| DougM | 04-11-2006 01:16 PM |
Bridgestone 01R... STxx worthy?
�
�
personally, I'm excited about this new tire....
has anyone had any autocross experience on these yet? I've looked around here, tirerack and at sccaforums and there doesn't seem to be much, if any, data on 'em yet.
I'm particularly interested in their STU/STi size, the 245/45/17... :disco:
reports? who has some?
has anyone had any autocross experience on these yet? I've looked around here, tirerack and at sccaforums and there doesn't seem to be much, if any, data on 'em yet.
I'm particularly interested in their STU/STi size, the 245/45/17... :disco:
reports? who has some?
| KC | 04-11-2006 01:46 PM |
[URL]http://carlife.carview.co.jp/Image.asp?src=http%3A%2F%2Fcarview%2Er3h%2Enet%2Fimages3%2Ecarview%2Eco%2Ejp%2Fcarlife%2Fimages%2FUserCarPat%2F72811%2FP1%2Ejpg[/URL]
They look interesting.
They look interesting.
| DougM | 04-11-2006 03:13 PM |
[img]http://www.tirerack.com/images/tires/bridgestone/bs_potenza_re01r_ci2_l.jpg[/img]
[url]http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Bridgestone&tireModel=Potenza+RE-01R[/url]
Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
[url]http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Bridgestone&tireModel=Potenza+RE-01R[/url]
Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
| wm07 | 04-11-2006 03:21 PM |
I have seen a Japanese video that compares this to Neova, and it came out on top. They said it feels better, even the driver who helped Yokohoma developed Neova admitted that, and preferred RE-01R. I bet the stiffer side wall helps. It will be interesting to see when people start to use RE-01R, and I hope it will not be so dominated so the ST classes will become Spec'ed tire class. :)
| DougM | 04-11-2006 03:48 PM |
hey, thanks for chiming in.
unless Yokohmamamama does away with their contigency money I don't think they'll dissappear... well, yeah, unless the Bridgestone (or some other tire) is [i]super[/i] dominant like you said... I need new tires, lets hope the 01R is super dominant :) (oh, and doesn't get DQ'd)
unless Yokohmamamama does away with their contigency money I don't think they'll dissappear... well, yeah, unless the Bridgestone (or some other tire) is [i]super[/i] dominant like you said... I need new tires, lets hope the 01R is super dominant :) (oh, and doesn't get DQ'd)
| ratt_finkel | 04-11-2006 03:55 PM |
Well I bet they're better that MX's :lol:
| trhoppe | 04-11-2006 06:41 PM |
This thing might be tasty shaved.
Hankook is still > * ;)
-Tom
Hankook is still > * ;)
-Tom
| Skibum4444 | 04-12-2006 12:16 AM |
I heard somewhere that rt-215's are still the best street tire ever made. If you could get ahold of them you'd be pretty lucky. ;)
| DougM | 04-12-2006 12:29 AM |
no kiddin? I heard of a localyokal that has a brand new set of rt215s for sale for super cheeba cheeba
send me a PM if interested
;)
send me a PM if interested
;)
| KC | 04-12-2006 07:36 AM |
[QUOTE=Skibum4444]I heard somewhere that rt-215's are still the best street tire ever made. If you could get ahold of them you'd be pretty lucky. ;)[/QUOTE]
I dunno, those Kumho 712s are pretty spiffy.
I dunno, those Kumho 712s are pretty spiffy.
| [email�protected] | 04-12-2006 08:08 AM |
[QUOTE=Skibum4444]I heard somewhere that rt-215's are still the best street tire ever made. If you could get ahold of them you'd be pretty lucky. ;)[/QUOTE]
you heard wrong ;)
you heard wrong ;)
| Sideshowbob | 04-12-2006 08:23 AM |
| Patrick L | 04-12-2006 08:51 AM |
Man, I can get v710's at that price. :huh:
| KC | 04-12-2006 09:05 AM |
[QUOTE=Top_Dog]Man, I can get v710's at that price. :huh:[/QUOTE]
Hence why I'm still in stock and not STU. :)
Hence why I'm still in stock and not STU. :)
| ChrisDP | 04-12-2006 09:20 AM |
[QUOTE=KC]Hence why I'm still in stock and not STU. :)[/QUOTE]
But KC, just imagine the throngs of people we're keeping out of ABCQS (A,B,Ccombined Quasi-Stock) on their affordable RE01-R's!
You race-tired stock guys really need to start considering the masses. My hot blonde beauty pageant winning doctor horse agrees with me, you should too!
Sorry, couldn't resist... :lol:
But KC, just imagine the throngs of people we're keeping out of ABCQS (A,B,Ccombined Quasi-Stock) on their affordable RE01-R's!
You race-tired stock guys really need to start considering the masses. My hot blonde beauty pageant winning doctor horse agrees with me, you should too!
Sorry, couldn't resist... :lol:
| jcroy66 | 04-12-2006 09:36 AM |
:lol:
But how DARE you forget?!?! The horse is a star tennis player too!! ;)
But how DARE you forget?!?! The horse is a star tennis player too!! ;)
| KC | 04-12-2006 09:40 AM |
Oh, but the 'kicker' is that being SSS, his position is moot now since he's the only SSS for his local events! YARR!
Karma's a Beotch!!! :lol:
Karma's a Beotch!!! :lol:
| [email�protected] | 04-12-2006 10:17 AM |
[QUOTE=BeantownWRX]so when are we gonna see some not crappy 16" sizes?[/QUOTE]
225/50R16 BFGoodrich G-FORCE TA KD
225/50R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
225/50R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE050A Pole Position
225/50R16 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3
205/55R16 BFGoodrich G-FORCE TA KD
205/55R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
205/55R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE050A Pole Position
205/55R16 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3
225/50R16 BFGoodrich G-FORCE TA KD
225/50R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
225/50R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE050A Pole Position
225/50R16 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3
205/55R16 BFGoodrich G-FORCE TA KD
205/55R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
205/55R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE050A Pole Position
205/55R16 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3
| KC | 04-12-2006 10:27 AM |
225/45?
235/45?
235/40?
245/40?
245/45?
--kC
235/45?
235/40?
245/40?
245/45?
--kC
| ratt_finkel | 04-12-2006 10:39 AM |
[[email�protected]]225/50R16 BFGoodrich G-FORCE TA KD
225/50R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
225/50R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE050A Pole Position
225/50R16 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3
205/55R16 BFGoodrich G-FORCE TA KD
205/55R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
205/55R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE050A Pole Position
205/55R16 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3[/QUOTE]
And there is exactly one tire on there that would be worth running, the first one.
225/50R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
225/50R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE050A Pole Position
225/50R16 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3
205/55R16 BFGoodrich G-FORCE TA KD
205/55R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
205/55R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE050A Pole Position
205/55R16 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3[/QUOTE]
And there is exactly one tire on there that would be worth running, the first one.
| AtomicRacer | 04-12-2006 10:53 AM |
[QUOTE=ratt_finkel]And there is exactly one tire on there that would be worth running, the first one.[/QUOTE]
What about the second one?
225/50R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
It might be good, unknown at this time though. 140 rating should make it pretty grippy. Considering that the re070 is a good tire, I think this one might have potential.
-Paul
What about the second one?
225/50R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
It might be good, unknown at this time though. 140 rating should make it pretty grippy. Considering that the re070 is a good tire, I think this one might have potential.
-Paul
| DrBiggly | 04-12-2006 10:56 AM |
I'm just wondering who has the pockets and is a good enough test driver to give them a shot.
Had I $texas lying around, I'd do it just to test them out. :)
edit: Not that this means I'm a good enough driver to actually give them a proper testing, but I have driven on a few different tires and could hopefully offer a reasonable interpretation.
-Biggly
Had I $texas lying around, I'd do it just to test them out. :)
edit: Not that this means I'm a good enough driver to actually give them a proper testing, but I have driven on a few different tires and could hopefully offer a reasonable interpretation.
-Biggly
| Sideshowbob | 04-12-2006 11:16 AM |
[[email�protected]]225/50R16 BFGoodrich G-FORCE TA KD
225/50R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
225/50R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE050A Pole Position
225/50R16 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3
205/55R16 BFGoodrich G-FORCE TA KD
205/55R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
205/55R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE050A Pole Position
205/55R16 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that size sucks.
215/45R16
or
225/40R16
or
235/40R16
225/50R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
225/50R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE050A Pole Position
225/50R16 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3
205/55R16 BFGoodrich G-FORCE TA KD
205/55R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE-01R
205/55R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE050A Pole Position
205/55R16 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that size sucks.
215/45R16
or
225/40R16
or
235/40R16
| PhilC | 04-12-2006 11:40 AM |
If they offered any sort of contingency I think you'd actually see a good driver with the ability to really test them give them a shot and they might actually turn out to be worth the price. With no contingency I think most will stay on the Yoks for the $, Kooks for the tire$, or Falkens for their built in cost savings.
| DougM | 04-12-2006 11:51 AM |
[QUOTE=DrBiggly]I'm just wondering who has the pockets and is a good enough test driver to give them a shot. [/QUOTE]
not that I'm "all that" but I might be persuaded to run them at the NWR regional and our Pro. (I hope to be near the top of STU).
Luke? are these discounted right now? didn't show up on the "discount" list.. if so, any ideas on how long they'll be at this price? .....I have maybe 2 or 3 events left on my Neovas.
:cool:
not that I'm "all that" but I might be persuaded to run them at the NWR regional and our Pro. (I hope to be near the top of STU).
Luke? are these discounted right now? didn't show up on the "discount" list.. if so, any ideas on how long they'll be at this price? .....I have maybe 2 or 3 events left on my Neovas.
:cool:
| [email�protected] | 04-12-2006 12:03 PM |
[QUOTE=BeantownWRX]Yeah, that size sucks.
215/45R16
or
225/40R16
or
235/40R16[/QUOTE]
ok, let's look into the issue of shorter tires for AutoX ......
The Facts:
A P-Metric tires max load is achieved at 35 psi and a Euro metric tires max load is achieved at 36 psi adding more air pressure will not increase the tires load capacity but, lowering it will reduce the load carrying ablility. When increasing pressure all you are accomplishing is a lower rolling resistance, quicker steering response, stiffer ride and contact patch reduction.
Based on a WRX:
the OE tire is a 205/55-16 89V
max load capacity is 1279 lbs.
load capacity at recommended pressure (which we will call PLC for placard load capacity at 32psi) = 1213 lbs.
so the minimum load capacity for a WRX is 1213 lbs. according to the PLC
now if you look at the optional tire "OK'd" by Subaru
215/45-17 87W
max load is 1201
PLC = 1135
so in reality the minimum load capacity is 1135 lbs.
now lets consider the idea of running a capacity that is too low .... what happens:
the tire is put into a condition where it can support the car at a static rest point but, when driven aggressively the sidewalls are so over worked they can not properly control the contact patch of the tire allowing for excessive sidewall roll-over, irregular wear tread block and contact patch flex which robs the tires performance ability and grip. also the added flexing of the tire will increase the heat it generates which can make a tire feel really slippery .... better gear ratio is achieved but if you can't utilize the power it doesn't matter ....
A good way to understand this is: let's say I just put a 100lb. back pack on you .... you can stand there for quite a while (that's your car sitting in a parking lot) now go run up and down some stairs with that back pack .... that's normal driving and you can't do that very well, nearly as fast or for very long before your legs give out .... after you've recovered enough to walk (let the car rest once you arrive at the venue for your autoX), take a 500 meter sprint through deep sand, that's your autoX and you will most likely not make it to the finish without falling atleast once if you can finish at all.
there are possibilities for a shorter tire though
alternate tire sizes that would work on the WRX while maintaining load capacity (these may or may not be all of the sizes that could work and some of these may not even fit)
235/45-17/1135 PLC
225/45-17/1250 PLC
245/45-16/1235
225/40-16/1135 **** minimum 36 psi
215/45-16/1168 **** minimum 36 psi
195/55-16/1168
225/50-15/1246 PLC
215/50-15/1157 PLC
225/45-14/1168
all of these tires would be acceptable as long as at least 35 psi was run in them except where noted
and who makes a 235/40-16 :confused:
215/45R16
or
225/40R16
or
235/40R16[/QUOTE]
ok, let's look into the issue of shorter tires for AutoX ......
The Facts:
A P-Metric tires max load is achieved at 35 psi and a Euro metric tires max load is achieved at 36 psi adding more air pressure will not increase the tires load capacity but, lowering it will reduce the load carrying ablility. When increasing pressure all you are accomplishing is a lower rolling resistance, quicker steering response, stiffer ride and contact patch reduction.
Based on a WRX:
the OE tire is a 205/55-16 89V
max load capacity is 1279 lbs.
load capacity at recommended pressure (which we will call PLC for placard load capacity at 32psi) = 1213 lbs.
so the minimum load capacity for a WRX is 1213 lbs. according to the PLC
now if you look at the optional tire "OK'd" by Subaru
215/45-17 87W
max load is 1201
PLC = 1135
so in reality the minimum load capacity is 1135 lbs.
now lets consider the idea of running a capacity that is too low .... what happens:
the tire is put into a condition where it can support the car at a static rest point but, when driven aggressively the sidewalls are so over worked they can not properly control the contact patch of the tire allowing for excessive sidewall roll-over, irregular wear tread block and contact patch flex which robs the tires performance ability and grip. also the added flexing of the tire will increase the heat it generates which can make a tire feel really slippery .... better gear ratio is achieved but if you can't utilize the power it doesn't matter ....
A good way to understand this is: let's say I just put a 100lb. back pack on you .... you can stand there for quite a while (that's your car sitting in a parking lot) now go run up and down some stairs with that back pack .... that's normal driving and you can't do that very well, nearly as fast or for very long before your legs give out .... after you've recovered enough to walk (let the car rest once you arrive at the venue for your autoX), take a 500 meter sprint through deep sand, that's your autoX and you will most likely not make it to the finish without falling atleast once if you can finish at all.
there are possibilities for a shorter tire though
alternate tire sizes that would work on the WRX while maintaining load capacity (these may or may not be all of the sizes that could work and some of these may not even fit)
235/45-17/1135 PLC
225/45-17/1250 PLC
245/45-16/1235
225/40-16/1135 **** minimum 36 psi
215/45-16/1168 **** minimum 36 psi
195/55-16/1168
225/50-15/1246 PLC
215/50-15/1157 PLC
225/45-14/1168
all of these tires would be acceptable as long as at least 35 psi was run in them except where noted
and who makes a 235/40-16 :confused:
| Sideshowbob | 04-12-2006 12:34 PM |
[[email�protected]]o
and who makes a 235/40-16 :confused:[/QUOTE]
I can hope.
The only reason I run shorter tires (215/45R16) is for gearing purposes, and I run about 40 lbs of air, which according to your post, works fine.
and who makes a 235/40-16 :confused:[/QUOTE]
I can hope.
The only reason I run shorter tires (215/45R16) is for gearing purposes, and I run about 40 lbs of air, which according to your post, works fine.
| KC | 04-12-2006 01:01 PM |
[[email�protected]]so in reality the minimum load capacity is 1135 lbs.
now lets consider the idea of running a capacity that is too low .... what happens:
the tire is put into a condition where it can support the car at a static rest point but, when driven aggressively the sidewalls are so over worked they can not properly control the contact patch of the tire allowing for excessive sidewall roll-over, irregular wear tread block and contact patch flex which robs the tires performance ability and grip. also the added flexing of the tire will increase the heat it generates which can make a tire feel really slippery .... better gear ratio is achieved but if you can't utilize the power it doesn't matter ....[/QUOTE]
How does sidewall flexibility work in conjunction with load rating? I'm not going to beleive that it does until I see some proof. Is there a paper/study/link out there that states that load rating is directly proportional to sidewall softness/stiffness?
Why?
Because I cannot believe for one second that the RE92, the stock tire on the WRX, with a rating of 1279lbs has a STIFFER sidewall than any of the tires you listed, JUST because the load rating is higher. These tires roll over just sitting in the driveway on a gusty day!
Porve the sidwall on an RE92 is stiffer/deflects less/doesn't roll over as much when pushed hard than of those tires you listed in thhis post, and you'll have proved a stubborn man wrong.
Until then, bull****.
I ran on 225/35-17s (Falken FK451) that had a sucha stiff sidewall that you couldn't flex it with your hand. Load Rating? 1047. Deflection was not even noticible, transitioned like a dream, and the gearing? Whee!!!
--kC
now lets consider the idea of running a capacity that is too low .... what happens:
the tire is put into a condition where it can support the car at a static rest point but, when driven aggressively the sidewalls are so over worked they can not properly control the contact patch of the tire allowing for excessive sidewall roll-over, irregular wear tread block and contact patch flex which robs the tires performance ability and grip. also the added flexing of the tire will increase the heat it generates which can make a tire feel really slippery .... better gear ratio is achieved but if you can't utilize the power it doesn't matter ....[/QUOTE]
How does sidewall flexibility work in conjunction with load rating? I'm not going to beleive that it does until I see some proof. Is there a paper/study/link out there that states that load rating is directly proportional to sidewall softness/stiffness?
Why?
Because I cannot believe for one second that the RE92, the stock tire on the WRX, with a rating of 1279lbs has a STIFFER sidewall than any of the tires you listed, JUST because the load rating is higher. These tires roll over just sitting in the driveway on a gusty day!
Porve the sidwall on an RE92 is stiffer/deflects less/doesn't roll over as much when pushed hard than of those tires you listed in thhis post, and you'll have proved a stubborn man wrong.
Until then, bull****.
I ran on 225/35-17s (Falken FK451) that had a sucha stiff sidewall that you couldn't flex it with your hand. Load Rating? 1047. Deflection was not even noticible, transitioned like a dream, and the gearing? Whee!!!
--kC
| [email�protected] | 04-12-2006 01:41 PM |
Sidewall stiffness and roll have very little to do with load capacity .... because, the stiff sidewall feel that many people like is a horizontal function and load capacity is a vertical function
| j-rho | 04-12-2006 02:10 PM |
Luke, have you collected internally or externally any hard data of real-world autocross-type performance of the RE01-R vs. the Neova or BFG KD?
Re: load ratings, I'm not sure most serious autocrossers would care if the tire blows up after 10 miles of use - if it's the fastest tire for 6 runs, they'll buy it.
Re: load ratings, I'm not sure most serious autocrossers would care if the tire blows up after 10 miles of use - if it's the fastest tire for 6 runs, they'll buy it.
| [email�protected] | 04-12-2006 02:48 PM |
[QUOTE=j-rho]Luke, have you collected internally or externally any hard data of real-world autocross-type performance of the RE01-R vs. the Neova or BFG KD?
Re: load ratings, I'm not sure most serious autocrossers would care if the tire blows up after 10 miles of use - if it's the fastest tire for 6 runs, they'll buy it.[/QUOTE]
next week we are testing them
Re: load ratings, I'm not sure most serious autocrossers would care if the tire blows up after 10 miles of use - if it's the fastest tire for 6 runs, they'll buy it.[/QUOTE]
next week we are testing them
| Draken | 04-12-2006 02:57 PM |
/reverts back to spring 2001 when the Azenis Sport first came out
Ban the 01R!!!!!!!! It is just a cheater R compound tire from Australia!
/back to 2006
Chris H.
Ban the 01R!!!!!!!! It is just a cheater R compound tire from Australia!
/back to 2006
Chris H.
| Thumper23 | 04-12-2006 06:21 PM |
| DougM | 04-14-2006 02:01 PM |
[[email�protected]]next week we are testing them[/QUOTE]
great
will you be involved in the testing? I'll probably give you a call, see what you/they found out and hopefully pick up a set from you next week then.
thanks
Doug
(what's your extension there?)
great
will you be involved in the testing? I'll probably give you a call, see what you/they found out and hopefully pick up a set from you next week then.
thanks
Doug
(what's your extension there?)
| meebs | 04-14-2006 02:35 PM |
[QUOTE=KC][URL]http://carlife.carview.co.jp/Image.asp?src=http%3A%2F%2Fcarview%2Er3h%2Enet%2Fimages3%2Ecarview%2Eco%2Ejp%2Fcarlife%2Fimages%2FUserCarPat%2F72811%2FP1%2Ejpg[/URL]
They look interesting.[/QUOTE]
They also look like they're on backwords!!! lol.
They look interesting.[/QUOTE]
They also look like they're on backwords!!! lol.
| KC | 04-14-2006 02:55 PM |
[QUOTE=meebs]They also look like they're on backwords!!! lol.[/QUOTE]
I think they are! Nice catch!
I think they are! Nice catch!
| Student Driver | 04-14-2006 02:57 PM |
[QUOTE=KC]I think they are! Nice catch![/QUOTE]
Really? I thought it was from the back of the front wheel turned as the caliper is behind the hub center. Therefore, it would be in the right direction.
Really? I thought it was from the back of the front wheel turned as the caliper is behind the hub center. Therefore, it would be in the right direction.
| KC | 04-14-2006 03:20 PM |
[QUOTE=Student Driver]Really? I thought it was from the back of the front wheel turned as the caliper is behind the hub center. Therefore, it would be in the right direction.[/QUOTE]
Like the preson that noticed it and posted, it looks like the tire is on the drivers side and looking at the front of the tire.
But this tire could be from the 'back' of the wheel well on the pass side... then the tire would be correctly mounted. You're right... as evidenced by the position of the caliper.
--kC
Like the preson that noticed it and posted, it looks like the tire is on the drivers side and looking at the front of the tire.
But this tire could be from the 'back' of the wheel well on the pass side... then the tire would be correctly mounted. You're right... as evidenced by the position of the caliper.
--kC
| trhoppe | 04-14-2006 03:45 PM |
Subaru calipers are on the back. This is the passenger side ;)
-Tom
-Tom
| 10th Warrior | 04-14-2006 03:59 PM |
jeez, guys, note the mudflap :lol:
| meebs | 04-14-2006 04:17 PM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior]jeez, guys, note the mudflap :lol:[/QUOTE]
ooop!! you're right didn't see the mudflap there. that has to be right-front then. :) dunno why, but it seemed like a left front at first glance.
ooop!! you're right didn't see the mudflap there. that has to be right-front then. :) dunno why, but it seemed like a left front at first glance.
| shemoves | 04-14-2006 04:51 PM |
I am wondering if this is the tire I tossed around at a bridgestone thing i went to...I'd def. buy Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 before the Bridges.
| nhluhr | 04-15-2006 04:35 AM |
[QUOTE=shemoves]I am wondering if this is the tire I tossed around at a bridgestone thing i went to...I'd def. buy Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 before the Bridges.[/QUOTE]The PS2's aren't even in the same league as the 01R's... maybe if you were comparing the PS2's to the Bridgestone RE-050PP. . .
| DrBiggly | 04-15-2006 10:15 AM |
[QUOTE=nhluhr]The PS2's aren't even in the same league as the 01R's... maybe if you were comparing the PS2's to the Bridgestone RE-050PP. . .[/QUOTE]
Agreed. :)
-Biggly
Agreed. :)
-Biggly
| Crash477 | 04-15-2006 10:41 AM |
*subscribed*
| xcdhridr | 04-15-2006 04:43 PM |
I want them. Been loving the re070's and been looking for something sweet in teh 245/40/17 size. Too bad my sponsors can't get tires (yet). Any help there Luke?
| 06STi | 04-17-2006 02:42 AM |
RE-01R are great on the street so far.
| [email�protected] | 04-17-2006 08:53 AM |
[QUOTE=xcdhridr]Too bad my sponsors can't get tires (yet). Any help there Luke?[/QUOTE]
help? .... what kind of help .... have your sponsors call and order them
help? .... what kind of help .... have your sponsors call and order them
| xcdhridr | 04-17-2006 12:22 PM |
The sponsors only get me discounts (ie stuff for cost). Since I can't afford the $800 for tires... you get the idea.
| j-rho | 04-20-2006 03:53 PM |
[[email�protected]]next week we are testing them[/QUOTE]
What's the latest on this testing?
What's the latest on this testing?
| DougM | 04-24-2006 12:14 PM |
after-the-weekend bump
anyone?
anyone?
| j-rho | 04-24-2006 01:38 PM |
Luke,
As a member of the Street Touring Advisory Committee, allow me to offer some personal and non-official advice on how you and Tire Rack should carefully present the performance of this tire to the autocross community.
Our committee looks at each new tire as it comes out, eyes peeled for any potential "ringer" tires. Regardless of how your testing goes (or went) if it is advertised that this (or any other future) tire delivers performance in substantial excess of that of the Neova, RT-615, MX, etc., this will likely increase the chances of the tire being declared a "ringer" and added to the ST exclusion list. Exclusion list means it would be ILLEGAL for the ST classes, meaning nobody competing in the SCCA ST classes would buy them. This would be not a good thing for anybody trying to sell them including yourselves and Bridgestone, and it would be especially bad for those who already have bought them.
So in summary, my advice to you is that regardless of the performance of this tire, and of any future 140+ treadwear ST tire you may test, that you NEVER advertise or admit to the performance of the new tire as being more than "a little bit better" than the current crop. "A little bit better" should be enough to get people to buy them, but not so much as to start a chain reaction from the paranoid sheep lemmings that could ultimately really really hurt your bottom line.
Sincerely,
As a member of the Street Touring Advisory Committee, allow me to offer some personal and non-official advice on how you and Tire Rack should carefully present the performance of this tire to the autocross community.
Our committee looks at each new tire as it comes out, eyes peeled for any potential "ringer" tires. Regardless of how your testing goes (or went) if it is advertised that this (or any other future) tire delivers performance in substantial excess of that of the Neova, RT-615, MX, etc., this will likely increase the chances of the tire being declared a "ringer" and added to the ST exclusion list. Exclusion list means it would be ILLEGAL for the ST classes, meaning nobody competing in the SCCA ST classes would buy them. This would be not a good thing for anybody trying to sell them including yourselves and Bridgestone, and it would be especially bad for those who already have bought them.
So in summary, my advice to you is that regardless of the performance of this tire, and of any future 140+ treadwear ST tire you may test, that you NEVER advertise or admit to the performance of the new tire as being more than "a little bit better" than the current crop. "A little bit better" should be enough to get people to buy them, but not so much as to start a chain reaction from the paranoid sheep lemmings that could ultimately really really hurt your bottom line.
Sincerely,
| Butt Dyno | 04-24-2006 01:43 PM |
[QUOTE=j-rho]Luke,
As a member of the Street Touring Advisory Committee, allow me to offer some personal and non-official advice on how you and Tire Rack should carefully present the performance of this tire to the autocross community.
Our committee looks at each new tire as it comes out, eyes peeled for any potential "ringer" tires. Regardless of how your testing goes (or went) if it is advertised that this (or any other future) tire delivers performance in substantial excess of that of the Neova, RT-615, MX, etc., this will likely increase the chances of the tire being declared a "ringer" and added to the ST exclusion list. Exclusion list means it would be ILLEGAL for the ST classes, meaning nobody competing in the SCCA ST classes would buy them. This would be not a good thing for anybody trying to sell them including yourselves and Bridgestone, and it would be especially bad for those who already have bought them.
So in summary, my advice to you is that [color=red]regardless of the performance of this tire,[/color] and of any future 140+ treadwear ST tire you may test, that you [color=red]NEVER advertise or admit to the performance of the new tire as being more than "a little bit better" than the current crop.[/color] "A little bit better" should be enough to get people to buy them, but not so much as to start a chain reaction from the paranoid sheep lemmings that could ultimately really really hurt your bottom line.
Sincerely,[/QUOTE]
:confused:
Are you saying he should basically sandbag?
If the tire really is that fast, shouldn't it BE on the exclusion list?
As a member of the Street Touring Advisory Committee, allow me to offer some personal and non-official advice on how you and Tire Rack should carefully present the performance of this tire to the autocross community.
Our committee looks at each new tire as it comes out, eyes peeled for any potential "ringer" tires. Regardless of how your testing goes (or went) if it is advertised that this (or any other future) tire delivers performance in substantial excess of that of the Neova, RT-615, MX, etc., this will likely increase the chances of the tire being declared a "ringer" and added to the ST exclusion list. Exclusion list means it would be ILLEGAL for the ST classes, meaning nobody competing in the SCCA ST classes would buy them. This would be not a good thing for anybody trying to sell them including yourselves and Bridgestone, and it would be especially bad for those who already have bought them.
So in summary, my advice to you is that [color=red]regardless of the performance of this tire,[/color] and of any future 140+ treadwear ST tire you may test, that you [color=red]NEVER advertise or admit to the performance of the new tire as being more than "a little bit better" than the current crop.[/color] "A little bit better" should be enough to get people to buy them, but not so much as to start a chain reaction from the paranoid sheep lemmings that could ultimately really really hurt your bottom line.
Sincerely,[/QUOTE]
:confused:
Are you saying he should basically sandbag?
If the tire really is that fast, shouldn't it BE on the exclusion list?
| j-rho | 04-24-2006 01:53 PM |
The rule states that any tire with a DOT stamp and any tire 140-treadwear or higher is legal for the class. I don't see why this tire or any other tire meeting those rules should ever be considered for exclusion. No criteria is given for why a tire should or should not be added to the exclusion list. So far the only criteria we can surmise from the already-present item on the exclusion list is that if the tire is called "Pirelli P-Zero Corsa" then it goes.
| wrx2.0 555 | 04-24-2006 01:56 PM |
[QUOTE=ButtDyno]:confused:
Are you saying he should basically sandbag?
If the tire really is that fast, shouldn't it BE on the exclusion list?[/QUOTE]
Uh...yeh... :huh:
The last thing on my mind with this is Tire Racks "bottom line"....
If the choice is between my competitor having a ringer tire or TR's bottom line, I'd say screw TR in a heart beat....
Advertise the reality of the tire and let the chips fall where they may. TR's only buyers for these tires are not just auto-xer's anyway, so if that tire is a ringer, it'll still have a market, just not auto-x.
Are you saying he should basically sandbag?
If the tire really is that fast, shouldn't it BE on the exclusion list?[/QUOTE]
Uh...yeh... :huh:
The last thing on my mind with this is Tire Racks "bottom line"....
If the choice is between my competitor having a ringer tire or TR's bottom line, I'd say screw TR in a heart beat....
Advertise the reality of the tire and let the chips fall where they may. TR's only buyers for these tires are not just auto-xer's anyway, so if that tire is a ringer, it'll still have a market, just not auto-x.
| deuce.five | 04-24-2006 02:06 PM |
[[email�protected]]ok, let's look into the issue of shorter tires for AutoX ......
The Facts:
A P-Metric tires max load is achieved at 35 psi and a Euro metric tires max load is achieved at 36 psi adding more air pressure will not increase the tires load capacity but, lowering it will reduce the load carrying ablility. When increasing pressure all you are accomplishing is a lower rolling resistance, quicker steering response, stiffer ride and contact patch reduction.
Based on a WRX:
the OE tire is a 205/55-16 89V
max load capacity is 1279 lbs.
load capacity at recommended pressure (which we will call PLC for placard load capacity at 32psi) = 1213 lbs.
so the minimum load capacity for a WRX is 1213 lbs. according to the PLC
now if you look at the optional tire "OK'd" by Subaru
215/45-17 87W
max load is 1201
PLC = 1135
so in reality the minimum load capacity is 1135 lbs.
now lets consider the idea of running a capacity that is too low .... what happens:
the tire is put into a condition where it can support the car at a static rest point but, when driven aggressively the sidewalls are so over worked they can not properly control the contact patch of the tire allowing for excessive sidewall roll-over, irregular wear tread block and contact patch flex which robs the tires performance ability and grip. also the added flexing of the tire will increase the heat it generates which can make a tire feel really slippery .... better gear ratio is achieved but if you can't utilize the power it doesn't matter ....
A good way to understand this is: let's say I just put a 100lb. back pack on you .... you can stand there for quite a while (that's your car sitting in a parking lot) now go run up and down some stairs with that back pack .... that's normal driving and you can't do that very well, nearly as fast or for very long before your legs give out .... after you've recovered enough to walk (let the car rest once you arrive at the venue for your autoX), take a 500 meter sprint through deep sand, that's your autoX and you will most likely not make it to the finish without falling atleast once if you can finish at all.
there are possibilities for a shorter tire though
alternate tire sizes that would work on the WRX while maintaining load capacity (these may or may not be all of the sizes that could work and some of these may not even fit)
235/45-17/1135 PLC
225/45-17/1250 PLC
245/45-16/1235
225/40-16/1135 **** minimum 36 psi
215/45-16/1168 **** minimum 36 psi
195/55-16/1168
225/50-15/1246 PLC
215/50-15/1157 PLC
225/45-14/1168
all of these tires would be acceptable as long as at least 35 psi was run in them except where noted
and who makes a 235/40-16 :confused:[/QUOTE]
don't forget about us RS guys in STS. we are limited to 225, and we are lighter so the load rating is feasable for those size tires. Seems like ALL of the MFG's forgot about good 16" sizes...215/45, 225/40.......the 225/50 is just too tall. I'd order another set of 215/45-16 RT-215's in a heartbeat if they were available.
The Facts:
A P-Metric tires max load is achieved at 35 psi and a Euro metric tires max load is achieved at 36 psi adding more air pressure will not increase the tires load capacity but, lowering it will reduce the load carrying ablility. When increasing pressure all you are accomplishing is a lower rolling resistance, quicker steering response, stiffer ride and contact patch reduction.
Based on a WRX:
the OE tire is a 205/55-16 89V
max load capacity is 1279 lbs.
load capacity at recommended pressure (which we will call PLC for placard load capacity at 32psi) = 1213 lbs.
so the minimum load capacity for a WRX is 1213 lbs. according to the PLC
now if you look at the optional tire "OK'd" by Subaru
215/45-17 87W
max load is 1201
PLC = 1135
so in reality the minimum load capacity is 1135 lbs.
now lets consider the idea of running a capacity that is too low .... what happens:
the tire is put into a condition where it can support the car at a static rest point but, when driven aggressively the sidewalls are so over worked they can not properly control the contact patch of the tire allowing for excessive sidewall roll-over, irregular wear tread block and contact patch flex which robs the tires performance ability and grip. also the added flexing of the tire will increase the heat it generates which can make a tire feel really slippery .... better gear ratio is achieved but if you can't utilize the power it doesn't matter ....
A good way to understand this is: let's say I just put a 100lb. back pack on you .... you can stand there for quite a while (that's your car sitting in a parking lot) now go run up and down some stairs with that back pack .... that's normal driving and you can't do that very well, nearly as fast or for very long before your legs give out .... after you've recovered enough to walk (let the car rest once you arrive at the venue for your autoX), take a 500 meter sprint through deep sand, that's your autoX and you will most likely not make it to the finish without falling atleast once if you can finish at all.
there are possibilities for a shorter tire though
alternate tire sizes that would work on the WRX while maintaining load capacity (these may or may not be all of the sizes that could work and some of these may not even fit)
235/45-17/1135 PLC
225/45-17/1250 PLC
245/45-16/1235
225/40-16/1135 **** minimum 36 psi
215/45-16/1168 **** minimum 36 psi
195/55-16/1168
225/50-15/1246 PLC
215/50-15/1157 PLC
225/45-14/1168
all of these tires would be acceptable as long as at least 35 psi was run in them except where noted
and who makes a 235/40-16 :confused:[/QUOTE]
don't forget about us RS guys in STS. we are limited to 225, and we are lighter so the load rating is feasable for those size tires. Seems like ALL of the MFG's forgot about good 16" sizes...215/45, 225/40.......the 225/50 is just too tall. I'd order another set of 215/45-16 RT-215's in a heartbeat if they were available.
| PhilC | 04-24-2006 04:04 PM |
[QUOTE=j-rho]The rule states that any tire with a DOT stamp and any tire 140-treadwear or higher is legal for the class. I don't see why this tire or any other tire meeting those rules should ever be considered for exclusion. No criteria is given for why a tire should or should not be added to the exclusion list. So far the only criteria we can surmise from the already-present item on the exclusion list is that if the tire is called "Pirelli P-Zero Corsa" then it goes.[/QUOTE]
Uh, that's an easy one. One single size of the P-Zero has a 140 tread-wear rating. All the other sizes have a 60 tread-wear. Clearly NOT a 140 tread-wear rating tire as envisioned by the ST class structure so a clear candidate for the exclusion list.
I'm actually amazed that someone on the STAC suggested that a tire shouldn't appear too fast because the rule might be used to exclude it. I know you don't like the exclusion list concept Jason but to suggest, in a post which appears to be speaking in an official manner for the STAC, that a potential ringer should be hidden so that it doesn't go on the list really strikes me the wrong way.
Uh, that's an easy one. One single size of the P-Zero has a 140 tread-wear rating. All the other sizes have a 60 tread-wear. Clearly NOT a 140 tread-wear rating tire as envisioned by the ST class structure so a clear candidate for the exclusion list.
I'm actually amazed that someone on the STAC suggested that a tire shouldn't appear too fast because the rule might be used to exclude it. I know you don't like the exclusion list concept Jason but to suggest, in a post which appears to be speaking in an official manner for the STAC, that a potential ringer should be hidden so that it doesn't go on the list really strikes me the wrong way.
| j-rho | 04-24-2006 04:11 PM |
Haha, so beginning it with "in a personal and non-official manner" isn't enough for you? What would have been?
The 140 treader P-Zero is molded to a greater tread depth than its 60 treadwear peers, providing longer life, especially in the DOT-style test setting.
The 140 treader P-Zero is molded to a greater tread depth than its 60 treadwear peers, providing longer life, especially in the DOT-style test setting.
| Draken | 04-24-2006 04:29 PM |
I was always curious if anyone actually researched the Pirelli, or if the scare of it being a ringer was simply too much. It is obvious it has greater tread depth, but on Pirelli's own site, it clearly stated that one size had a harder compound. Yes, it was only one size. But so is the RE070, Evo Advan etc.
I agree with J-Rho: if it meets the current letter of the rules, it should be legal. Just like the 215 was legal back in 2001, even though it outclassed the existing top tires. But if it gets touted like it is a R compound, there is a chance the STAC could go into protection mode.
Chris H.
I agree with J-Rho: if it meets the current letter of the rules, it should be legal. Just like the 215 was legal back in 2001, even though it outclassed the existing top tires. But if it gets touted like it is a R compound, there is a chance the STAC could go into protection mode.
Chris H.
| [email�protected] | 04-24-2006 05:12 PM |
[QUOTE=PhilC]Uh, that's an easy one. One single size of the P-Zero has a 140 tread-wear rating. All the other sizes have a 60 tread-wear. Clearly NOT a 140 tread-wear rating tire as envisioned by the ST class structure so a clear [/QUOTE]
LOL
I think you neeed to look at the facts
P-Zero system = 140
P-zero Asymetrico = 140
P-Zero Directionale = 140
P-Zero Rosso = 220
P-Zero Nero = 220
P-Zero Nero M&S = 400
P-Zero Corsa = 60 (and it is marketed as a DOT Legal R-Compound tire)
LOL
I think you neeed to look at the facts
P-Zero system = 140
P-zero Asymetrico = 140
P-Zero Directionale = 140
P-Zero Rosso = 220
P-Zero Nero = 220
P-Zero Nero M&S = 400
P-Zero Corsa = 60 (and it is marketed as a DOT Legal R-Compound tire)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét