Was That the Last Brickyard?

[TomVols]

And other drivers held other viewpoints, just as drivers and chiefs today have been complaining about the tire quality for some time (of course, Stewart being the most vocal). At the end of the day, it's the quality of the product, not the choice of product, that is the problem.

Re: Bodine, so if the drivers disagree with you, that makes them an idiot? :smilewinkgrin: Besides, he's too busy doing bobsledding

 

[ccrobinson]

But with tires, the history of the competition between Goodyear and Hoosier is that the manufacturers stepped over the bounds of safety to get speed.

That's the rub right there. I agree that competition usually makes a product better, but, in this case, the definition of "better" changes. With one manufacturer, a better tire is one that doesn't fail. Add a 2nd manufacturer and building a better tire is one that beats their competition, and safety isn't the #1 concern anymore.

You seem to be frustrated that I don't accept it as gospel fact.

How long have you been a fan of Nascar, Tom? My guess is somewhere around 1995 and that you didn't follow it during the tire war years, because I find it hard to believe that anybody who followed the sport during the tire war years would want to go back and try them again. I might be wrong about this, but it seems like what I've presented in this thread has been dismissed out of hand as some crazy ramblings from somebody who doesn't really understand how things work. That's what I find frustrating.

Re: Bodine, so if the drivers disagree with you, that makes them an idiot?

Bodine's just an idiot. :smilewinkgrin:

And other drivers held other viewpoints, just as drivers and chiefs today have been complaining about the tire quality for some time (of course, Stewart being the most vocal).

I don't believe for a second that there was a driver in 88 and 89 who liked the tire war. The only driver who would have liked the tire war in 1994 was Geoff Bodine, because he won 3 races driving Hoosier tires. See above. Ask Ernie Irvan what he thinks of the 1994 tire war.

Tire War = Bad Thing

 

[swaimj]

Bodine's just an idiot.

That's what I meant.

BTW, you say other drivers disagree about the tire war. I have never heard a single driver who was in favor of the tire war. I don't know of any driver who favors having multiple tire manufacturers now.

 

[TomVols]

Add a 2nd manufacturer and building a better tire is one that beats their competition, and safety isn't the #1 concern anymore.

I don't believe this is de facto, so we'll agree to disagree. If the tire isn't safe, it isn't going to be used, and thus the performance really doesn't matter, does it? Part of performance is safety. So I can't imagine any tire mfg saying "let's not make a safe tire so we can beat a competitor" knowing full well that competitor will make a safe tire and beat that self-same competitor.

How long have you been a fan of Nascar, Tom?

My first favorite driver was Cale Yarborough, if that tells you anything I also saw Alan Kulwicki the day before he died. So that should predate me to your referenced date

I find it hard to believe that anybody who followed the sport during the tire war years would want to go back and try them again.

Again, I'm not saying a "tire war" (perjorative phrase) is a panacea. I just believe that what is happening now isn't working, and NASCAR should be willing to be open to more than one possible solution so that we keep safe, quality tires on the cars.

I might be wrong about this, but it seems like what I've presented in this thread has been dismissed out of hand as some crazy ramblings from somebody who doesn't really understand how things work. That's what I find frustrating.

Yep, you're wrong I'm not dismissing anything. If anything, you're dismissing any opinion different than yours. I'm saying your opinion could be right, or it could be wrong.

I don't believe for a second that there was a driver in 88 and 89 who liked the tire war.

Drivers liked the choice. The crews liked the choice. I've referenced indirectly the one who recently joined Tony in saying there should be an alternative or a choice. If these drivers didn't like the competition, why did they pick alternative choices? I don't recall seeing a gun pointed at anyone's head or any children kidnapped by Hoosier or Goodyear alike, forcing a driver/team to run their particular tires.

I have never heard a single driver who was in favor of the tire war. I don't know of any driver who favors having multiple tire manufacturers now.

See above.

 

[swaimj]

Drivers liked the choice. The crews liked the choice.

Which driver? Which crew? I don't remember this at all.

I've referenced indirectly the one who recently joined Tony in saying there should be an alternative or a choice. If these drivers didn't like the competition, why did they pick alternative choices?

Tony? Tony wasn't around during the tire war! And his comments were not about finding a COMPETITOR for Goodyear, his suggestion was to find a REPLACEMENT for Goodyear.

I don't recall seeing a gun pointed at anyone's head or any children kidnapped by Hoosier or Goodyear alike, forcing a driver/team to run their particular tires.

During the tire war, drivers were under contract to Goodyear and they had to break their contract to run on Hoosiers. There was immense pressure on drivers and teams not to run Hoosier and not even to test Hoosiers at a non-NASCAR track. You may not have seen the gun, but it was there. Geoff Bodine won more races on Hoosier than any other driver. After Hoosier left, what major team did he drive for and how many races did he win?

 

[ccrobinson]

Drivers liked the choice. The crews liked the choice.

Prove it. I don't believe it for one second.

If these drivers didn't like the competition, why did they pick alternative choices?

At the 2nd Pocono race in 1994, the Hoosier tires were better. Every driver running Goodyear went into that race knowing they weren't going to win. Why didn't they pick the better tire that day? Contracts. They were contractually obligated to drive on Goodyear tires.

NASCAR should be willing to be open to more than one possible solution so that we keep safe, quality tires on the cars.

#1, Nascar isn't going to do anything anytime soon because they're under contract with Goodyear through 2012. #2, I'm completely Ok with replacing Goodyear. #3, I'm not Ok with adding a 2nd tire manufacturer to the series.

 

[TomVols]

Which driver? Which crew? I don't remember this at all.

I don't have the quotes at my fingertips from 14+ years ago, but obviously if teams chose one tire over another, they must've preferred that tire.

Tony? Tony wasn't around during the tire war! And his comments were not about finding a COMPETITOR for Goodyear, his suggestion was to find a REPLACEMENT for Goodyear.

No one said Tony was around for the tire war. I'm just saying Tony is one voice this year alone (not the only one) who either believes Goodyear needs to improve its product or NASCAR needs to change its approach to tire supplier(s).

During the tire war, drivers were under contract to Goodyear and they had to break their contract to run on Hoosiers. There was immense pressure on drivers and teams not to run Hoosier and not even to test Hoosiers at a non-NASCAR track. You may not have seen the gun, but it was there.

This is all a non-sequitur. No team was forced into a tire contract against their will. The teams chose their tires and signed their contracts. The teams made the choice. If you're arguing that teams once under contract had provisions preventing them from testing other tires...well, YEAH! Of course. Happens all the time in business. This is a red herring in the discussion. College teams can't change jersey mfgs in the middle of a season, either. Again, this isn't germane to the discussion.

Geoff Bodine won more races on Hoosier than any other driver. After Hoosier left, what major team did he drive for and how many races did he win?

What does this have to do with anything? Not germane at all.

Prove it. I don't believe it for one second.

Well, if the teams didn't like the choice, it seems odd they weren't unanimous in their choice of tires.

At the 2nd Pocono race in 1994, the Hoosier tires were better. Every driver running Goodyear went into that race knowing they weren't going to win. Why didn't they pick the better tire that day? Contracts. They were contractually obligated to drive on Goodyear tires.

And? They made their choice at the beginning of the year. That's a facet of the contract and in no way demans the value of a choice. Bit of a non-sequitur.

#1, Nascar isn't going to do anything anytime soon because they're under contract with Goodyear through 2012.

I wasn't aware it was that long of a contract. Maybe NASCAR and Goodyear can get a better product on the track.

#2, I'm completely Ok with replacing Goodyear.

I am, only if the product is better and safer.

#3, I'm not Ok with adding a 2nd tire manufacturer to the series.

CCROB is officially on record in favor of the tire monopoly :thumbs: :laugh:

 

[swaimj]

I don't have the quotes at my fingertips from 14+ years ago, but obviously if teams chose one tire over another, they must've preferred that tire.

YOu are twisting the issue here. You stated that there were drivers and crews who liked the tire war. If you go back into the archives from 14 years ago you will find that you are simply wrong. The teams did not like the tire war and they were greatly relieved when it ended. Teams and drivers did what they thought was best at the time, no doubt, but that does not mean they liked the overall situation.

 

[swaimj]

No team was forced into a tire contract against their will. The teams chose their tires and signed their contracts. The teams made the choice.

Again, you are incorrect. When teams signed with Goodyear there was no competitor to Goodyear, so they had no choice. However, some of the minor teams had no contract with Goodyear. They were the ones who were free to choose Hoosier when Hoosier entered the sport. The major teams stuck with Goodyear because of loyalty to the company and because no one felt that Hoosier had the financial resources to compete over the long haul with Goodyear.

 

[TomVols]

YOu are twisting the issue here. You stated that there were drivers and crews who liked the tire war. If you go back into the archives from 14 years ago you will find that you are simply wrong. The teams did not like the tire war and they were greatly relieved when it ended. Teams and drivers did what they thought was best at the time, no doubt, but that does not mean they liked the overall situation.

First, I dont give much creedance to the perjorative "tire war" phraseology.
Second, point me to this archive you mention, please. Thanks.
Third, we keep confusing opinion with fact here. Opinions can be right or wrong. Facts can't. We're discussing opinions here. Opinions can be supported with facts, but there has to be a tacit link between the two. Otherwise, we're just talking opinions.

When teams signed with Goodyear there was no competitor to Goodyear, so they had no choice. However, some of the minor teams had no contract with Goodyear. They were the ones who were free to choose Hoosier when Hoosier entered the sport. The major teams stuck with Goodyear because of loyalty to the company and because no one felt that Hoosier had the financial resources to compete over the long haul with Goodyear.

You just contradicted yourself. You say teams had no choice, but then you say teams "stuck" with Goodyear out of loyalty and a belief that Hoosier could not compete with Goodyear. That's a choice.
Not only do you contradict yourself, you implicitly make my point.

Bottom line Swaim, if you believe having tire competition or a reexamination of the Goodyear contract is a bad thing, so be it. You are entitled to your opinion. But don't castigate me for having an opinion, too, just because it's different from yours :thumbs: I just want a good, safe tire for NASCAR, be it from one mfg or twelve. That's my opinion. I would hope you would agree.

And I'm looking forward to putting this thing to bed. We haven't plowed new ground in days. Watkins Glen is coming up, and I'm looking forward to it. Me and the rest of the 26 NASCAR fans that like road races :laugh:

 

[ccrobinson]

I don't have the quotes at my fingertips from 14+ years ago, but obviously if teams chose one tire over another, they must've preferred that tire.

So, what do we do around here with statements that are made that aren't backed up? We throw them out as non-factual statements.

If you're not willing to accept my word, or swaim's word, that a tire war isn't a good idea, how about Jeff Burton's or Robin Pemberton's word?

http://www.wral.com/sports/nascar/story/3317719/

Here's another article where we find the following.

Robin Pemberton, NASCAR’s vice president of competition, knows the effect of having open competition among tire makers. He was a crew chief during the Hoosier/Goodyear battles in 1988 and 1994.

“You don’t want a tire war,” he said. “I’ve been through two of them. That’s an awful, terrible feeling. You’re sitting here and you may have an advantage one week and a disadvantage the next.”


In an effort to provide a product that allowed teams to gain speed on the race track, tire compounds were often much softer. As a result, they also would wear quicker, and blown tires nearly became the rule rather than the exception.

I dont give much creedance to the perjorative "tire war" phraseology.

Non-sequitur.

Second, point me to this archive you mention, please. Thanks.

Aren't you the one saying that drivers and teams liked the tire war? Thus, isn't it incumbent on you to provide the quotes that prove this?

CCROB is officially on record in favor of the tire monopoly :thumbs: :laugh:

What's so funny about this? If it means I don't want to see a tire war, then, yes, I'm already on record about this. If it means that I want Goodyear to the sole supplier in perpetuity, I'm already on record as saying that I'm fine with Goodyear being replaced. I don't know what the big deal is about saying that.

 

[swaimj]

Tom, prior to Hoosier's entry into the sport, there had been no choice as far back as 1965 or 66 when Firestone withdrew from the sport.

Two other comments:

One,I agree that we have plowed no new ground here in days, so I'm done.

Two

This is all a non-sequitur.

Since when did a good argument over NASCAR involve using Latin? That's gotta be a first! :laugh:

 

[TomVols]

Tom, prior to Hoosier's entry into the sport, there had been no choice as far back as 1965 or 66 when Firestone withdrew from the sport.

Interesting that you bring that up. Kinda goes to the whole point about whether or not the tire competition has been unfairly sullied for all that ills NASCAR or not. I've never praised it as much as you might assume (just read my posts), but I just never have followed the (lack of) logic that does blame tire competition for all that ills NASCAR.

Since when did a good argument over NASCAR involve using Latin? That's gotta be a first!

I don't consider it an argument. But you're 100% right. Let anyone insult us who appreciate NASCAR NOW, now that we can throw Latin phrases around!!! :laugh:

So, what do we do around here with statements that are made that aren't backed up? We throw them out as non-factual statements.

I'm not trying to make factual statements. I merely brought up Tony Stewart's opinion this year about the faulty tires and the Dave Hooker show and the interviewees (sorry my memory fails me, which I freely admitted).

If you're not willing to accept my word, or swaim's word, that a tire war isn't a good idea.....

See, here's why the discussion won't die. I won't accept your opinion and what I believe is logical fallacy on the part of some. I also won't accept the premise that opening the tire competition back up, be it through multiple mfgs or through a re-examination of the contract, is a bad thing. And for some reason I wear the black hat for thinking this way even though I'm not alone (I provided DW, Larry, etc. earlier who agreed). Jeff Burton and Robin Pemberton are entitled to their opinion. You and Swaim are, too. But so am I. Why does this bother you :laugh:

Non-sequitur

Re: "tire war." I think you confuse what non-sequitur means. I'm not taking back mine and Swaim's pride in Latin and logic on behalf of the NASCAR nation! :laugh:

Aren't you the one saying that drivers and teams liked the tire war? Thus, isn't it incumbent on you to provide the quotes that prove this?

I said some did appeal for a change in status quo, and I've alluded to their comments earlier. Never did I claim anyone liked a tire war. I said teams must've liked the choice in tires and there are clear voices against Goodyear's workmanship which is drawing much (but not all) of the blame.
Just two voices:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nascar/story/8395850/Goodyear-has-one-year-to-get-it-right
http://msn.foxsports.com/nascar/story/8396432/DW:-What-did-I-learn-from-Indy?
DW in particular says he's not in favor of a "tire war" but his flaming of Goodyear and NASCAR for their failure (he flat out says Goodyear cannot build a tire for COT) was to my broader point.

What's so funny about this? If it means I don't want to see a tire war, then, yes, I'm already on record about this. If it means that I want Goodyear to the sole supplier in perpetuity, I'm already on record as saying that I'm fine with Goodyear being replaced. I don't know what the big deal is about saying that.

I was having some fun with you. I'm light hearted about all this. Of course, I don't want Goodyear to be the sole supplier in perpetuity if they continue to make inadequate tires. Something has to give.

Wonder what Brett Favre thinks about all this? :laugh:

 

[swaimj]

Let me state my major argument all in one place.

First, there is no doubt that Indianapolis was a disaster.

Second, there is no doubt that there are recurring problems with tires anytime NASCAR goes to a track that is newly paved.

Third, I have no problem saying that Goodyear either needs to get its act together or they need to be replaced. BUT, I am adamant that having a second manufacturer come in to compete with Goodyear is a terrible idea. I base this on the history of the sport and the tire wars that occurred in the late 80s and early 90s. I repeat, I never read a comment by anybody, anywhere, any time, be it driver, owner, or crew chief who was in favor of the tire war that occurred. Furthermore, I have not read any comment by anyone now who recommends a second manufacturer be brought in to compete with Goodyear.

That summarizes the argument I have been making in case any of it has been unclear. I think CC is saying essentially the same thing.

 

[TomVols]

I agree with almost everything you posted. As I summed up earlier:

- Goodyear and/or NASCAR let us down at Indy. Both share some blame.
- NASCAR should take a look at its tire mfg policy and/or engineering policy re: COT and/or the tires. (Ricky Craven has suggested both).
- Multiple tire mfgs does not equate with evil. F1 hasn't seen Armagaeddon yet. :laugh: Yet, it's not Utopia, either. NASCAR won't allow that :laugh:
- NASCAR should stop being reactive and start being proactive in all areas.

FWIW..I just read where Jeff Burton has had to back off some potentially alarming comments about Goodyear tires and how Goodyear claims to be doing "what's in the best interests financially of Goodyear" http://sports.yahoo.com/nascar/blog...on-waves-the-flag-on-tires-a?urn=nascar,75213

Sorry...safety comes first. This is a bane that needs a solution quick.

 

[TomVols]

BTW, I think the biggest problem NASCAR had at Indy instead of paving was the relative lack of testing at Indy. DW said he'dve stayed at IMS til they got it right. Problem is, they'd probably STILL be there.

 

[swaimj]

To hear this guy tell it: http://www.autoextremist.com/fumes1 the manufacturers are no fans of the COT. They are pushing to get their pony cars (Mustang, Camaro, Challenger) into Sprint Cup because these cars are the logical cars to market through NASCAR. Mr. DeLorenzo seems to be full of doom and gloom regarding NASCAR, but there may be a nugget of truth in what he is saying.

 

[ccrobinson]

nevermind.

 

[TomVols]

nevermind.

I'm curious as to your thoughts.

 

[ccrobinson]

Nah, wouldn't add anything to the thread.