IMSA USCC in 2016 and 2017

[Jonerz]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Let's be a bit careful we aren't calling the kettle black here. It's easy to point out that Buckler isn't known for being the most reputable man in the paddock, but that doesn't change the fact that what he said is correct - the tyres were terrible for everyone, including the leaders. So by saying "Buckler is deflecting" all we're doing is deflecting from the actual issue.

Be careful not to use the testimony of a man with questionable reputation to prove a point.

Let's see how bad the Continentals are at Sebring before we say there is a serious issue. Don't forget the Michelin runners couldn't consistently achieve a normal heat cycle in their rain tires throughout the night. Fortunately, they didn't see the punctures some Continental teams suffered. The weather conditions at the Speedway were unique. And of course, even in dry conditions Daytona puts extreme demands on tires...

I wish Continental and Michelin were allowed to bring a larger array of tires, including intermediates, and I wish the Continental tires were as quick as the Dunlop development tires are at Sebring. But why should they be? Why would a control tire be as quick as a development tire? Why spend the money there, when you can spend the money to get the product in front of eyeballs on over-the-air FOX Television more frequently? Surely exposure is far more valuable to the series than two or three seconds a lap. Everyone is running the same tire afterall, it's not like the Cadillacs will get Dunlops, or Mazda will get Michelin, and have some unfair advantage over the Conti's.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The tyres are so bad that teams are quoting that as the reason for leaving the series.

As has been stated, that has more to do with the man making the complaint. Why didn't Alex Job drop out because of unsafe tires? Why hasn't Scuderia Corse? Michael Shank? Or stick with Porsche, why hasn't Alegra or Core dropped out? Surely the tires are just as bad for those teams.

Chris

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by Matt

Lol TRG.

Buckler doesn't have the funding for Sebring and is using Conti as the out instead of saying that. Typical Kevin Buckler, blame anything else other than your team.

Maybe his crap wine just isn't selling all that well.

[WolfsburgRS]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

Maybe his crap wine just isn't selling all that well.

I can't say that I've looked but I've never seen it in any wine stores around me. But yeah, based on the TRG business model, if there was a driver ready to pay for the season the car would be there. Seems unnecessary to throw Conti under the bus when TRG is still going to compete in the CTSCC...if it was really about tires it's safe to say they'd make a stand there as well. But at the end of the day it's better to burn some bridges than to appear underfunded, unable (or unwilling) to spend to run a season.

[Akrapovic]

So we're going to ignore all the tyre failures and complaints because Buckler isn't liked? Man, people really do seem to want to defend Continental at any cost. Its like reading F1 threads with die hard Pirelli fans saying the tyres are magical.

[Jonerz]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

So we're going to ignore all the tyre failures and complaints because Buckler isn't liked? Man, people really do seem to want to defend Continental at any cost. Its like reading F1 threads with die hard Pirelli fans saying the tyres are magical.

Except for the fact that no one here is saying the Continental rain tires are magical.

Chris

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

So we're going to ignore all the tyre failures and complaints because Buckler isn't liked? Man, people really do seem to want to defend Continental at any cost. Its like reading F1 threads with die hard Pirelli fans saying the tyres are magical.

No one is 'ignoring' the fact that Continental Tire are not the most competitive tire in racing. Nor is any one dismissing that there was an issue with the wets for 24hr of Daytona, which is a beast of a different stripe as tracks go.
To me the inverse seems to be happening here. Some seem hell bent on insisting that their view of the perceived issue be the only view on the subject and NO explanation/observation/reasoning about it is acceptable.

C'est la vie ...





L.P.

[fieldodreams79]

Both tires and owners have "track records" and coming to conclusions on either based on the most recent actions (Daytona for Conti and leaving for Kevin) doesn't seem like what anyone is doing here.

I'd throw both a bone and see what the tires do at Sebring in decent weather conditions and see where TRG lands after 2017.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

No one is 'ignoring' the fact that Continental Tire are not the most competitive tire in racing. Nor is any one dismissing that there was an issue with the wets for 24hr of Daytona, which is a beast of a different stripe as tracks go.
To me the inverse seems to be happening here. Some seem hell bent on insisting that their view of the perceived issue be the only view on the subject and NO explanation/observation/reasoning about it is acceptable.

C'est la vie ...


L.P.

Actually statements were made along the lines of "It's the same for everyone, so it doesn't matter" I disagree. It isn't the same for everyone because it's a random roll of the dice in some cases - if you're unlucky enough for your tyre to blow on the banking, then you lose, whilst the guy who loses a tyre on the flat wins - and that is *exactly* what happened.

The only reason I didn't quote the posts saying these things is because they were in the DPi thread, and whilst this is a Conti tyre issue, it isn't a DPi team so I moved it here.

When your spec parts are randomising races in such a way, aren't fit for purpose and the quoted reason for anyone leaving, the spec part is a big of crap and should be changed. And lets stop pretending this was a Daytona issue. We've had prototypes unable to beat GT cars because the tyres were designed by engineers who couldn't hold a crayon properly. And the sooner all fans are complaining about this, the sooner we'll get respectable tyres, and we can all be happier with better racing.

Summary: It isn't the same for everyone. Races can be decided on who gets lucky with bad engineering. The tyres have been crap for years. So far there has been no progress and we've even gone backwards. Teams are quoting the tyres as a reason for leaving. The sooner all IMSA fans are questioning it rather than shrugging it off with any excuse they can find, the better the series will be for everyone.

[Jonerz]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Actually statements were made along the lines of "It's the same for everyone, so it doesn't matter" I disagree. It isn't the same for everyone because it's a random roll of the dice in some cases - if you're unlucky enough for your tyre to blow on the banking, then you lose, whilst the guy who loses a tyre on the flat wins - and that is *exactly* what happened.

The only reason I didn't quote the posts saying these things is because they were in the DPi thread, and whilst this is a Conti tyre issue, it isn't a DPi team so I moved it here.

When your spec parts are randomising races in such a way, aren't fit for purpose and the quoted reason for anyone leaving, the spec part is a big of crap and should be changed. And lets stop pretending this was a Daytona issue. We've had prototypes unable to beat GT cars because the tyres were designed by engineers who couldn't hold a crayon properly. And the sooner all fans are complaining about this, the sooner we'll get respectable tyres, and we can all be happier with better racing.

Summary: It isn't the same for everyone. Races can be decided on who gets lucky with bad engineering. The tyres have been crap for years. So far there has been no progress and we've even gone backwards. Teams are quoting the tyres as a reason for leaving. The sooner all IMSA fans are questioning it rather than shrugging it off with any excuse they can find, the better the series will be for everyone.

Daytona was particularly disappointing because it marked the debut of Conti's new wet tire. Of course, conditions weren't ideal for wet tires.

Let's hope IMSA allows Continental more freedom to develop tires. Let's hope IMSA allows both Continental and Michelin (and whoever may join GTLM) to provide an intermediate tire.

But where else has Continental struggled with punctures or similar issues?

Chris

[WolfsburgRS]

No-where that I can recall directly? All the gripes have been about performance window and the tires being "not as good" as open tire designs, but that's a whole different ball game.

Daytona, and the loading on the right rear in particular, has always been a tougher nut to crack than any other track or environment. Sometimes people get it wrong. (especially if alignment specs or out-of-the-box air pressures are being played with)

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by WolfsburgRS

if there was a driver ready to pay for the season the car would be there.

But the core of his complaint is that there isn't drivers willing to pay to run on those tires again.

[Matt]

If it really were the tires, he wouldn't have waited til week of the race to announce the withdrawal.

He didn't secure the funding(that all the other GTD entries did), and blamed it on other things.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Jonerz

But where else has Continental struggled with punctures or similar issues?

Chris

I think Watkins Glen, and maybe a couple of other races with high temps the last 2 years. During those events Conti said teams were running either suspension or pressures out of what was suggested so they (Conti) weren't at fault. This was mainly a problem in GTD if i recall.

[MoMedic9019]

Originally Posted by WolfsburgRS

I can't say that I've looked but I've never seen it in any wine stores around me. But yeah, based on the TRG business model, if there was a driver ready to pay for the season the car would be there. Seems unnecessary to throw Conti under the bus when TRG is still going to compete in the CTSCC...if it was really about tires it's safe to say they'd make a stand there as well. But at the end of the day it's better to burn some bridges than to appear underfunded, unable (or unwilling) to spend to run a season.

Back in the day, when TRG ran multiple cars and he was still the primary in one... we always joked.. There were two cars that were clapped out, and had no chance paid for by AM's looking to have fun, but were funding the pro ride so Buckler didn't have to spend his own cash...

Man. I really wish that had been the joke. Problem was, it was the god's honest truth.

[Maelochs]

Facts seem to be that no one is certain that tire performance is why Kevin Buckler couldn’t sell his seats ... could be, could be not. Using this as an argument is disingenuous because no one knows the whole story except people who benefit from not telling it.

Still, I have to wonder, if the tires were so deadly, why was Kevin Buckler even trying to sell seats in his deadly Conti-shod cars? If the cars on Contis were so dangerous, why would he even Want to enter? And if no driver was willing to drive on Contis ... why are there so many GTD entries?

When stuff simply doesn’t add up, using the obviously incorrect total as an argument is not really honest. So let’s drop the TRG debate, or move it elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Actually statements were made along the lines of "It's the same for everyone, so it doesn't matter" I disagree. It isn't the same for everyone because it's a random roll of the dice in some cases - if you're unlucky enough for your tyre to blow on the banking, then you lose, whilst the guy who loses a tyre on the flat wins - and that is *exactly* what happened.

No, it Was the same for everyone. Different people had different luck ... and maybe different pressures and camber settings. Some worked, some didn’t.

Fact seems to be that no one could tell when a tire might blow or not (please recall, the majority of them did Not explode.)

As for where it happened ... yeah, that too was the same for everyone as in, it was random. Unless you have a rule which totally removes all matters of chance from the universe .... Then it was pure chance that some folks had blowouts on the banking, and some on the road course, and some not at all. Sorry, but random is random for everyone.

Fact seems to be that Conti doesn’t spend the money to make a faster tire—but so long as Everyone is running the same tire, there is no unfairness.

Expecting that Conti will ensure that tires only puncture at specific spots around the track—explain hwo you will enforce that in GTLM. Are you going to demand that Michelin produce a tires which only punctures at one place along the track? How can you demand that of Continental?

No one here is defending Conti. They make a crappy regular tire—hard as a rock, no fall-off over a stint in a series where double-stinting rarely happens because of fueling rules, and tire availability. Not as fast as other tires. We all know that. No one is arguing those facts.

Nobody is saying Conti makes a good rain tire, or that Conti’s rain tire performed well at Daytona. We all either attended or watched the race; we know what happened.

As for “Not fit for the purpose” well ... they certainly didn’t perform well in those extreme conditions which wouldn’t be found anywhere else in the world at any other time. It is easy to see why the tires didn’t do well ... but let us note that not Every team had tires explode.

At one time, when people actually took responsibility for things, the driver would have been told to conserve his tires and let others blow theirs.

Also

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

We've had prototypes unable to beat GT cars because the tyres were designed by engineers who couldn't hold a crayon properly.

Irrational insults aside, when exactly did this happen? And how is it you know how the engineers hold their crayons?

What I hear people saying is that there is no Unfairness within the series simply because of Conti rubber. The series isn’t rigged because of Conti rubber.

What I hear is people saying that they understand why Continental doesn’t spend more money on a better tire, and why the series doesn’t spend more money on a better tire: right now, that money can better be spent on promotion and the TV package. if the series goers broke, it doesn’t matter if it goes broke on Michelins or Contis.

Some posters seem to want everyone to hate Continental for their tires. I cannot do that. They are just low-budget racing tires, after all.

Some posters seem to be Very emotionally involved in this issue, to the point where they are insulting everyone who works for Continental, successfully drives on Continentals, and anyone who doesn’t express irrational hatred for all things related to Continental tires.

Maybe put some of that passion into rescuing unwanted children or stopping war or protecting nature or something ... after all this is just motor racing.

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

Back in the day, when TRG ran multiple cars and he was still the primary in one... we always joked.. There were two cars that were clapped out, and had no chance paid for by AM's looking to have fun,

Back in the day? AM?

TRG "back in the day" for me was Porsches and winning...Daytona, Le Mans et al....

His indiscretions aside, the Continentals s*ck.

[carbsmith]

Cars crashing at high speed (including on straights where there's a lack of runoff or soft barriers) and races being shortened or having extremely long periods of full course yellow or red flag because they're trying to race on dog**** tires is pretty emotional issue that doesn't do any good for the promotion, TV product, or general reputation of the series.

Originally Posted by Matt

If it really were the tires, he wouldn't have waited til week of the race to announce the withdrawal.

He didn't secure the funding(that all the other GTD entries did), and blamed it on other things.

Regardless of what you think of how he runs his team, you can't say you know he didn't have drivers lined up for Sebring that bailed because of Daytona.

It's quite odd that people are acting like there was no problem with the tires when Continental is effectively recalling them and giving people free tires because they were so crap.

[jimclark]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Facts seem to be that no one is certain that tire performance is why Kevin Buckler couldn’t sell his seats ... could be, could be not. Using this as an argument is disingenuous because no one knows the whole story except people who benefit from not telling it.

Still, I have to wonder, if the tires were so deadly, why was Kevin Buckler even trying to sell seats in his deadly Conti-shod cars? If the cars on Contis were so dangerous, why would he even Want to enter?

'Morning Mae. We've known each other a while now ("Mae or Maa???" ) but who's being disingenuous here?
I don't follow as closely as I used to, but I haven't seen him stating any such thing; just “Do I want to build a several million [dollar] program, buy equipment, hire the best guys and have our whole world pivot around tires that are incapable of the task at hand?”.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Also Irrational insults aside, when exactly did this happen? And how is it you know how the engineers hold their crayons?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

Cars crashing at high speed (including on straights where there's a lack of runoff or soft barriers) and races being shortened or having extremely long periods of full course yellow or red flag because they're trying to race on dog**** tires is pretty emotional issue that doesn't do any good for the promotion, TV product, or general reputation of the series.

Same thing has happened in the WEC, does that mean that Michelin and Dunlop make "dog****" tires too?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Matt

Same thing has happened in the WEC, does that mean that Michelin and Dunlop make "dog****" tires too?

Come on man, are we really suggesting that WEC has had the issues that IMSA has had?

Why do people constantly defend tyres? We wouldn't do it for other spec parts. If spec ECU would randomly burst into flames we wouldn't argue they're fine or it's the same for everyone. Why is it fine to argue that tyres that have both performance and catastrophic failures are fit for purpose?

I design and build training software. If my software crashed at random I'd get sacked for not holding my crayons correctly.

[Maelochs]

YeaH, i WAS AT pETIT THAT YEAr ... and it wasn't bad tires, it was that the cars couoldn't run fast enough to generate downforce needed to heat the tires. If the tires heated up faster, they would also break down faster, and you would be bi***ing about that. What happened at Petit, was Aero, nor tires.

Yes, the Contis are the lamest tire in racing.

The issue is, whether they create unfair opportunities, or, is everyone on the same tire and has the same chance.

Let's put this discussion on hold until after Sebring. Let's see if we have cars thrown into the void by deadly exploding tires and such ... and then we can see what everyone thinks with new information.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

YeaH, i WAS AT pETIT THAT YEAr ... and it wasn't bad tires, it was that the cars couoldn't run fast enough to generate downforce needed to heat the tires. If the tires heated up faster, they would also break down faster, and you would be bi***ing about that. What happened at Petit, was Aero, nor tires.

Yes, the Contis are the lamest tire in racing.

The issue is, whether they create unfair opportunities, or, is everyone on the same tire and has the same chance.

Let's put this discussion on hold until after Sebring. Let's see if we have cars thrown into the void by deadly exploding tires and such ... and then we can see what everyone thinks with new information.

Why doesn't this happen in any other series then? I've never seen an ELMS race where it rained and the JMW Ferrari beat Jota.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Why doesn't this happen in any other series then? I've never seen an ELMS race where it rained and the JMW Ferrari beat Jota.

To be fair, an ELMS race has never been impacted by a Tropical Storm.

We were a few hundred miles north in Maryland on the sea that weekend, that was a whole different kinda rain to your run of the mill rainstorm.

[Maelochs]

Originally Posted by jimclark

'Morning Mae. We've known each other a while now ("Mae or Maa???" ) but who's being disingenuous here?
I don't follow as closely as I used to, but I haven't seen him stating any such thing; just “Do I want to build a several million [dollar] program, buy equipment, hire the best guys and have our whole world pivot around tires that are incapable of the task at hand?”.

I was referring to this:

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

http://sportscar365.com/imsa/iwsc/tr...o-tire-issues/ Good to see this spec part is so terrible that it costs the series entries.

As I understood it Akropovic was saying that TRG couldn't field a team because the tires were so bad.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The tyres are so bad that teams are quoting that as the reason for leaving the series.

The inference I made was that the tires were too dangerous to race on, because they might blow at any moment —while Buckler never mentions danger, certainly having a tire explode at speed—particularly on the banking would be a safety issue.

Perhaps not—perhaps it is just an inconvenience.

But I will take responsibility for my potential exaggerated inference.