Non R Spec Tyres for track days

[rain902]

Mark,
I was running R888's at Winton and following a car that was on Dunlops, through the sweeper I was amazed at how much grip they had. Not sure of the price but I would be looking at Dunlop if I was in the market.

Bruce

was that me you were talking about Fattima?

[rain902]

In our Rules, we have a 5 year old list that is used as a recomendation alongside the above ruling about how tyers are marketed. Listed in our rules as an R spec is the Toyo Trampio R1R. Not the Proxes R1R. The Trampio is no longer available from what we can see but was used in semi slick applications in it's day.

Sam

I have it on extremely good authority* that the proxes / trampio are the same tyre, with the same tread and compound.

If the trampio R1R was used as a semi slick, does that not tar the proxes R1R same brush? attached pic of both. I dont think they are an Rspec, I am contending that they are the same tyre.

Sounds like a case of changed marketing strategies and name only.

Just out of interest, toyo tyres NZ market the Proxes R1R as a motorsport tyre, alongside their R888. This is distinctly different from their High and Ultra High performance road tyres.
http://www.toyo.co.nz/tyres.php?Category=Racing

* written proof is available.

[Fatty]

i don't get on the forum very much at all these days, so have just read over the last few posts for the first time.

the motor sport captain is really the only person who can comment on / explain / clarify how or why a decision is arrived at. the dispute resolution process is quite straight forward, and the responsibility lies solely with the captain. in doing so, information is gathered from various sources (obviously including any members who are a party to a dispute). so whilst other people may be involved in the discussions, they aren't involved in the decision itself. there is no "we" in the final decision, it is not a committee decision to be voted upon. i just thought it was important to clarify this, as when other people comment on , or make their own interpetations / clarifications of decisions, (as in, why they were made, how they were arrived at etc etc) it can possibly just create more confusion for everybody.

as with anything in life, you can't please all the people all the time, and i understand that not everyone is happy with the decision around the proxes r1r. and of course people have the right to their opinions and the right to express them. i've had plenty of discussion with people over it, for example at sandown yesterday. most of the regular motor sport crew were there and free to talk to me about it if they wished (and plenty did). i don't really have the time or inclination to go over it all again on an internet forum...

cheers

james

[Rob E]

Proxes R1R has 140 treadwear rating, making it an S tyre, not an R tyre. A tyre Similar to RE01R and those Direzza Star Specs, KU36 etc.

[Fatty]

yes and it's been pointed out (thanks bob) that i didn't actually mention that the decision is, that the vic club regards them as a street tyre legal in all classes.

[fattima]

Mark,
I was running R888's at Winton and following a car that was on Dunlops, through the sweeper I was amazed at how much grip they had. Not sure of the price but I would be looking at Dunlop if I was in the market.

Bruce

was that me you were talking about Fattima?

Yep, I was impressed with the grip you had at Sandown too. Not taking anything away from how well you are driving the beast.
BTW what happened to your boot lid?

[rain902]

Thanks James

Im always up for a spirited discussion and being a technocrat I am often a tad blunt (only a tad? hah!)when it comes to politically correct and indeed polite discussion so I offer the following comments and questions - even though they are as off topic as the reply that they deconstruct.

I must say that I appreciate the work that you and all volunteers do to facilitate motorsport for myself and others - I will say Thankyou to you for your efforts and your time - even while I set attempt to shine a spotlight on a topic that I and others believe that you've gotten wrong.

Here goes:

i don't get on the forum very much at all these days, so have just read over the last few posts for the first time.
the motor sport captain is really the only person who can comment on / explain / clarify how or why a decision is arrived at. the dispute resolution process is quite straight forward, and the responsibility lies solely with the captain.

Incorrect.
The captain has a clear responsibility to uphold the rules of the club, and does indeed answer to the clubs executive committee. It is reasonable to expect that all decisions be open to public examination.

in doing so, information is gathered from various sources (obviously including any members who are a party to a dispute).

With respect to the particular discussion regarding the similarities between Trampio and Proxes, did you contact the manufacturer? When presented with a document from the manufacturer stating that there was no difference between Toyo Proxes R1R and Toyo Trampio R1R (by an aggrieved competitor, not myself) did you disregard it?

Further to that, when a fellow VIC competitor identified his Toyo Proxes R1Rs earlier this year in seeking guidance from the Motorsport Captain, he was advised that he was classified as Modified due to the tyres. What happens to him now?

so whilst other people may be involved in the discussions, they aren't involved in the decision itself. there is no "we" in the final decision, it is not a committee decision to be voted upon.

Incorrect.
The motorsport rules 2010 clearly state that there is a grievance process to be followed, and an appeals process that involves representation to the executive committee of the MX5 Vic Club. Whilst it is not a popularist decision to be arrived at from discussion in the pit lane, to assert that it is not a committee decision to be voted upon is tantamount to a dictatorship.

i just thought it was important to clarify this, as when other people comment on , or make their own interpetations / clarifications of decisions, (as in, why they were made, how they were arrived at etc etc) it can possibly just create more confusion for everybody.

as with anything in life, you can't please all the people all the time, and i understand that not everyone is happy with the decision around the proxes r1r. and of course people have the right to their opinions and the right to express them. i've had plenty of discussion with people over it, for example at sandown yesterday. most of the regular motor sport crew were there and free to talk to me about it if they wished (and plenty did). i don't really have the time or inclination to go over it all again on an internet forum...

To reiterate, a public statement as to how the original complaint was disregarded, then a decision is arrived upon then reversed would be considered justified and appropriate.

My concern is not with the tyres, its with their appearance on the list.

I have no doubt that this issue is going to simmer along for the forseeable future - let us make a note now that the topic of tyres should be high on the agenda at the next motorsport directions meeting.

FWIW I believe that only semi slicks and slick racing tyres should be on the list - the notion of high performance tyres being on a banned list - and indeed a list that is 5 years old, an eternity in tyre and electronics development - is not appropriate. As long as the tyre is not a bona fide R spec it should be fine to use - let the individual decide which tyre is appropriate to their car, power output, driving style and budget.

My personal experience with these tyres was one of outstanding adhesion in the filthy wet conditions that we experienced @ phillip island in July. I was surprised at how well they stuck to the track compared to the Dunlop Star Specs that shoe my car. I have heard feedback that they are inferior on dry track but I have no data to back this up. Sounds like the name of a tyre shootout if you ask me - back to back testing with timing of the Dunlops/Kumhos/R1Rs - now all I need to do is get a set of each out of the manufacturers and trundle em up to winton for a practice day

The fact that the list is 5 years old tells us 2 things -

1. that we (the club, through its motorsport captain) havent updated it often enough - perhaps we should just link it to the CAMS list of RSpecs? and

2. That there is no doubt that everyone knows that Toyo R1Rs are on the list and have been for half a decade.

[rain902]

was that me you were talking about Fattima?
Yep, I was impressed with the grip you had at Sandown too. Not taking anything away from how well you are driving the beast.
BTW what happened to your boot lid?

yep sandown was disastrous for grip for me - i went out with 30 warm bc the track was wet and cold, then neglected to top them up when the weather smiled. Then i went and thumped my tie rod and alignment on t4 and went back out with a very nervous 40* cold and misaligned tyres.

I was pushing about 10* of slip through some of those turns - thats how im milking the speed. Gotta love my datalogger

Bootlid? aaah like all good girlfriends, my car cant be left unattended without getting up to mischief. I was at an event a month a go and she crept off as soon as I turned my back - she went and had an altercation with a car transporter. Clearly my bootlid came off 2nd best.

I havent investigated whether its an aero advantage as yet ;)

[Fatty]

off topic? well somebody posted about the vic club and the decision around these tyres, so i didn't think it was too "off topic" to reply to that?

in refering to the "decision" i mean the captain's decision. yes, of course it can then be taken to the committee if needs be. i was clumsy with my wording (shouldn't have used "final") but i wasn't suggesting otherwise, or trying to enforce the law with an iron fist. we all know the procedure.

i think you missed the point of what i was trying to say (maybe my fault, poorly worded response). i wasn't suggesting that no-one is allowed an opinion or allowed to comment, just that only the captain can speak for the captain. you wouldn't want other people putting word in your mouth, would you? good intentioned or not.

i haven't disregarded anything. just because my interpretation of information differs from somebody elses, does not mean i've disregarded said information. i spoke to him about this in person and on email.

as i've said before i "publish" things publicly in the club magazine, not on this forum. i haven't written a column since this issue came up, and yes i probably should pop it into the next one as there has been a fair bit of discussion on the issue.

i have no recollection of the discussion you mentioned with another club member earlier this year. maybe you could ask that person to contact me, or shoot me their details.


"To reiterate, a public statement as to how the original complaint was disregarded, then a decision is arrived upon then reversed would be considered justified and appropriate. "

i don't quite follow what you're saying here.

[Guran]

Gee its hot in here. Guys, maybe the situation can be diffused a bit by just ruling that anything on the CAMS Production Car Tyre List (and direct new replacements) is not eligible for standard classes? This would mean that Toyo R888, RA-1, R881 are out but R1R are OK provided they're commercially available in Australia. It would also specifically exclude the following tyres:

Federal 595RS-R
Hankook Ventus R-S3 (maybe, list just says Ventus)
Falken Azenis RT615 (maybe, list says Azenis & Azenis RT215)

Other S specs left in the eligible category are:
Bridgestone RE-11
Kumho KU36 Ecsta XS
Yokohama Advan Neova AD08
Dunlop Direzza Sport Z1 Star Spec
(have I missed any?)

It's still not a perfect approach and if CAMS add S specs to their list, it would make the situation much more clear cut.

Personally, I don't like idea of allowing S specs but excluding R specs. Afterall, the standard classes are meant to represent cars as they came from the factory so the tyres should be as OEM as possible. The problem is what to do with these pesky S specs.

So either exclude both R specs and S specs (difficult to define) OR allow ANY street legal tyre including R specs (easiest option). The last option is looking increasingly attractive - just let the road authorities and police rule on what tyres are acceptable!

[emexv]

What have I started. I didn't realise that I was stepping into such a large debate when I asked a question I knew little about.

I decided on the R1R's and ensured I asked if they were ok before purchasing them. On Sunday I did have a couple of people comment on their legality for the class I was running in. Being 3rd slowest on the day i think it will take alot more than tyres to get me challenging for any points

From a ametuers point of view I see the main problem is not keeping the list of tyres up to date. Tyres (like many other things) have evolved enormously as technology improves. Trampino R1R's were not allowed 5 years ago. The question I ask is if the KU36 and Star Specs were available 5 years ago would they also be on the list....I probably think so.

Like it or not we all need to move with the times.

When deciding on my purchase I was told by the tyre shop that the KU36 was basically a semi slick, much better in the dry than the R1R (dealer for both BTW) but terrible in the wet. As my car will be dríven on the road I decided to go for the compromise.

I believe true R spec tyres are not road legal (desregard the next comment if I am worng). So the way I see it the solution is simple. If the tyre is legal to be dríven on the road then allow it. If it is a true R spec and is not legal to be dríven on the road then into modified class you go.

My 2 cents

[Guran]

R specs are street legal. They're just not advisable to use everyday since a) they offer less grip when cold compared with regular tyres, b) they wear out quickly, and c) they're expensive! They're intended for motorsport and getting to/from the track. S specs blur those lines even more.

So I agree, it'd be much easier to just allow R specs in standard classes. Btw we can already use R specs in standard class at the NSW Supersprints.

[emexv]

R specs are street legal.

Oh well back to the drawing board

So I agree, it'd be much easier to just allow R specs in standard classes. Btw we can already use R specs in standard class at the NSW Supersprints.

I guess it just about trying to keep the cost down.

[rain902]

Gee its hot in here. Guys, maybe the situation can be diffused a bit by just ruling that anything on the CAMS Production Car Tyre List (and direct new replacements) is not eligible for standard classes? This would mean that Toyo R888, RA-1, R881 are out but R1R are OK provided they're commercially available in Australia. It would also specifically exclude the following tyres:

Federal 595RS-R
Hankook Ventus R-S3 (maybe, list just says Ventus)
Falken Azenis RT615 (maybe, list says Azenis & Azenis RT215)

Other S specs left in the eligible category are:
Bridgestone RE-11
Kumho KU36 Ecsta XS
Yokohama Advan Neova AD08
Dunlop Direzza Sport Z1 Star Spec
(have I missed any?)

It's still not a perfect approach and if CAMS add S specs to their list, it would make the situation much more clear cut.

Personally, I don't like idea of allowing S specs but excluding R specs. Afterall, the standard classes are meant to represent cars as they came from the factory so the tyres should be as OEM as possible. The problem is what to do with these pesky S specs.

So either exclude both R specs and S specs (difficult to define) OR allow ANY street legal tyre including R specs (easiest option). The last option is looking increasingly attractive - just let the road authorities and police rule on what tyres are acceptable!

yah you missed the Pirelli PZero series - yummm! (theyd wanna be for $600ish a shoe)

While some of our cars came out from the factory with 165/75/14s others come from the factory wearing ultra high performance tyres and we cant really go backwards like that - I think the S specs should be allowed but clearly RSpecs shouldnt be in the lower classes - too expensive etc and face it, most of us use our cars as a daily driver. I wouldnt even think of using RSpecs on my porsche coz they just arent a road tyre.

Its clear that we need to revisit this issue at a later date, the best I can see is to link it to the CAMS list - that way we don't find ourselves in hot water due to murky interpretations of 'what's in a name'.

[rain902]

off topic? well somebody posted about the vic club and the decision around these tyres, so i didn't think it was too "off topic" to reply to that?
in refering to the "decision" i mean the captain's decision. yes, of course it can then be taken to the committee if needs be. i was clumsy with my wording (shouldn't have used "final") but i wasn't suggesting otherwise, or trying to enforce the law with an iron fist. we all know the procedure.
i think you missed the point of what i was trying to say (maybe my fault, poorly worded response). i wasn't suggesting that no-one is allowed an opinion or allowed to comment, just that only the captain can speak for the captain. you wouldn't want other people putting word in your mouth, would you? good intentioned or not.
i haven't disregarded anything. just because my interpretation of information differs from somebody elses, does not mean i've disregarded said information. i spoke to him about this in person and on email.
as i've said before i "publish" things publicly in the club magazine, not on this forum. i haven't written a column since this issue came up, and yes i probably should pop it into the next one as there has been a fair bit of discussion on the issue.
i have no recollection of the discussion you mentioned with another club member earlier this year. maybe you could ask that person to contact me, or shoot me their details.
"To reiterate, a public statement as to how the original complaint was disregarded, then a decision is arrived upon then reversed would be considered justified and appropriate. "
i don't quite follow what you're saying here.

I dont believe that any SSpecs should be on the list, but as the toyo trampio R1R are on the list it would be incumbent upon a competitor to understand that using them would see them in modified class.

As Sam said - his decision to purchase them was somewhat controversial. A master of the understatement, that one - even I am not brave enough to undertake that much controversy

Are you saying that we can use the Proxes and Trampio R1R?

I am posting here as its open and transparent - and we could fill the magazine with articles on tyre eligibility.

The only issue I have with the decision is the interpretation -

I would have thought that this statement from Toyo Australia would be fairly unequivocable:


Further, Toyo Tyre markets the Proxes R1R as a motorsport tyre to our cousins across the Tasman eh:


and the Technical pages of Toyo Japan offer this interesting bit of data:




You are correct, I am not the decision maker in this process and I accept that without dispute.

After reading the documents above I would have no doubt that placing a Toyo R1R on my car would drop me into modified class. Thats the reason that they aren't sitting on my car now.

It is certainly too late for this!