slick tyres just can’t work in HSC. Those pushing for slicks want to do so to make the smaller cars capable of beating the V8s. But take the V8s out of the equation. What purpose do slick tyres now serve? How do they benefit HSC as a stand-alone class?
Good comments Steve. The reality however is that HMC up to now, have yet to fill a local grid without support from either the Australians at the Festival or combining with another class, so mixing HSC and HMC has to be a given until either one or the other is able to stand on its own.
You alluded to the AMCO Mini winning a Championship by virtue of the class points system. I see nothing wrong with that and it is where Tier 1 have lost the plot, jumping up and down about parity instead of welcoming different classes into the same race.
I have insufficient knowledge about the relative performance of a slick tyre, radial or cross ply against the commonly available and acceptable DoT rated road tyres.
What I do know however is that having owned and raced the same standard car for 25 years and with 100% bog standard running gear, that any extra horsepower against the published figures when brand new, is out of the question. (How many others can claim that their CoD compliant cars are producing no more than the published horsepower for that make/model?) That means any changes to lap times over that 25 years has come from just two areas, given that I don't think my driving has changed. The first is track resurfacing at Pukekohe (old track) and the second has been tyres.
Moving from the original road tyres to a more sports orientated but secondhand, well worn tyre, knocked 5 seconds off my lap time immediately. Moving then to a brand new road tyre (Toyo) for the last few years knocked another 1 or 2 seconds off and most importantly, the lap times are consistent unless weather/track conditions are adverse or the tyres have aged.
If I moved to a slick tyre, quite frankly, I doubt my lap times would improve significantly, as the car just doesn't have an excess of power over current grip.
There is no need whatever for HMC to move to a slick tyre regardless, as they already have an abundance of power!
I'd really like to know what the actual lap time difference is for an under 2 litre car on different tyres.
I don't buy into an argument about large and small cars mixing it. Check back to the 2015 festival where we had full grids on every race and 4 of those races were handicaps and only one of those had minor panel damage. The responsibility is on drivers to use their mirrors and also make safe overtaking runs. Choccy fish racing remember?
Whatever the organisers decide, the drivers just have to conform and sometimes leadership means making unpopular decisions. Been there. Done that. Have the bruises to prove it. You'll never stop criticism or challenges - and that goes with the territory. Just go with what you think is correct and is your philosophy. We outsiders often only enter these discussions to act as Devil's Advocates but robust debate is healthy.
The end result is always whether or not a class is sustainable and as mentioned many times before, financially viable for promoters.
1. Obviously the rules including tyre choices must be uniform for all the cars not just a select few. Try turning the argument on it's head: because of the proposed DoT tyre regulation we run the very real possibility of excluding two of the most significant "real" cars which really should be the stars of this class, the AMCO Mini and Haliday Escort (and quite possibly others as well) because of the unavailability of suitable tyres. Therefore what are the reasons for NOT allowing slicks?
2. Lets look at the available options and costs and the possibility of a control tyre. For example the F5000 class have a control tyre AND a limit of one set of tyre per two meetings.
3. This is clearly and obviously a view that needs to be canvased. I can't answer that, you know my view and Gerald's view.
4. I am not at all sure that slicks would actually increase costs. As already discussed, tyre life of DoT tyres can be VERY short. I ran Michelin slicks (same as F Toyota Series cars) in the Heritage Touring car class at this year's festival as there was no room for under 3 litre cars in the HMC field. I had insufficient racing mileage to accurately gauge tyre life but indications are that it will be several times more than the medium compound DoT Dunlop I normally use at about a 50% price premium. A control tyre (which must be available in a variety of sizes) would definitely offer the very real chance of a decrease in costs.
5. No comment.
6. We are talking about HSC regulations which apply regardless of having a stand alone grid or within another class. Parity (or otherwise) with HMC is not the underlying concern or goal here, it is merely a potential side benefit. Maybe not seen as a positive within HMC circles?
Whew.......its not the knitting needles I should be looking for, but the bi-focals !!!!!! I had to read those posts several times to get the gist of what was being said.......I think I am clear now, but it seems that I am the villian of the piece, having raised this subject of tyres. My original intention was to get it all cleared up BEFORE racing commenced so there wasnt a lot of muttering going on in the pits.
To rest my eyes, I wandered out into the motor house to do a check on some old tyres that have been piled in the corner for sentimental sake, and guess what.......I found some old 'Aqua-Jets' which I seem to remember were the tyre of choice for a Mini, and others in the 1980's. I had a wicked thought that perhaps everyone could use this tyre and have it as a control for the whole group.
As everyone knows, I am a pretty hopeless driver. I always thought I could drive FAST.....but fast is NOT racing.......a big difference when you compare my times with Angus' times in the same car........usually about 5 seconds/lap on any given course. So clearly it is not going to matter one jot what sort of bloody tyres are on the car when I am driving, because I will still be at the back !!!!!!!
I have written an email to Dave Panckhurst who was responsible for building the Amco Mini and asked him to clear up for me/us this thorny question of slicks. I have dozens of photos of the car.....standing still and racing that clearly, IN MY MIND shows it to be shod with slicks. I am awaiting Daves reply, and you will be the first to know.:)
Answering this with the driver/owners hat on.
Just to clarify that I own a 1974 Alfa Romeo 2000GTV with an A pass T&C COD that runs the correct GTA 14x6.5 inch rims for the car and yep your guessed it, 14 inch tyres are not easy to come by these days.
1, I the light of the prior discussions I feel that the Historic Cars only should be able to run Bias Slicks if their is no suitable alternative. The remainder of the cars should all be on Bias Treaded Vintage tyres ie CR65s or Bias Dot Tyres. If a schedule K car has difficulty then it should be on a case by case basis and not taken for granted. Control tyre, well we have a lot of different makes of cars and wheel sizes. NZ supplier who would care for the group would be an advantage ie Cardwells. I feel we need to stay with the era we represent.
2, As above and no to radials.
3, I am comfortable that the Historic's only with the exception of maybe a few of the Schedule K cars can run on Bias Slicks.
4, I priced the Vintage Sports Car bias tyres to suit my car $358.00 each from Cardwells. Its been years since I bought race tyres so tell me if that's reasonable......??
5, Put down some driving standards and police it.....
6, As for # 1 above. Wet weather is my concern with slicks and those with slicks must have a wet alternative.
I personally want this to work and no I am not battered or bruised. I believe in this and I really want the Historic's in this or without them I feel it is a lost cause. It is no good having these cars sit in the shed.:)
http://www.garysmotorsporttyres.com....dunlop-r7-cr65
"Dunlop continue to make historic and vintage race tyres in the original moulds. These are made in a modern compound and construction which best enhances the performance of the original tyre."
It seems as if the CR65 these days only "looks" period, so who are you actually kidding saying that is the correct period tyre to use today? Looks like the only difference between the CR65 and say a Toyo is the tread pattern?? "Modern construction" = is it even still a bias ply??
Here's another one for some kind of idea of pricing ( GBPounds though ), and all the different sizes available.
http://www.longstonetyres.co.uk/page...p-racing-tyres
Slick tyres. The first slicks I did see was on the rear of the chain driven Stanton Corvette at Mt Maunganui street race. 63-64-65? It was in its single seater form then and the same year Amon was in the low line Cooper and I think Shelly won the race? Be interested if someone could confirm the year.