[Racer Duck]

Some say the tires are to blame, others say the drivers, and a few blame NA$CAR. NASCAR.COM - Hard tires, aggressive drivers a volatile mix - May 28, 2007 What's your opinion?

[simple simon]

well RD it may not be the answer you expected but from what i saw of the race i blame the tires most of all ......... and i suppose NASCAR for not allowing a tire war ....... you have to run whatever GoodYear brings which i think sucks

[oncea3fan]

I would go with the opposite,
I think tires are part of you equipment and need to be managed the same way.

if you drive in to hard at martinville and the brakes don't slow you down fast enough and you spin out, do you blame the brake or the driver for over driving.
the ones that figure the tire management the best will get the most of the tires and raise to the top.


now that said Iam all for a tire war, and softer tires.
I love when you have guys come through the field on new tires and then other make up ground at the end of a tire run. it really adds to the race in my book.

firestone, B.F.goodrich, bridgestone a multi tire co. war would be great.

[LSC9901]

Try this on for size ... blame corporate sponsorship. The drivers want you to believe that it is about winning but what are the first words out of their mouths during an interview. MWR, HMS, RYR, RCR ... they are all businesses and their ultimate goal is to make money. Winning races keeps your sponsors name up front and on TV. Without the corporate sponsors there would be little need to argue over tires.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

Try this on for size ... blame corporate sponsorship. The drivers want you to believe that it is about winning but what are the first words out of their mouths during an interview. MWR, HMS, RYR, RCR ... they are all businesses and their ultimate goal is to make money. Winning races keeps your sponsors name up front and on TV. Without the corporate sponsors there would be little need to argue over tires.

I give you the corporate angle. but I think you hear what the drivers really think once they get past the "canned" part of their dialog. some of them, names withheld to protect the guilty, are "passionate" enough at times to skip over the corporate "blah-blah" and get right to the (red) meat....

[wingkey1]

"Blame" for what?

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by wingkey1

"Blame" for what?

wrecking instead of racing

[jks812]

I think it's enough blame to go around to all of em. Nascar for using only Goodyear and making the drivers use whatever they bring. The drivers for sometimes being over aggressive when they know what will happen. Sponsors for putting the drivers in the position to get there name up front, pretty much regardless of how they have to do it. But the sponsors part I could understand.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by wingkey1

"Blame" for what?

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

Some say the tires are to blame, others say the drivers, and a few blame NA$CAR. NASCAR.COM - Hard tires, aggressive drivers a volatile mix - May 28, 2007 What's your opinion?

Here ya go WingKey

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

wrecking instead of racing

Interesting. Since racing and wrecking pretty much go hand in hand (i.e. if ya never wrecked, ya never really raced), it might be impossible for me to move to the "blame game". Be that as it may, I'd go with -

Tires that catastrophically fail without any prior indication or warning would I suppose be "blame - able" (That a word? - doubt it).

Blow outs, material seperation, roll over/bead failure, etc. I don't / haven't seen anyone (Cup drivers, owners, crew folks, etc.), claiming this to be the case. These folks seem more to be saying - there are limits to the skins they have to work with. There are drivers who are clearly dealing with it (The real driver/racers?) and winning, and there are those that well, just are incapable or certainly less capable.

Forced to choose - guess it's "not tires" gets the mark.

NASCAR - since there sure seems to be an influence / interest in slowing things down a bit for the expressed purpose of safety by making the skins a bit less "grippy" (Another non-word?), they / it / he might be suspect. Guess it's - "possibly" here.

Drivers - Strongest "yup" here. Not all of 'em. Just the less capable. With all being dealt the same "tire card" if you will, to a degree this aspect of the field of play must be considered "level". "Spec" tires are not unusual. Eventually the complainers (drivers referred to here) come to the realization that they either learn to deal with it, or one of the other folks waiting in line for a ride will. Many of the same drivers will (some likely already have) complain about COT. Needs to be driven / raced. Some just can't do it and it's beginning to show. The "stick anywhere at any speed" type cars are gone / going for the time being. The real racer/drivers are becoming a bit more obvious.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by wingkey1

Interesting. Since racing and wrecking pretty much go hand in hand (i.e. if ya never wrecked, ya never really raced), it might be impossible for me to move to the "blame game". Be that as it may, I'd go with -

Tires that catastrophically fail without any prior indication or warning would I suppose be "blame - able" (That a word? - doubt it).

Blow outs, material seperation, roll over/bead failure, etc. I don't / haven't seen anyone (Cup drivers, owners, crew folks, etc.), claiming this to be the case. These folks seem more to be saying - there are limits to the skins they have to work with. There are drivers who are clearly dealing with it (The real driver/racers?) and winning, and there are those that well, just are incapable or certainly less capable.

Forced to choose - guess it's "not tires" gets the mark.

NASCAR - since there sure seems to be an influence / interest in slowing things down a bit for the expressed purpose of safety by making the skins a bit less "grippy" (Another non-word?), they / it / he might be suspect. Guess it's - "possibly" here.

Drivers - Strongest "yup" here. Not all of 'em. Just the less capable. With all being dealt the same "tire card" if you will, to a degree this aspect of the field of play must be considered "level". "Spec" tires are not unusual. Eventually the complainers (drivers referred to here) come to the realization that they either learn to deal with it, or one of the other folks waiting in line for a ride will. Many of the same drivers will (some likely already have) complain about COT. Needs to be driven / raced. Some just can't do it and it's beginning to show. The "stick anywhere at any speed" type cars are gone / going for the time being. The real racer/drivers are becoming a bit more obvious.

I think you just agreed with Jeff G. whether you wanted to or not!

and I agree with you .. to a certain extent.

the drivers need a working connection between the head and the foot - and with some their connection works much better than with others, and that single factor is mostly responsible for the "carnage" we've been treated to for the past few years..

there's also no doubt that the tires are also a big part of the problem (though not as big as the driver's head-foot connection), and I understand NA$CAR wanting to slow things down, ostensibly for safety. but there are much better ways to slow down the cars than crippling the primary function of the tires .. to provide traction.

still I think if NA$CAR would open the tire market up to whoever can produce acceptable tires, we'd see a drop in "mishaps" and the quality of the tires would improve, which would improve racing for all but the "crash and burn" addicts.

there's just been too many race outcomes influenced by tire failures whether by the teams mismanaging them, the drivers over extending them or the tires not being optimal for the conditions. at the local tracks, even the fastest cars rarely reach 140 mph, but that seems to be about the minimum speed in "the big leagues" of NA$CAR. asking the tires to carry an almost 4000 lb car around the track at 200 mph (more or less) demands the tires not only be capable, but as good as they can be. maybe Goodyear is doing a great job, we'll never know until they have some competition...

[LSC9901]

Why then was Hoosier unsuccessful in their attempt ?

[simple simon]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

Why then was Hoosier unsuccessful in their attempt ?

didnt NASCAR kick them out ?

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by simple simon

didnt NASCAR kick them out ?

I believe they left the cup series because not enough teams were using them. I'm sure there is more to the story.

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

I think you just agreed with Jeff G. whether you wanted to or not!

and I agree with you .. to a certain extent.

the drivers need a working connection between the head and the foot - and with some their connection works much better than with others, and that single factor is mostly responsible for the "carnage" we've been treated to for the past few years..

there's also no doubt that the tires are also a big part of the problem (though not as big as the driver's head-foot connection), and I understand NA$CAR wanting to slow things down, ostensibly for safety. but there are much better ways to slow down the cars than crippling the primary function of the tires .. to provide traction.

still I think if NA$CAR would open the tire market up to whoever can produce acceptable tires, we'd see a drop in "mishaps" and the quality of the tires would improve, which would improve racing for all but the "crash and burn" addicts.

there's just been too many race outcomes influenced by tire failures whether by the teams mismanaging them, the drivers over extending them or the tires not being optimal for the conditions. at the local tracks, even the fastest cars rarely reach 140 mph, but that seems to be about the minimum speed in "the big leagues" of NA$CAR. asking the tires to carry an almost 4000 lb car around the track at 200 mph (more or less) demands the tires not only be capable, but as good as they can be. maybe Goodyear is doing a great job, we'll never know until they have some competition...

I think you just agreed with Jeff G. whether you wanted to or not! - Actually the free beer contribution would be accepted here. Chilled, not shaken/thrown please. Even after the head ricochette (another mispelled word I'm sure).

and I agree with you .. to a certain extent - good and safe move on your part. Forum only needs one raving maniac.

still I think if NA$CAR would open the tire market up to whoever can produce acceptable tires - and I REALLY am not a fan of one manufacturer. Seems however soon as there are multiple option the tire folks revert to the "fastest tire" competition. While understandable (from the tire folks point of view - good Lord, victory lane after all is the goal) safety can easily slip to "second seat". Do I have the absolute answer? Whatta ya crazy!? Seems to me the Hoosier experiment near immediate showed Hoosier = fast. Soon we would have had a field of 43 Irvans, Nedeaus, Parks, and (sorry to include) Cravens. How many fingers boys? "12".

at the local tracks, even the fastest cars rarely reach 140 mph - yeah man. And it has little to do with tires. Much more to do with - just how long are those local tracks? Track design is possibly the single largest means towards "slow down". We are a LARGE proponent of local tracks. LARGE. Unfortunately many of the so called "fans" cannot possibly deal with something in excess of 25 feet from their fridge, remote, and easy chair. Ugh!! These are the real - "who needs 'em".