> dg50@daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
>> Why do we require DOT race tires?
>> Why not allow race slicks too?
> Well, remember that *allowing* slicks is the same as *requiring* > slicks for
those that want to be competitive.
Assuming, of course, that a given slick is faster than a given DOT tire.
In terms of tread pattern, a g-force with a couple of runs on it is a slick with
two tiny grooves in it - for all intents and purposes, a slick. So for a "real
slick" to be faster, there has to be other differences other than tread pattern.
Are there?
>> Good enough for CP, good enough for ESP
> Well, most Prepared cars are trailered to events; many SP cars
> will be driven to the events; some driven their on their race
> tires. And most in SP will be on the most competitive rubber -- > not real
safe -- not real legal.
> Note that many SP cars are daily drivers.
I know - mine is. However, I can't think of a single SP driver _at all_ who
doesn't change tires at the event site (assuming they drove the car there)
You either squish them in the car somehow, or you get someone to bring your
tires for you - or both. Ask Kevin Howell. ;)
So I don't think the "daily driver" argument holds. SP cars are by and large
either trailered or change tires on site. The few oddballs that drive on race
rubber are just that - oddballs - and will always do oddball things.
> Further, unlike Prepared cars, many SP cars are very much still > covered by
their factory warranty. However, at least some
> factory warranties are voided by running the car with slicks.
Hrm. You have a point, but I wonder how many unvoided warranties are really out
there - and to void or not to void is a driver's choice, not the rules'.
> Many of the cars are not designed to handle the G-forces
> possible with slicks.
Which comes back to "are slicks really better?"
Hey Byron, you awake? Have you got some GEEZ! data on slicks-vs-g-forces?
DG
|