Go Back   American Sedan Forum > Main American Sedan Categories > American Sedan Technical

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:05 AM
PbFoot PbFoot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 231
Default

AS thrived for many years with 255 as the max size tire width. We could go back to that, plus the 255's are cheaper than the 275's.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:42 AM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,266
Default

I could go along with that. R tires in 255 max. That would level the playing field.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:26 PM
Ted Warning Ted Warning is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: TN
Posts: 9
Default

Wouldn't reducing tire width help level the field in two ways? Slightly lower tire costs and about 1 inch less tread width, reducing overall grip? Less grip, less advantage to those fancy shock packages.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-23-2019, 01:00 PM
PbFoot PbFoot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 231
Default

Another twist on a new tire size would be to mandate 8" wide rims and 255 max tires for only FP cars. The RP cars would keep the same wheel tire package they have now. Heck I would give them 9.5" wide wheels if that helps with availability.

Let's face it the RP cars need some help to compete with the top tier FP folks. The whole idea of RP is to have reliable, stock, cheap engines and I would not want to mess with that. The RP cars need some handling advantage because their engines fall short on the straights.

BTW, I'm a FP guy.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-23-2019, 04:54 PM
DHRMX5 DHRMX5 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Warning View Post
Wouldn't reducing tire width help level the field in two ways? Slightly lower tire costs and about 1 inch less tread width, reducing overall grip? Less grip, less advantage to those fancy shock packages.
Actually, less grip would favor the better shocks. They would help with initial grip and help maintain the grip all race long.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-23-2019, 05:01 PM
DHRMX5 DHRMX5 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PbFoot View Post
Another twist on a new tire size would be to mandate 8" wide rims and 255 max tires for only FP cars. The RP cars would keep the same wheel tire package they have now. Heck I would give them 9.5" wide wheels if that helps with availability.

Let's face it the RP cars need some help to compete with the top tier FP folks. The whole idea of RP is to have reliable, stock, cheap engines and I would not want to mess with that. The RP cars need some handling advantage because their engines fall short on the straights.

BTW, I'm a FP guy.
My opinion, as someone who has a RP Mustang, is that the smaller tire rule just creates a situation where RP cars have to get their asses kicked at power tracks ( like VIR and RA) while waiting for the FP cars to fade later in the race. Not really a recipe for fun for either side of the equation. I'd much rather see FP cars get bigger wheels to combat the fade they already experience in return for a different restrictor for my car.

I won't run it at VIR or RA while giving the FP cars a 50 to 80 HP advantage.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-23-2019, 05:08 PM
andy mcdermid andy mcdermid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 266
Default

And smaller tires wear out faster......More cost in shock tuning as well.
Correct wheel size will make to tires last longer.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-23-2019, 08:41 PM
PbFoot PbFoot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 231
Default

I have recently used the 255 50 16, 275 45 16, and the 275 40 17. All Hoosier 7 series and I did not notice any difference in wear.

The 255 50 16's are $200 a set cheaper than the 275 40 17's. The 245 40 17 tires are listed as having a slightly wider tread than the 255 50 16's. Both these tire sizes are designed to work on 8" rims and the 245 40 17's are $130 dollars a set cheaper than the 275 45 17's.

Why is it in this class that the fastest guys only seem to want changes that make our cars faster and cost more money?

BTW, I don't get my rims and tires for free.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:14 PM
mlanglin2007 mlanglin2007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 50
Default

A major cost issue for the class - it comes up constantly - is tires. Eliminating use of "A" spec tires is a move in the right direction. Honestly, going to harder tires than current "R's" would not break my heart.

Tom is correct about the cost difference between 255 & 275 - and I really can't discern much handling difference between the two. I guess a heavier car would have a different result. The thing is, if you look at actual tread on the ground, 255 and 275 on 8" wheels have very little difference.

A change to wider wheels / fender flares would cost everyone a lot of money for no net gain.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-24-2019, 09:52 AM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,266
Default

This is a pretty good debate about tires and wheels. I think the consensus is that harder tires, whether it is "R" compound or harder, would be good for the class. The extensive research that Pam and the ASAC did a few seasons ago, should be resurrected and updated and put out for member input. Pam, could you dust that stuff off and submit it to the ASAC?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.