By the way, while we're whining about SCCA and tire size, I find the latest
Tech Bulletin allowing the 1999 BFG R1 13" rubber to be legal absolutely
appalling.
- There is a HUGE difference between allowing old stock tires to be run
(226), and allowing a manufacturer to produce NEW TIRES that don't meet the
rules.
- Tire build dates are molded into the tire, so checking new vs old stock
isn't an issue.
- I don't see any grandfathering to be necessary. Look at 1999 as a new
year. BFG has the G-force which has to meet 13.3, Kumho has their tire,
Hooser etc. But, oh, what's this? BFG is allowed to produce a tire with
ONE fitment size and have it be legal? Why? Um, because they want to. Try
explaining that to a beginner trying to make sense of the rulebook. Try
explaining it to the other manufacturers that did what was necessary to
manufacture their new tires in all the important sizes.
- "a unique situation that is not specifically covered by the current
rules" Crap. It is completely covered by 13.3.B, AND by the clarification
in Appendix G.
- This doesn't even have the "can't get rubber" excuse, 13" are available
from the competing manufacturers.
- So, this rule helps BFG, and it helps BFG contract and contingency
drivers running 13" tires (I don't know who if anyone is in that position,
so I'm not picking on individuals.) It hurts any competitor in a class
where 13" tires are a fitment but whose car runs another wheel size, since
they don't have the same tire choices as their competition. It hurts those
of us still trying to make consistent sense of the rulebook by their pretzel
logic.
Flame away.
KeS
(Gee, I wonder if the SEB would let me run 13" wheels on a '99 Vette if I
promised to buy BFG tires for it?)
|