The Frontstretch: MPM2Nite: Tire-D Of This by Matt McLaughlin -- Thursday October 6, 2011

Go to site navigation Go to article

MPM2Nite: Tire-D Of This

Matt McLaughlin · Thursday October 6, 2011


With the exception of Reed Sorenson’s surprise release from Turner Motorsports this week, there’s not much in the way of news in NASCAR-land as this column is written. That’s rather odd, considering we’re in the midst of our “playoffs” but I suppose it’s another stunning example of just how well this Chase concept isn’t working. When you can’t even get Coors to produce cases or bottle artwork on their beer to acknowledge your postseason, you know you’ve got some issues to deal with. (Rest assured, I am checking the local beer establishment regularly to see if this changes.)

One PR announcement that did cross my desk this week involves a continuing exclusive relationship between NASCAR racing and Goodyear that will drag on until 2017. (Is this sport confident it’s still going to be around in 2017?) That’s not because the NASCAR execs think the Goodyear folks, or even their products, are swell. It’s more like the money they give them swells their financial coffers; Goodyear pays big bucks to be the exclusive tire supplier in NASCAR. And you know what? Considering their past history, that’s probably for the best for our friends in Akron. In every major racing series where they have faced head-to-head competition over the last decade, Goodyear has been forced to retreat, rather embarrassingly in defeat.

With Goodyear on board until 2017, the tire company should now look at changes that could help improve competition.

By chance, I happened across another article today by John Leicester of the Associated Press talking about the Formula One series and what a big improvement tires (in this case, Pirelli) have made in that facet of the sport. Now in the interests of full disclosure, I have to admit I don’t watch F1 racing all that often and usually catch up with the Grand Prix gang via the highlight shows. It’s not that I have anything against F1; it’s just they schedule their races way too early in the morning for me. If anything, I’ll catch the last ten laps while trying not to drown in a cup of coffee. (Yes, I am being facetious. Even here in the boonies our teachers told us about different time zones around the globe, even here in the real world, and how they relate to the sun’s rotation around the earth.) But in what little F1 racing I’ve seen, I’ve noticed a lot more passing (or “overtaking,” as silly Englishmen refer to it) from second place on back. Up front, it’s always that Vettel fellow in the blue car with the big yellow cow on the nose.

As per Mr. Leicester (and the English still call each other “Mr.” and do other polite things like not shoot each other) the increase in passing in F1 is due to a calculated risk by new tire supplier Pirelli. The original tires they developed for the series, according to sources were said to be so hard and stable in lap times they could have lasted the duration of three race weekends. But the F1 organizers (and what a load of rascals they are) and Pirelli agreed that they needed a tire that “fell off” (no, not literally… lost speed progressively, in this instance) enough in lap times that the teams would require two or three pit stops per race. Thus this year, tire management has become crucial to the F1 superstars if they’re looking to win the race. It’s analogous to the tortoise and the hare: if a driver gets aggressive and runs his tires hard in as soon as ten laps (and remember, they tend to have long laps in F1 races) his tires have lost significant grip and he’s vulnerable to being passed (ahem… overtaken) by another driver who has been easier on his tires during that run (ahem… stint.) Or the speedier, more abusive driver can simply plan to make that extra pit stop and hope that his additional speed during his faster laps will make up the difference.

Sebastian Vettel has dominated the Formula One title chase this season. But behind him, we’ve seen a pleasant surprise; better tire compounds have led to more passing and an increased quality of competition (NASCAR, are you paying attention?)

Oddly enough, that’s how it used to be in NASCAR racing. As recently as a decade ago, drivers would rarely drive an entire fuel run before pitting. If they tried to do so, their lap speeds fell off so greatly over newer tires that they were sitting ducks for anyone who had fresher rubber. That’s one of the reasons there were a lot fewer fuel mileage races back in the day; no one ever tried to stretch their mileage. But nowadays, the tires remain so consistent in speed during an entire fuel run that the need for gas rather than new tires has become the determining issue in when to make stops. Two-tire changes at Dover, much less Darlington were once unthinkable due to the speed dropoff; now, they’re par for the course. Back in those days, drivers and teams often shortpitted to get the advantage of fresher rubber, though that was sort of one of them “robbing Peter to pay Paul” deals because eventually the earlier stop meant the tires wore out earlier, too. It all came down to which driver had the fresher tires at the end of the race. (Well, that and solid brass cojones back…)

Now the F1 folks (and IndyCars, for that matter) have thrown another curveball into the equation. There are two different tire compounds available to the teams at each race. One is softer and therefore grippier and faster, but it wears out much more quickly. The other is more durable and consistent, but slower. Teams are issued a limited number of the faster tires for the race weekend so they need to be wise as when to use them. (The faster tires are identified by red lettering and stripes on the sidewall to keep everyone honest). Do you start the race on the faster tires, attempting to build up a big lead while the field is bunched up, or do you conserve them for the end of the race to make a charge to the checkers? (Or, if you’re this Vettel fellow, do you mount four studded G78 biased-ply whitewall snow tires to your car for the entire race and win anyway?)

Introducing a similar, softer compound tire in the Cup series and allotting the teams two sets to use during the course of the race would likely improve the quality of competition. One of the problems with NASCAR racing right now is that aero-push phenomenon, where the faster car in second gets into the dead air behind the lead car and loses front downforce to the point that he’s unable to complete the pass. By introducing more mechanical grip via a softer tire (or even just fresher tires with a higher level of falloff than today’s Goodyears) a skilled driver would be able to make that pass. And if nothing else, I think we all agree more passing makes for better racing, right? (Well, except for Bernie Ecclestone, the F1 czar, who once opined if there was too much overtaking in Grand Prix racing fans would be confused as to who was running where.)

Nobody is suggesting that Goodyear once again display the level of incompetence that turned the ’08 Brickyard 400 into a farce. But now that they are comfortably ensconced as the sole tire provider in NASCAR again, maybe they can experiment a little to try to improve the level of competition. Fans, well, they can do their part and give them a couple of mulligans while they sort things out. Let’s face it; I doubt anyone makes a decision anyways on what tires to buy for the family truckster based on racing success, anymore than they choose to drive a Focus or Camry due to race wins in NASCAR. If that were the case, the Impala would be the best-selling vehicle in America since Chevrolet has won the manufacturer’s title for almost a decade straight. I know personally when I shop for tires, an inability to drive in the rain and the need to replace the set every sixty miles aren’t features I’m looking for. Heck, if Goodyear wanted to go back to bias ply tires for racing I’d be good with that.

Sadly, NASCAR doesn’t seem inclined to modify the cars to allow for good racing again. A valid argument can be made that officials started us down the slippery slope to the mess we’re in today back in the mid-1980s, when they started raising and lowering roof heights on cars regardless of what was sitting on dealers’ lots and green-lighted the GM, front-wheel drive funny car “stock cars.” All that was decades before the Car of Sorrow; hey, disaster has to start somewhere, right? But we can’t change the past, only modify the future and the tires are one tool we can experiment with to try to improve the racing now.

Will it happen? Remember, NASCAR still has some heavy pull with Goodyear (and vice versa). I hate to use the term “twisting arms,” with its implied violence and discomfort, but maybe NASCAR could use a little stern persuasion to get the boys in Akron to pull the tire wear rope back in the right direction.

Contact Matt McLaughlin

The Frontstretch Newsletter, back in 2014 gives you more of the daily news, commentary, and racing features from your favorite writers you know and love. Don’t waste another minute – click here to sign up now. We’re here to make sure you stay informed … so make sure you jump on for the ride!

Today on the Frontstretch:
Racing to the Point: NASCAR Has Its Own Heartbreak Kid
Beyond the Cockpit: Brittany Force, the Fastest Force
Voices from the Cheap Seats: Advertising for Dummies
Who’s Hot / Who’s Not in Sprint Cup: Off Week-Richmond Edition
Couch Potato Tuesday: Picking The Best IndyCar On-Air Personalities


©2000 - 2008 Matt McLaughlin and Thanks for visiting the Frontstretch!

10/06/2011 10:58 AM

Good article, and you are correct about Goodyear, they do not do well when they have to compete.

One fact you did not include, however. If F1, the tyre (lets stay with the European terms for now) supplier has to provide two compounds for each race. EVERY CAR HAS TO USE BOTH COMPOUNDS DURING THE RACE. Now that dictates some strategy and interest. I think thats against the rules in Nascar these days.

10/06/2011 11:34 AM

I hope NASCAR and Goodyear read your article. I don’t know what happened. NASCAR used to make sure that the tires would fall off a ton over the course of a fuel run. Since around 2010 however, tire wear has almost been a complete non-factor at most tracks other than Atlanta (where, not coincidentally, we had one of the best races of this season). Not having to take tires just makes track position, clean air and fuel mileage even more important, and those are three words that no race fan wants to hear about.

Bill B
10/06/2011 12:06 PM

I posted this on another website for a similar article so I am plagiarizing myself…

Looking back, NASCAR developed this new car and then took the lazy/cheap way out when they said, “Goodyear, you figure out (i.e., spend money on R&D) how to make the tires work with this crappy car” and then washed their hands of it.

Goodyear then took the lazy/cheap way out when they said “NASCAR, here is an indestructable tire. You figure out (i.e., spend money on R&D) on how to make it produce good racing”.

And then to further add insult to injury, NASCAR said to the teams, “Don’t mess with anything on the car. Don’t touch anything. Don’t try anything.”

How can anything get better in this environment?

So, here were are, cars that can’t pass, whoever is in the lead can strecth it out, and we end up with parades. The way to win involves pit strategy and gas mileage as much as having a good car. What has NASCAR done to fix this?…. in order to make the racing interesting we now have wave arounds, lucky dogs, double file restarts, the chase and phantom debris cautions to bunch up the field. None of which costs money like R&D.

The answer…, NASCAR and Goodyear should have an agressinve joint R&D partnership that never ends. They should always be finding ways to solve problems and make changes that produce better racing. There are ways to address and fix problems but it costs money and requires effort and persistence.

Or they should give the crew chiefs and the team engineers room to make it better.

Don Mei
10/06/2011 12:22 PM

Maybe we need Pirelli in Nascar.

The Mad Man
10/06/2011 12:41 PM

Whatever happened to the testing of the larger tires and new suspension to improve the handling on the Car Of Woe? I guess NA$CAR didn’t want to continue to lay out the big bucks for the R&D and just went with the simpler solution of maintaining the status quo thus driving more folks away from the tracks on the weekends and away from the TV’s instead of actually improving the generic car to get folks back to the track and raise the TV ratings.

10/06/2011 12:59 PM

Bill B. good post, summarized it nicely.

You know, the answer to good racing is for everything NOT to be perfect. Its when the driver has to adapt to an ill-handling car, or the tires fall off based on the drivers style that you see a race. Maybe the problem is that everybody has the same stuff? As long as safety isnt compromised maybe not quite right is the answer?
Just saying.

10/06/2011 03:33 PM

When they went head to head with Hoosier (back in the 80’s?) it became a safety concern (I remember) because 2 industrial powers went at it. Well grip/speed became all that mattered & safety was 3rd on the list…Why not have thetire mfg’s compete for it (testing not $ if Nascar has any brains left) & award a 5 year contract (3-4 if you can get the mfg’s to agree to it) for all nascar series…This of course after we get to the correct size of tires & rims…Your right I Hope Brain farce can keep Nascar alive till 2017 cause thats a lot of bad racing to come..

Mike Daly
10/06/2011 06:16 PM

Softer tires is never the solution, and claiming F1 has more passing is false. The fact is allowing softer compounds does nothing but lead to more tire stops.

The solution aside from allowing Firestone and Hoosier to compete with Goodyear is a wider tread for more grip. Drivers need ability to speed up to go faster; slow down to go faster has proven a failure as a philosophy of racing – making drivers manage tires takes away from competition.

10/06/2011 07:27 PM

The F1 races are about 180 miles and 90 minutes. It won’t work in NASCAR.

Develop a tire that wears out in about 50 or 60 miles, just less than a fuel run, like it used to be.

Two compounds would be a bigger joke (potential killer) than when Hoosier was in.

And get a real race car to use.

Steve K
10/06/2011 08:46 PM

I am more impressed with Pirelli’s ability to manipulate tire wear than I am Goodyear and Firestone’s “durability.” This would help limit fuel mileage races. I think the Firestone tires in Indycar put on just a lackluster show as goodyear does in nascar. Firestone Reds or not.

Andy D
10/07/2011 12:45 AM

Some of us buy race tires based on their success and we can’t afford a company directing its research towards tires that go off quicker.

I say fix the aero push, not the tires. I also disagree with Mike Daly. Make the tires narrower. Shift the equation back to who is the better driver.

10/07/2011 02:47 PM

I think thats against the rules in Nascar these days.

Its against the rules for us to know the rules – otherwise, NASCAR would be selling their rule books!

Tom Dalfonzo
10/08/2011 08:32 PM

Let me chime in on Goodyear’s extension. THEY DID NOTHING TO DESERVE ONE!!!!!!!!!!! BRICKYARD 2008!!!!!! BRICKYARD 2008!!!!!!!

I am furious right now over this. I want to rip Goodyear’s contract up, throw it in their face, and say to them “Good-bye, and good riddance”. This further confirms that NASCAR cares absolutely nothing about the sport and the fans that still follow it. After the 2008 Brickyard disaster, that should have been it!!!!! Goodyear should’ve been kicked out of NASCAR right then and there.

All right, race fans, Hoosier, Firestone, BF Goodrich, Pirelli, Cooper, or Bridgestone?