IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

A place to chat about the state of the IPRA nation, ask (non-technical) questions about IPRA, etc.
Public Read and Write

Moderator: Moderators

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#881  Postby Barney » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:07 pm

If people spent half their budget on driver taining most would find more time than if they spent it on their car
User avatar
Barney
forum freak
 
Posts: 1241
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Perth

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#882  Postby mikrace » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:16 pm

Barney wrote:If people spent half their budget on driver taining most would find more time than if they spent it on their car


I agree... Could easily add in that equation a good chassis engineer, as the cars which are very fast usually have many adjustments on the chassis and all are easy to get wrong ;)
Michael Hazelton
0404 051 926

TwinTurbo wrote:posting on here about it will achieve exactly nothing.
User avatar
mikrace
forum freak
 
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:09 pm
Location: Queanbeyan

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#883  Postby BP18T » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:41 pm

Barney wrote:If people spent half their budget on driver taining most would find more time than if they spent it on their car


Thems fighting words :lol: :lol: :lol:
BP18T
forum freak
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 10:14 pm
Location:

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#884  Postby TwinTurbo » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:07 pm

mikrace wrote:If i had to create the rules on tyres I would do this (attached) to open up choices in rim and rolling diameter, but restrict the widths. I don't think the advantages of a larger diameter rim can be seen in lap times on most 3J(a) cars, other than the EMv8's (which should gain in braking and rim choices available, which i believe they need), and reduce the advantage the LMv8's have. The aim would be to peg back the LMv8's with less tyre, keep the "middle" speed cars at the same pace, speed up the lower powered EM cars (u2L, e30's & rotaries for example), also speed up the EMv8's with bigger rims and brakes.

IP tyres 2.pdf


There are still cars i can think of that will be left out of gaining out of this and still be too slow. These will be the heavier cars without the ability to make power, ie: LMT 4wd's, LM NA o2L-u5L and LMT FWD's and the RX8. That is why i have previously suggested removing the turbo restrictors and allowing turbo to any LM car will support the less tyre theory. These cars would then have the grunt they need to pull their fat butts around, but will be hamstrung to the same narrow tyre like the LMv8's would be.

That is my view. Others, like yourself Gary have different views. I believe this is a better solution than the proposed NSW 3J(c) variable restrictor to weight rules and would be way more fun to own, drive and watch. I believe IP would be a far more attractive class for existing and new supporters. It would cross the bridge from Super Sprints, Time Attack, Tarmac Rally and street hoons into the awesome IP category.... But everyone is different.


That version is more in line with your thinking mik, but it doesn't really address the issue of cars getting heavier with each model. In fact it pushes the exact reverse, lighter cars get advantages, which simply means more people will choose older cars (that are inevitably lighter) and give up on newer cars (that are inevitably heavier). A regs change that goes in the total opposite direction to where the car industry is heading.

Playing with wheel diameters is very expensive for the category as a whole. On it's own allowing every single 3J(a) car the option of 17" wheels could cost the category over $1M. Then, due to the total increased diameter (225/45/17 is 631 mm OD), they would also be looking at new diff ratios. By the time competitors buy a couple of sets of wheels and tyres and a couple of diff ratios they would be looking at $4k to $5k, multiple that by the number of cars. Then there are the brakes and suspension changes that will inevitably occur. Sure not everyone will choose the upgrades, but the ones that don't will fall even further behind. Without doubt it will widen the gap between the haves and the have nots, which is surely not your intention.

Without doubt the very last reg I would ever consider changing is wheel diameter, it's a category killer.

"Crossing the line from Supersprints", seriously how many people are going to look favourably at IP then they will be forced to run smaller tyres than their car comes with standard. Just another reason for potential competitors to mock the Improved Production name, where even more cars than we already discriminate against will consider it Impaired Production.

I understand what you are trying to achieve mik and whilst I don't agree with the objective itself, the big problems here are the unwanted side effects.

For clarity, "3J(c)" and "variable restrictor sizes to weight" are totally separate issues and not in any way related, not that I am aware of anyway. Have a look in you IPRANSW Magazine (hard copy or on the web site IPRANSW.org.au) , it has the 3J(c) proposal.


Cheers
Gary
User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 10003
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#885  Postby mikrace » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:47 pm

You think you could get the ride height and geometry desired to go faster on a 17 in rim (630mm diameter) than on the 15's with Justin's Sprinter? Wouldn't have much lock on the front available either.... My point is that I do not believe anyone would be quicker with 17's in 3J(a) but the bigger v8's.

I just do not agree with you on the costs when put in practice. A good theoretic equation though. But hey, opinions are always different in some way.

Anyway it's a null argument and all just hypothetical nonsense.
Michael Hazelton
0404 051 926

TwinTurbo wrote:posting on here about it will achieve exactly nothing.
User avatar
mikrace
forum freak
 
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:09 pm
Location: Queanbeyan

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#886  Postby Spac » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:07 pm

TwinTurbo wrote:OK guys, you both believe respectively that the current A050 and wheel/tyre size regulations needs changing, the obvious question is to what? What exactly are your suggestions?
Another control tyre/brand, which one?
No control tyre i.e. open tyres?
What sizes of wheel/tyre are you suggesting for each engine size/Class or is it weight based?
Are those wheel/tyre sizes readily available?
Have you factored in the cost to change if everyone (there are ~450 IP cars Nationally) has to buy new wheels, or give up the stock of tyres that they already have?
If you are changing wheel/tyre diameter have you considered the impact on brakes and suspension?
Drive train stuff like diff ratios?
Changing wheel/tyre sizes is a huge change, it would have a lot of direct as well as flow on effects, what haven't we considered?
....


I had typed out "but the genie is already out of the bottle" in the first post in this thread. There is no good way to undo what it has done to the class (and not everyone will agree that it should be undone). I'm blithely unaware of the process of selecting a control tyre, but it seems that everyone was so keen to be rid of the A048 that the A050 was jumped on...

Personally, I see the whole idea of a control tyre is to keep costs down and ensure parity. I don't see the point in making one of the best performing and most expensive semis on the market the control tyre - you're basically mandating that people spend the maximum possible amount, which seems entirely against the purpose of a control tyre.

The way forward from here is to keep the A050 until it goes out of production, and then to take a good, hard look at what other options are available. There will be winners and losers every time a new tyre is introduced (as there were when the A050 replaced the A048) - maybe next time special attention should be paid to whether the latest and greatest is what best serves the class?
Maybe something like the AD08R* would have been a good successor to the A048? Cheaper, apparently the same range of sizes, keeps the Yokohama business connection active, blah blah.

But its not just about tyres. Its about the vibe of IP being (and continuing to become) more about big money and hassle for the average punter. The A050 as a control tyre is just one piece in that particular puzzle.



*I know sod-all about the AD08R as a tyre. I'm using it as an example because it is a Yokohama and seems to be the next step down in their range.
"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be": PC Hodgell.
Spac
racer
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:45 pm
Location:

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#887  Postby TwinTurbo » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:09 pm

mikrace wrote:You think you could get the ride height and geometry desired to go faster on a 17 in rim (630mm diameter) than on the 15's with Justin's Sprinter? Wouldn't have much lock on the front available either.... My point is that I do not believe anyone would be quicker with 17's in 3J(a) but the bigger v8's.

On the sprinter I'd go with 16's (not 17's), 45 series tyres, slight advantage there and no increae in tyre rolling diameter. I could also fit larger front rotors and callipers which it needs. By far the biggest gain would be getting the front roll centre where I want it. I already have the inner pivot as high as I can get it within the subframe and the outer ball joint can't go anywhere because of rim ID limitations. An extra 1" of rim ID would enable me to fix that. It would also mean I don't have to compromise on the rear roll centre. I'd guess a minimum 0.5 second gain at Wakefiled Park and a bit over a second at Eastern Creek. That would be 8 new rims at $400 each, 4 new brake rotors (we always have a spare set) at $220 each, 2 new callipers at $500 each and 2 sets of brake pads at $320 a set. That's around $5K plus tyres and machining a new pair of calliper adaptors with no engineering or fitting cost as Justin and I could do it ourselves. For someone who had to pay a workshop to do it, add a couple of K's.

Would I do it? Well I can't think of a way to get the Sprinter to go a second faster at Eastern Creek, that wouldn't cost multiples of that. A number of RX7's would benefit much the same, so far from a unique example.


Cheers
Gary
User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 10003
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#888  Postby TwinTurbo » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:35 pm

Spac wrote:I had typed out "but the genie is already out of the bottle" in the first post in this thread. There is no good way to undo what it has done to the class (and not everyone will agree that it should be undone). I'm blithely unaware of the process of selecting a control tyre, but it seems that everyone was so keen to be rid of the A048 that the A050 was jumped on...

Personally, I see the whole idea of a control tyre is to keep costs down and ensure parity. I don't see the point in making one of the best performing and most expensive semis on the market the control tyre - you're basically mandating that people spend the maximum possible amount, which seems entirely against the purpose of a control tyre.

The way forward from here is to keep the A050 until it goes out of production, and then to take a good, hard look at what other options are available. There will be winners and losers every time a new tyre is introduced (as there were when the A050 replaced the A048) - maybe next time special attention should be paid to whether the latest and greatest is what best serves the class?
Maybe something like the AD08R* would have been a good successor to the A048? Cheaper, apparently the same range of sizes, keeps the Yokohama business connection active, blah blah.

But its not just about tyres. Its about the vibe of IP being (and continuing to become) more about big money and hassle for the average punter. The A050 as a control tyre is just one piece in that particular puzzle.

*I know sod-all about the AD08R as a tyre. I'm using it as an example because it is a Yokohama and seems to be the next step down in their range.


The control tyre selection process is an open tender, sent out to every tyre company and advertised in relevant magazines. That occurs some time in the year preceding the expiration of the current contract. Once the tyre company tenders are received back they are reviewed by each State and a vote is taken by the Delegates. There are matters considered other than the tyre itself, such as availability, Australia wide coverage, sizes, prices, track side support, loadings, speed ratings, sponsorship, rebates etc. My understanding is that the Improved Production control tyre tender is easily the largest in Australia aside from V8 Supercars. Yokohama tendered the A050 and they substantially met all the criteria, the other tenders were a long way behind in almost every area.

In summary, the change to the A050 wasn't done to get rid of the A048, it was simply the best tender and was voted on (unanimously as I recall) accordingly. Personally seeing the end of the horrid, expensive and discriminatory A048 was the best result of a vote I have seen in almost 30 years of Street Cars, Club Cars and Improved Production. =D> =D> =D>

Cheers
Gary
User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 10003
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#889  Postby Steve thomas » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:51 pm

Some very poorly thought out ideas here. If we allowed a bigger tyre on EM V8s I would be forced to re shell my VN into a VB/VK as I could run the LS with no class weight like the VN has to carry. VB with LS is about 1200kg race weight with ease so lookout.

Simple fact is time has caught up with IP slowly making EM cars uncommunicative. Some of us tried in vain to make cheap LMT cars like Silvias a cost effective step up in IP. LMT is only for the very talented or very wealthy.
As the V8 runners numbers grow its going to get harder to get any changes in rules to make EM easily competitive again.
Back to the Past for the Future.
User avatar
Steve thomas
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 4499
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:18 pm
Location: Perth WA

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#890  Postby TwinTurbo » Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:19 am

Steve thomas wrote:Some very poorly thought out ideas here. If we allowed a bigger tyre on EM V8s I would be forced to re shell my VN into a VB/VK as I could run the LS with no class weight like the VN has to carry. VB with LS is about 1200kg race weight with ease so lookout.

Simple fact is time has caught up with IP slowly making EM cars uncommunicative. Some of us tried in vain to make cheap LMT cars like Silvias a cost effective step up in IP. LMT is only for the very talented or very wealthy.
As the V8 runners numbers grow its going to get harder to get any changes in rules to make EM easily competitive again.

That's actually a good point Steve, it's easy to understand guys with LMV8's simply walking away because the regs have handicapped them, changed after they are already invested. But they could just as easily take out their mechanicals and put them in an earlier 3J(a) chassis. Neither option sounds particularly good for IP to me.

Cheers
Gary
User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 10003
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#891  Postby Admiral Ackbar » Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:20 pm

Why is/was there even a tyre tender process? To me it seems like a very old fashioned way to get a very small discount off over-inflated (hehe) local tyre prices.

I guess the categories that don't have a control tyre can't hold a meeting unless they can guarantee there will be Dunlop, Bridgestone, Yokohama and Michelin trucks in attendance for competitor support. You know, in case a competitor gets a flat tyre.

Spac wrote:Maybe something like the AD08R* would have been a good successor to the A048? Cheaper, apparently the same range of sizes, keeps the Yokohama business connection active, blah blah.


What???? How are v8s supposed to do Sports Sedan times on a "road" tyre???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Admiral Ackbar
pit crew
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:39 pm
Location:

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#892  Postby TwinTurbo » Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:31 am

Admiral Ackbar wrote:Why is/was there even a tyre tender process? To me it seems like a very old fashioned way to get a very small discount off over-inflated (hehe) local tyre prices.
I guess the categories that don't have a control tyre can't hold a meeting unless they can guarantee there will be Dunlop, Bridgestone, Yokohama and Michelin trucks in attendance for competitor support. You know, in case a competitor gets a flat tyre.

What's the alternative Admiral? We pick a control tyre out of the hat? Or perhaps we rotate through the manufacturers, Dunlop this year, Yokohama next year, Hankook the year after? Open tyres perhaps, no control tyre, we just choose whatever we want from the Production Car tyre list? As always it's easy to criticise the current situation, much harder to come up with a solution, what's your suggestion for a replacement?

The "small discount" you mention is around $30,000 a year including sponsorship for the Nationals. That's one of the things the "old fashioned" tender process achieves.

Spac wrote:Maybe something like the AD08R* would have been a good successor to the A048? Cheaper, apparently the same range of sizes, keeps the Yokohama business connection active, blah blah.
What???? How are v8s supposed to do Sports Sedan times on a "road" tyre???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's not IP's fault that Sports Sedans are so slow :lol: :lol: :lol:

For completeness, this LMV8 bashing needs a bit of context, of the 15 current track IP lap records 3 are held by LMT's, 5 by EMT's and 7 by LMV8's. Doesn't seem out of proportion to the number of competitors.

Cheers
Gary
Last edited by TwinTurbo on Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 10003
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#893  Postby Notso Swift » Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:07 am

TwinTurbo wrote:
mikrace wrote:You think you could get the ride height and geometry desired to go faster on a 17 in rim (630mm diameter) than on the 15's with Justin's Sprinter? Wouldn't have much lock on the front available either.... My point is that I do not believe anyone would be quicker with 17's in 3J(a) but the bigger v8's.

On the sprinter I'd go with 16's (not 17's), 45 series tyres, slight advantage there and no increae in tyre rolling diameter. I could also fit larger front rotors and callipers which it needs. By far the biggest gain would be getting the front roll centre where I want it. I already have the inner pivot as high as I can get it within the subframe and the outer ball joint can't go anywhere because of rim ID limitations. An extra 1" of rim ID would enable me to fix that. It would also mean I don't have to compromise on the rear roll centre. I'd guess a minimum 0.5 second gain at Wakefiled Park and a bit over a second at Eastern Creek. That would be 8 new rims at $400 each, 4 new brake rotors (we always have a spare set) at $220 each, 2 new callipers at $500 each and 2 sets of brake pads at $320 a set. That's around $5K plus tyres and machining a new pair of calliper adaptors with no engineering or fitting cost as Justin and I could do it ourselves. For someone who had to pay a workshop to do it, add a couple of K's.

Would I do it? Well I can't think of a way to get the Sprinter to go a second faster at Eastern Creek, that wouldn't cost multiples of that. A number of RX7's would benefit much the same, so far from a unique example.


Cheers
Gary

All of that could be done to the car as it is, being able to run EM or LM, the car is already a regular winner - surely that time gain would be worth it and it would be right back at lap record pace
Contrary to popular opinion, I do have mechanical sympathy, I always feel sorry for the cars I drive.
User avatar
Notso Swift
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 6331
Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 12:32 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#894  Postby TwinTurbo » Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:41 am

Notso Swift wrote:
TwinTurbo wrote:
mikrace wrote:You think you could get the ride height and geometry desired to go faster on a 17 in rim (630mm diameter) than on the 15's with Justin's Sprinter? Wouldn't have much lock on the front available either.... My point is that I do not believe anyone would be quicker with 17's in 3J(a) but the bigger v8's.

On the sprinter I'd go with 16's (not 17's), 45 series tyres, slight advantage there and no increae in tyre rolling diameter. I could also fit larger front rotors and callipers which it needs. By far the biggest gain would be getting the front roll centre where I want it. I already have the inner pivot as high as I can get it within the subframe and the outer ball joint can't go anywhere because of rim ID limitations. An extra 1" of rim ID would enable me to fix that. It would also mean I don't have to compromise on the rear roll centre. I'd guess a minimum 0.5 second gain at Wakefiled Park and a bit over a second at Eastern Creek. That would be 8 new rims at $400 each, 4 new brake rotors (we always have a spare set) at $220 each, 2 new callipers at $500 each and 2 sets of brake pads at $320 a set. That's around $5K plus tyres and machining a new pair of calliper adaptors with no engineering or fitting cost as Justin and I could do it ourselves. For someone who had to pay a workshop to do it, add a couple of K's.

Would I do it? Well I can't think of a way to get the Sprinter to go a second faster at Eastern Creek, that wouldn't cost multiples of that. A number of RX7's would benefit much the same, so far from a unique example.

All of that could be done to the car as it is, being able to run EM or LM, the car is already a regular winner - surely that time gain would be worth it and it would be right back at lap record pace

Unfortunately LM is not on Blair, it needs flared guards to fit the tyres . (Do you really think that we haven't explored that possibility 8) )

Cheers
Gary
User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 10003
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#895  Postby Spac » Sat Jan 14, 2017 10:51 am

TwinTurbo wrote:
The control tyre selection process is an open tender, sent out to every tyre company and advertised in relevant magazines. That occurs some time in the year preceding the expiration of the current contract. Once the tyre company tenders are received back they are reviewed by each State and a vote is taken by the Delegates. There are matters considered other than the tyre itself, such as availability, Australia wide coverage, sizes, prices, track side support, loadings, speed ratings, sponsorship, rebates etc. My understanding is that the Improved Production control tyre tender is easily the largest in Australia aside from V8 Supercars. Yokohama tendered the A050 and they substantially met all the criteria, the other tenders were a long way behind in almost every area.

In summary, the change to the A050 wasn't done to get rid of the A048, it was simply the best tender and was voted on (unanimously as I recall) accordingly. Personally seeing the end of the horrid, expensive and discriminatory A048 was the best result of a vote I have seen in almost 30 years of Street Cars, Club Cars and Improved Production. =D> =D> =D>

Cheers
Gary


Is the tender criteria available for public perusal?

Understanding that there's a plethora of technical, logistic and commercial reasons for any particular selection, I maintain that choosing one of the most expensive tyres on the production car tyre list, largely defeats the purpose of having a control tyre.
"Out of all the possible tyres, we're making you buy the most expensive one! You're welcome"...

It is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that changing tyres is a catastrophe for the class - the same happens every time the control tyre changes. And that's the main reason I brought up the A050 - the particular level of performance that this tyre offers, has shifted the performance balance across the field of cars. I don't see a particular EM vs LM shift, more that big power cars are given a bigger advantage by the better tyre.
Although this has significantly reduced my interest in IP, I realise that it could be good/bad/neutral for IP as a whole.
It does concern me that there's no apparent discussion of what the shift has done for the class as a whole.

Look back at the old Street Sedan class back in prehistoric times - they had healthy, diverse fields when their control tyre was the (bloody awful) Grand Rally S commuter tyre. Then they swapped to a decent semi slick (can't recall if it was the A008Rs or A032) and suddenly the V8 Commodore was the only car worth having - and the class died a very quick death.
I see (much less dramatic) parallels in the change from A032 to A048 to A050 in IP - obviously IP is a much more robust class, and hasn't done anything that dramatic, but...
------------

Let's me put this another way: there's no technical reason why IP can't run on full slicks or full road tyres. Semis are chosen because they fit the positioning of IP. Within the range of semis, perhaps there should be a closer look at whether the positioning of IP would be better served by a cheaper/slower tyre?
Maybe the answer is "no", maybe it is "yes" - I really have no idea. But it does need to be considered.
"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be": PC Hodgell.
Spac
racer
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:45 pm
Location:

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#896  Postby Steve thomas » Sat Jan 14, 2017 11:20 am

With the poor numbers that entered our last nationals and the sad fact there was only 5 different cars in the top 5 I can see why we must change.
Back to the Past for the Future.
User avatar
Steve thomas
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 4499
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:18 pm
Location: Perth WA

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#897  Postby TwinTurbo » Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:46 pm

Spac wrote:Is the tender criteria available for public perusal?

Public, no I don't believe so, IPRA members yes and tyre companies yes.


Cheers
Gary
User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 10003
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#898  Postby TwinTurbo » Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:49 pm

Steve thomas wrote:With the poor numbers that entered our last nationals and the sad fact there was only 5 different cars in the top 5 I can see why we must change.

You need that sarcasm emogi Steve
Image


Cheers
Gary
User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 10003
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#899  Postby TwinTurbo » Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:20 pm

Spac wrote:Understanding that there's a plethora of technical, logistic and commercial reasons for any particular selection, I maintain that choosing one of the most expensive tyres on the production car tyre list, largely defeats the purpose of having a control tyre.
"Out of all the possible tyres, we're making you buy the most expensive one! You're welcome"

It is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that changing tyres is a catastrophe for the class - the same happens every time the control tyre changes. And that's the main reason I brought up the A050 - the particular level of performance that this tyre offers, has shifted the performance balance across the field of cars. I don't see a particular EM vs LM shift, more that big power cars are given a bigger advantage by the better tyre.
Although this has significantly reduced my interest in IP, I realise that it could be good/bad/neutral for IP as a whole.
It does concern me that there's no apparent discussion of what the shift has done for the class as a whole.

Look back at the old Street Sedan class back in prehistoric times - they had healthy, diverse fields when their control tyre was the (bloody awful) Grand Rally S commuter tyre. Then they swapped to a decent semi slick (can't recall if it was the A008Rs or A032) and suddenly the V8 Commodore was the only car worth having - and the class died a very quick death.
I see (much less dramatic) parallels in the change from A032 to A048 to A050 in IP - obviously IP is a much more robust class, and hasn't done anything that dramatic, but...

Let's me put this another way: there's no technical reason why IP can't run on full slicks or full road tyres. Semis are chosen because they fit the positioning of IP. Within the range of semis, perhaps there should be a closer look at whether the positioning of IP would be better served by a cheaper/slower tyre?
Maybe the answer is "no", maybe it is "yes" - I really have no idea. But it does need to be considered.


From my perspective the concept of a control tyre is firstly parity, to have everyone on the same tyre construction and compound i.e.; no one can benefit from having access to a unique tyre that blows everything else away. That's actually rather difficult, as evidenced by the fact that no other tyre company tendered (last time round) the range of sizes that IP requires. After all we are not a one make series where every car runs the same sized tyre.

History, it always looks better than it really was. Back in the A048 days we had guys buying new tyres for every session, because they had such a huge green tyre advantage. The A050 might cost a bit more but one set lasts a long time and gives good performance until there is no tread left. So A050's are actually way cheaper to race on for a season than A048's. Back in the A008R days we used to buff the hell out them, they only lasted one weekend until they were bald but that was the only way to get performance out of them. A008's were worse, being a road tyre they had too much tread pattern depth and where the wrong shape, so again we'd get the buff out and shape them and remove more than half the tread depth. Pretty much any road tyre has the same problem, run them full tread depth and they overheat and chew out in no time, buff them down enough so that they don't overheat and they wear out real fast. Again they may be cheaper to buy but we'd use 3 or 4 times as many tyres in a season.

I know someone will say that buffing isn't legal, well try and enforce it. The smart guys simply buff them down then drive around the block a few times, no buff marks left. Impossible to detect.

On the buffing subject, I can still close my eyes and still see Barry Jones at Oran Park with the Rainbow Warrior jacked up, lying under the rear wheels, engine running, buff in hand, shaping away.

Whilst there may be no "technical reason" slicks have 2 issues, the first is that we would need a wet weather tyre as well, so everyone would have to have at least 2 sets of wheels with tyres, plus a spare or two is always handy. That's a fairly substantial cost impost on the guys that currently only need 4 wheels and tyres for all conditions. The second is availability of sizes, it's been a while since I checked but there wasn't one compound in anywhere near enough sizes.

The unique advantage is a big issue, as an example we put a stock standard Suzuki Swift on pole position in an Improved Production race because we had a brand new set of just released Dunlop wets that had only the previous week been put on the CAMS approved tyre list. No one else had access to them, big advantage. The following year we went to control tyres, it's been that way ever since and IP has grown to be the biggest and best amateur category.


Cheers
Gary
User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 10003
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#900  Postby Steve thomas » Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:44 pm

I also believe its unfair that some drivers and car builders have much more talent than others, We need control over peoples skills.
Back to the Past for the Future.
User avatar
Steve thomas
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 4499
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:18 pm
Location: Perth WA

PreviousNext

Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron