Motorcycle tire rule change

[VeeTwin]

Obviously you did not read my whole post. It is all about insurance.

So you're telling me, and everyone else, that an insurance company is going to charge us more, or refuse to cover us,  unless we require a tire with no speed certifications on any bike that runs 200mph, even though there's a certified 200mph tire readily available. Do I have that right?

You just lost all credibility with me. I flat out don't believe that.

Perhaps if the case had been presented, and data like that (if it was actually true) presented, ahead of the rule change, it might have some credibility. Right now it sounds like a BS rationalization excuse. It sounds just too illogical to  be true.

[Nortonist 592]

My reading comprehension is fine.  It seems to be a lot better than yours.  I asked a question.  I'll ask you again.  Would you elaborate as to how a 200 mph rated tire will be safe at 270 mph?  Or even meets the rule change requirements?  The rule change refers to 200+ not 200.

[Dynoroom]

I've also run events with the SCCA, IMSA, Nascar, NHRA, & SCTA. Never was I asked my point of view on a rule change."

I've raced in one of the organizations you mention, and they most certainly did share with the membership what their thinking was on rule changes, and allow for a comment period. So either you weren't paying attention, or you're attempting to BS us.
Why would a comment period be a bad thing? Can anyone tell me that?

You're going to get the comments anyway. Isn't it better to get them before the rule change? What if there's pertinent information you might be missing, such as the above info about a 200mph certified ZR tire?

I no longer wish to BS you, glad you raced in at least one organization. There IS no problem with comments and they have been given. You can't accept the answers, but it doesn't change the results. Keep the comments coming, I'll just sit back and watch now...

[VeeTwin]

My reading comprehension is fine.  It seems to be a lot better than yours.  I asked a question.  I'll ask you again.  Would you elaborate as to how a 200 mph rated tire will be safe at 270 mph?  Or even meets the rule change requirements?  The rule change refers to 200+ not 200.

You keep trying to make this about the speeds, not me. From the beginning, my comments have been about the process SCTA uses for rule changes.

The very fact that they may not have even known that a 200mph certified ZR tire was readily available speaks volumes. If nothing else, it speaks to whether or not 200mph was the proper cut-off, doesn't it?

So tell me, why was 200mph chosen? Why not 205? 210? 220? 230? Was it just arbitrary? Was the committee even aware that a 200mph certified tire is out there? Did they make the decision thinking a 14mph buffer was sufficient? If so, should the number really be 214?

I have no idea what the right number is. But I do know that I, along with many others, was totally blindsided by the decision and had no opportunity to comment or offer additional information, and I think that's the real problem here. I can buy a set of tires, no big deal.

[desotoman]

Obviously you did not read my whole post. It is all about insurance.

So you're telling me, and everyone else, that an insurance company is going to charge us more, or refuse to cover us,  unless we require a tire with no speed certifications on any bike that runs 200mph, even though there's a certified 200mph tire readily available. Do I have that right?

You just lost all credibility with me. I flat out don't believe that.

Perhaps if the case had been presented, and data like that (if it was actually true) presented, ahead of the rule change, it might have some credibility. Right now it sounds like a BS rationalization excuse. It sounds just too illogical to  be true.

Believe what you want. I just looked through all of the posts that you have made on landracing.com and it seems like 90% of them are argumentative. With that said I am done. Get someone else to argue with you.

Tom G.

[VeeTwin]

There IS no problem with comments and they have been given.

Glad to see we agree.

You can't accept the answers, but it doesn't change the results.

What answer is it that you think I can't accept?

I actually accept their answer as it is. It's their process I don't like.

[VeeTwin]

I just looked through all of the posts that you have made on landracing.com and it seems like 90% of them are argumentative. With that said I am done. Get someone else to argue with you.

That's typical of someone who has no basis for an argument, throw a rock at the other guy and run off.

Man, for a bunch of tough racers, some of you guys sure have thin skins.

[sabat]

I just bought a set of 15-lap Dunlop D211GP tires for $100. This set is medium-hard compound. Symmetrically worn, raced at Barber Motorsports Park.

The Dunlop rep I talked to on Friday (Steve Brubaker @ http://www.dunlopracing.com/) believes these tires are a good option, as they all have a hard center section compound. He is selling these tires new for $299 a set.

I checked Craigslist and found a local racer with several sets of 211s in various compounds. I told him what i wanted to do with them, and he selected a nice pair for me. I can PM his contact info if anyone is interested, he is outside of Atlanta.

According to Steve, a shaved (or worn) tire should run cooler.

Dean

[Peter Jack]

VeeTwin, if it's the process you don't like then maybe you should be bringing it up to SCTA through your club instead of on this board where it doesn't contribute to solving the tire problem. Constructive contributions are what really drive this board.

Pete

[bak189]

Yes, now we really find out what this new rule is all about.... INSURANCE......Many, Many post ago I made the point that I thought it was all about..... INSURANCE........However, right after my post one of the
"chosen ones" proceded to tell us that insurance had nothing to do with this mid-year rule change........
Why....Why did we not get told up front it was all about insurance......instead we get "SCTA/BNI board and the motorcycle advisory committee are really worried about your safety" .......Come on people, tell us like it is. 

[John Noonan]

Some hear yet choose not to listen...

[2fast4u2c]

Noonan and I went to differant High Schools together, does that count?

[VeeTwin]

VeeTwin, if it's the process you don't like then maybe you should be bringing it up to SCTA through your club instead of on this board where it doesn't contribute to solving the tire problem. Constructive contributions are what really drive this board.

So you don't think the thread is constructive because it hasn't solved anything?

By that standard, you might as well shut down the board because very little ever actually gets solved here.

Some people think the discussions are worthwhile anyway. Sometimes people learn things even when problems aren't solved. Some people think learning things brings value and actually makes the discussion constructive.

You're free not to read or participate if the thread or posts don't meet your standards. Nobody's forcing you. You're also free to ignore me. You might not know who makes a 200mph certified tire, though.

[fredvance]

I think I'll do that,Join the 57tbird bunch. You refuse to say who you are, where you are from, do you have a dog in this hunt. Your screen name vtwin tells me  if that is what you race, if you race, you dont need to be concerned about 200mph tires. There are only an elite few who have had a vtwin over 200mph. Do you belong to SCTA, To one of the SCTA clubs?? Or are you going to remain one of the closet posters.

  Fred

[jl222]

I just looked through all of the posts that you have made on landracing.com and it seems like 90% of them are argumentative. With that said I am done. Get someone else to argue with you.

That's typical of someone who has no basis for an argument, throw a rock at the other guy and run off.

Man, for a bunch of tough racers, some of you guys sure have thin skins.

  You sure are tough whoever you are [talk about secretive]

   JL222....John Langlo