Group: rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated
NASCAR and Stockcar Racing. (Moderated)
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Goodyear tires
Goodyear tires
You have got to be kidding me. Anyone with a pulse can see that goodyear is
feeling the crunch, and those geniouses decided to get more for the Indy
event by bring tires that would be eaten up the the grooved pavement. I
can't see how anyone would believe that "They didn't know". Beside the
folks at Goodyear are smart and they know how to make money. AND, The
spineless commentators on ESPN wouldn't think of saying anything against
NASCAR or Goodyear. AND for Gordon to say that it's everybody fault, dumb
founds me. I thought he was smarter than that. If you don't want to say
what's really on your mind Jeff, then you shouldn't say anything, it only
makes you look and sound stupid.
You have got to be kidding me. Anyone with a pulse can see that goodyear is
feeling the crunch, and those geniouses decided to get more for the Indy
event by bring tires that would be eaten up the the grooved pavement. I
can't see how anyone would believe that "They didn't know". Beside the
folks at Goodyear are smart and they know how to make money. AND, The
spineless commentators on ESPN wouldn't think of saying anything against
NASCAR or Goodyear. AND for Gordon to say that it's everybody fault, dumb
founds me. I thought he was smarter than that. If you don't want to say
what's really on your mind Jeff, then you shouldn't say anything, it only
makes you look and sound stupid.
Re: Goodyear tires
On Jul 28, 7:53 am, "Catherine L. Moore" <catherinelmo...@ncplus,net >
wrote:
> You have got to be kidding me. Anyone with a pulse can see that goodyear is
> feeling the crunch, and those geniouses decided to get more for the Indy
> event by bring tires that would be eaten up the the grooved pavement.
If you are suggesting that Goodyear intentionally brought a tire that
would last only 10 laps so that they could make more money by selling
more of them to the teams, you have arrived at one of the most
irrational conclusions I've seen in a long time.
The amount of money Goodyear makes selling racing tires is miniscule
compared to what they get selling passenger car tires. Even if they
sold twice as many tires as usual at every race for the rest of the
year, the impact on their overall bottom line would be negligible
compared to their total income.
Goodyear is involved in racing primarily for promotion and
advertising. They want the millions of people watching the races to
see their products out there performing well week after week. The aim
is to implant in people's minds the idea that Goodyear makes a great
tire so that the next time the old grocery getter needs tires, you'll
lean toward getting Goodyears.
A race like the one we saw yesterday conveys the message that Goodyear
tires aren't worth crap. To think they'd want to project that image
to the public just so they could sell more race tires on one Sunday
afternoon is ludicrous beyond description.
On Jul 28, 7:53 am, "Catherine L. Moore" <catherinelmo...@ncplus,net >
wrote:
> You have got to be kidding me. Anyone with a pulse can see that goodyear is
> feeling the crunch, and those geniouses decided to get more for the Indy
> event by bring tires that would be eaten up the the grooved pavement.
If you are suggesting that Goodyear intentionally brought a tire that
would last only 10 laps so that they could make more money by selling
more of them to the teams, you have arrived at one of the most
irrational conclusions I've seen in a long time.
The amount of money Goodyear makes selling racing tires is miniscule
compared to what they get selling passenger car tires. Even if they
sold twice as many tires as usual at every race for the rest of the
year, the impact on their overall bottom line would be negligible
compared to their total income.
Goodyear is involved in racing primarily for promotion and
advertising. They want the millions of people watching the races to
see their products out there performing well week after week. The aim
is to implant in people's minds the idea that Goodyear makes a great
tire so that the next time the old grocery getter needs tires, you'll
lean toward getting Goodyears.
A race like the one we saw yesterday conveys the message that Goodyear
tires aren't worth crap. To think they'd want to project that image
to the public just so they could sell more race tires on one Sunday
afternoon is ludicrous beyond description.
Re: Goodyear tires
> A race like the one we saw yesterday conveys the message that Goodyear
> tires aren't worth crap. To think they'd want to project that image
> to the public just so they could sell more race tires on one Sunday
> afternoon is ludicrous beyond description.
You are spot on, in addition to the fact that Ms. Moore apparently
knows more about Nascar racing than Mr. Gordon does. Who knew? ESPN
should hire her as their expert.
N.
> A race like the one we saw yesterday conveys the message that Goodyear
> tires aren't worth crap. To think they'd want to project that image
> to the public just so they could sell more race tires on one Sunday
> afternoon is ludicrous beyond description.
You are spot on, in addition to the fact that Ms. Moore apparently
knows more about Nascar racing than Mr. Gordon does. Who knew? ESPN
should hire her as their expert.
N.
Re: Goodyear tires
Time to call Firestone and get some competition to the circuit.
Oh, Goodyear can stay. Just some more rubber for the road...hopefully longer
than 10 laps.
Or you can believe its the Curse of the Indy Cars. Between Formula 1s
debacle and now this...
<bob.paxton@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:f4312465-aedd-4c8e-b06a-e8e39a4afce8@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
> On Jul 28, 7:53 am, "Catherine L. Moore" <catherinelmo...@ncplus,net >
> wrote:
>
>> You have got to be kidding me. Anyone with a pulse can see that goodyear
>> is
>> feeling the crunch, and those geniouses decided to get more for the Indy
>> event by bring tires that would be eaten up the the grooved pavement.
>
>
> If you are suggesting that Goodyear intentionally brought a tire that
> would last only 10 laps so that they could make more money by selling
> more of them to the teams, you have arrived at one of the most
> irrational conclusions I've seen in a long time.
>
> The amount of money Goodyear makes selling racing tires is miniscule
> compared to what they get selling passenger car tires. Even if they
> sold twice as many tires as usual at every race for the rest of the
> year, the impact on their overall bottom line would be negligible
> compared to their total income.
>
> Goodyear is involved in racing primarily for promotion and
> advertising. They want the millions of people watching the races to
> see their products out there performing well week after week. The aim
> is to implant in people's minds the idea that Goodyear makes a great
> tire so that the next time the old grocery getter needs tires, you'll
> lean toward getting Goodyears.
>
> A race like the one we saw yesterday conveys the message that Goodyear
> tires aren't worth crap. To think they'd want to project that image
> to the public just so they could sell more race tires on one Sunday
> afternoon is ludicrous beyond description.
>
Time to call Firestone and get some competition to the circuit.
Oh, Goodyear can stay. Just some more rubber for the road...hopefully longer
than 10 laps.
Or you can believe its the Curse of the Indy Cars. Between Formula 1s
debacle and now this...
<bob.paxton@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:f4312465-aedd-4c8e-b06a-e8e39a4afce8@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
> On Jul 28, 7:53 am, "Catherine L. Moore" <catherinelmo...@ncplus,net >
> wrote:
>
>> You have got to be kidding me. Anyone with a pulse can see that goodyear
>> is
>> feeling the crunch, and those geniouses decided to get more for the Indy
>> event by bring tires that would be eaten up the the grooved pavement.
>
>
> If you are suggesting that Goodyear intentionally brought a tire that
> would last only 10 laps so that they could make more money by selling
> more of them to the teams, you have arrived at one of the most
> irrational conclusions I've seen in a long time.
>
> The amount of money Goodyear makes selling racing tires is miniscule
> compared to what they get selling passenger car tires. Even if they
> sold twice as many tires as usual at every race for the rest of the
> year, the impact on their overall bottom line would be negligible
> compared to their total income.
>
> Goodyear is involved in racing primarily for promotion and
> advertising. They want the millions of people watching the races to
> see their products out there performing well week after week. The aim
> is to implant in people's minds the idea that Goodyear makes a great
> tire so that the next time the old grocery getter needs tires, you'll
> lean toward getting Goodyears.
>
> A race like the one we saw yesterday conveys the message that Goodyear
> tires aren't worth crap. To think they'd want to project that image
> to the public just so they could sell more race tires on one Sunday
> afternoon is ludicrous beyond description.
>
Re: Goodyear tires
On Jul 28, 7:59 pm, "Riley77" <rileyflor...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> Time to call Firestone and get some competition to the circuit.
I don't know about that. History has shown us that having more than
one tire supplier leads to more tire trouble, not less.
Building a race tire is often a balancing act between building a fast
tire and building a safe tire. When there's a choice, the teams are
going to go for speed and the result is often a less reliable tire.
When there's just one tire supplier, it can err on the side of safety
without fear that the teams will abandon its tire in favor of the
other guy's faster (but riskier) one.
> Oh, Goodyear can stay. Just some more rubber for the road...hopefully longer
> than 10 laps.
The Brickyard race was certainly a debacle. No question about it, but
let's put it in perspective. When was the last time tire problems
played such havoc with a race? I have to go all the way back to 1969
when many of the top drivers boycotted the initial Talladega race
because the tires weren't holding up.
Goodyear missed it badly Sunday, but let's acknowledge that this was a
very rare exception to what is has been a long and successful track
record for them.
> Or you can believe its the Curse of the Indy Cars. Between Formula 1s
> debacle and now this...
My money says they have it fixed for next year.
On Jul 28, 7:59 pm, "Riley77" <rileyflor...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> Time to call Firestone and get some competition to the circuit.
I don't know about that. History has shown us that having more than
one tire supplier leads to more tire trouble, not less.
Building a race tire is often a balancing act between building a fast
tire and building a safe tire. When there's a choice, the teams are
going to go for speed and the result is often a less reliable tire.
When there's just one tire supplier, it can err on the side of safety
without fear that the teams will abandon its tire in favor of the
other guy's faster (but riskier) one.
> Oh, Goodyear can stay. Just some more rubber for the road...hopefully longer
> than 10 laps.
The Brickyard race was certainly a debacle. No question about it, but
let's put it in perspective. When was the last time tire problems
played such havoc with a race? I have to go all the way back to 1969
when many of the top drivers boycotted the initial Talladega race
because the tires weren't holding up.
Goodyear missed it badly Sunday, but let's acknowledge that this was a
very rare exception to what is has been a long and successful track
record for them.
> Or you can believe its the Curse of the Indy Cars. Between Formula 1s
> debacle and now this...
My money says they have it fixed for next year.
Re: Goodyear tires
bob.paxton@gmail,com wrote in
news:ce2bee3c-e4d2-4be1-a4d7-6115cb221817@79g2000hsk.googlegroups,com :
> The Brickyard race was certainly a debacle. No question about it, but
> let's put it in perspective. When was the last time tire problems
> played such havoc with a race?
Couple of years ago at Charlotte.
John
bob.paxton@gmail,com wrote in
news:ce2bee3c-e4d2-4be1-a4d7-6115cb221817@79g2000hsk.googlegroups,com :
> The Brickyard race was certainly a debacle. No question about it, but
> let's put it in perspective. When was the last time tire problems
> played such havoc with a race?
Couple of years ago at Charlotte.
John
Re: Goodyear tires
On Jul 29, 11:18 pm, John McCoy <igop...@ix,net com,com > wrote:
> bob.pax...@gmail,com wrote innews:ce2bee3c-e4d2-4be1-a4d7-6115cb221817@79g2000hsk.googlegroups,com :
>
> > The Brickyard race was certainly a debacle. No question about it, but
> > let's put it in perspective. When was the last time tire problems
> > played such havoc with a race?
>
> Couple of years ago at Charlotte.
I'm not sure that rises to the level I'm talking about.
Sure there have been races where multiple teams have had blowouts.
Richmond was plagued with that a while back too. There have been
numerous cases where there was a competition caution early in the race
to check tire wear. However, I can't recall a single other instance
where NASCAR had to throw cautions every ten or so laps all race long
because the tire wear was so bad for so many teams.
Again, I have to go all the way back to 1969 Talladega to find a race
that was that severely impacted by tire issues.
The point of course is that while they're not perfect, Goodyear has
done a pretty good job in the grand scheme of things.
On Jul 29, 11:18 pm, John McCoy <igop...@ix,net com,com > wrote:
> bob.pax...@gmail,com wrote innews:ce2bee3c-e4d2-4be1-a4d7-6115cb221817@79g2000hsk.googlegroups,com :
>
> > The Brickyard race was certainly a debacle. No question about it, but
> > let's put it in perspective. When was the last time tire problems
> > played such havoc with a race?
>
> Couple of years ago at Charlotte.
I'm not sure that rises to the level I'm talking about.
Sure there have been races where multiple teams have had blowouts.
Richmond was plagued with that a while back too. There have been
numerous cases where there was a competition caution early in the race
to check tire wear. However, I can't recall a single other instance
where NASCAR had to throw cautions every ten or so laps all race long
because the tire wear was so bad for so many teams.
Again, I have to go all the way back to 1969 Talladega to find a race
that was that severely impacted by tire issues.
The point of course is that while they're not perfect, Goodyear has
done a pretty good job in the grand scheme of things.
Re: Goodyear tires
What concerns me here, based on what I'm reading, is this (based in part on
Vickers' and Earnhardt's comments on the tire testing here that I watched in
April:
Goodyear knew that their Indy tire would not, in April, last more than five
or six laps on the right side of the car. They chose, in response to that
information, to assume that changing variables such as # of cars on the
track, differences in temperature, differences in amount of rubber laid down
on the track, would somehow miraculously "fix" the problem without human
intervention.
They were wildly wrong, obviously.
I'm sure there are variables here I'm not aware of. But the idea that a
company with an exclusive contract to provide a particular piece of
equipment could discover major problems in testing that piece in a
particular context (this track) and simply respond by assuming that the
problems would go away in non-test circumstances is disturbing, and
certainly would lead to some questioning whether or not they take that
exclusive contract seriously, or whether thought should be given to awarding
it elsewhere.
It's not that they got it wrong: under the best of circumstances I'm sure
that can happen. It's that it appears that they had all the evidence in the
world in advance that they were in the process of getting it wrong, and
chose to discount that evidence.
--pig
On 7/30/08 9:37 AM, in article
ab88acbd-7f42-4d8b-9b14-6dd26c409e81@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ,
"bob.paxton@gmail,com " <bob.paxton@gmail,com > wrote:
> The point of course is that while they're not perfect, Goodyear has
> done a pretty good job in the grand scheme of things.
What concerns me here, based on what I'm reading, is this (based in part on
Vickers' and Earnhardt's comments on the tire testing here that I watched in
April:
Goodyear knew that their Indy tire would not, in April, last more than five
or six laps on the right side of the car. They chose, in response to that
information, to assume that changing variables such as # of cars on the
track, differences in temperature, differences in amount of rubber laid down
on the track, would somehow miraculously "fix" the problem without human
intervention.
They were wildly wrong, obviously.
I'm sure there are variables here I'm not aware of. But the idea that a
company with an exclusive contract to provide a particular piece of
equipment could discover major problems in testing that piece in a
particular context (this track) and simply respond by assuming that the
problems would go away in non-test circumstances is disturbing, and
certainly would lead to some questioning whether or not they take that
exclusive contract seriously, or whether thought should be given to awarding
it elsewhere.
It's not that they got it wrong: under the best of circumstances I'm sure
that can happen. It's that it appears that they had all the evidence in the
world in advance that they were in the process of getting it wrong, and
chose to discount that evidence.
--pig
On 7/30/08 9:37 AM, in article
ab88acbd-7f42-4d8b-9b14-6dd26c409e81@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ,
"bob.paxton@gmail,com " <bob.paxton@gmail,com > wrote:
> The point of course is that while they're not perfect, Goodyear has
> done a pretty good job in the grand scheme of things.
Re: Goodyear tires
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:57:40 CST, Megan Zurawicz <listpig@sbcglobal,net > wrote in <C4B631C7.5280%listpig@sbcglobal,net >:
> ... They were wildly wrong, obviously.
> ... It's not that they got it wrong: under the best of circumstances I'm sure
>that can happen. It's that it appears that they had all the evidence in the
>world in advance that they were in the process of getting it wrong, and
>chose to discount that evidence.
Yes, you're right.
I think both NASCAR and Goodyear know that this was a
major snafu.
I'm glad that I wasn't trying to watch the race. I expect
the problems will be solved long before next year's race.
Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http :// www .big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:57:40 CST, Megan Zurawicz <listpig@sbcglobal,net > wrote in <C4B631C7.5280%listpig@sbcglobal,net >:
> ... They were wildly wrong, obviously.
> ... It's not that they got it wrong: under the best of circumstances I'm sure
>that can happen. It's that it appears that they had all the evidence in the
>world in advance that they were in the process of getting it wrong, and
>chose to discount that evidence.
Yes, you're right.
I think both NASCAR and Goodyear know that this was a
major snafu.
I'm glad that I wasn't trying to watch the race. I expect
the problems will be solved long before next year's race.
Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http :// www .big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.
Re: Goodyear tires
Megan Zurawicz <listpig@sbcglobal,net > wrote in
news:C4B631C7.5280%listpig@sbcglobal,net :
> What concerns me here, based on what I'm reading, is this (based in
> part on Vickers' and Earnhardt's comments on the tire testing here
> that I watched in April:
>
> Goodyear knew that their Indy tire would not, in April, last more than
> five or six laps on the right side of the car. They chose, in
> response to that information, to assume that changing variables such
> as # of cars on the track, differences in temperature, differences in
> amount of rubber laid down on the track, would somehow miraculously
> "fix" the problem without human intervention.
>
> They were wildly wrong, obviously.
>
> I'm sure there are variables here I'm not aware of. But the idea that
> a company with an exclusive contract to provide a particular piece of
> equipment could discover major problems in testing that piece in a
> particular context (this track) and simply respond by assuming that
> the problems would go away in non-test circumstances is disturbing,
> and certainly would lead to some questioning whether or not they take
> that exclusive contract seriously, or whether thought should be given
> to awarding it elsewhere.
>
> It's not that they got it wrong: under the best of circumstances I'm
> sure that can happen. It's that it appears that they had all the
> evidence in the world in advance that they were in the process of
> getting it wrong, and chose to discount that evidence.
I would agree with every word you said, Megan. As an engineer
myself, I can say that what Goodyear appears to have done is not
what any engineer would call competent engineering. You simply
don't do a test, observe a failure, and then say "well, maybe
it'll be different next time". That's not how engineering works.
If you see a failure, as an engineer your whole instinct is to
understand it and correct it, and to keep testing and trying
until you do understand it.
The whole thing smacks of cost-cutting, like Goodyear's management
said "this problem is going to cost money and time to fix, and
we don't want to spend the money". So rather than invest any
money in doing it right, they crossed their fingers and hoped
that what they had would be good enough, sorta, maybe. And they
got burned.
You see this a lot when technology companies get run by non-tech
people. I have no idea who runs Goodyear, but I'd be willing to
bet it's a bunch of MBAs and business school grads, who don't
understand their technology and can't make an intelligent decision
about spending money. So they cut costs where they shouldn't,
and eventually disaster ensues.
Couldn't, in my opinion, have happened to a more deserving bunch.
John
Megan Zurawicz <listpig@sbcglobal,net > wrote in
news:C4B631C7.5280%listpig@sbcglobal,net :
> What concerns me here, based on what I'm reading, is this (based in
> part on Vickers' and Earnhardt's comments on the tire testing here
> that I watched in April:
>
> Goodyear knew that their Indy tire would not, in April, last more than
> five or six laps on the right side of the car. They chose, in
> response to that information, to assume that changing variables such
> as # of cars on the track, differences in temperature, differences in
> amount of rubber laid down on the track, would somehow miraculously
> "fix" the problem without human intervention.
>
> They were wildly wrong, obviously.
>
> I'm sure there are variables here I'm not aware of. But the idea that
> a company with an exclusive contract to provide a particular piece of
> equipment could discover major problems in testing that piece in a
> particular context (this track) and simply respond by assuming that
> the problems would go away in non-test circumstances is disturbing,
> and certainly would lead to some questioning whether or not they take
> that exclusive contract seriously, or whether thought should be given
> to awarding it elsewhere.
>
> It's not that they got it wrong: under the best of circumstances I'm
> sure that can happen. It's that it appears that they had all the
> evidence in the world in advance that they were in the process of
> getting it wrong, and chose to discount that evidence.
I would agree with every word you said, Megan. As an engineer
myself, I can say that what Goodyear appears to have done is not
what any engineer would call competent engineering. You simply
don't do a test, observe a failure, and then say "well, maybe
it'll be different next time". That's not how engineering works.
If you see a failure, as an engineer your whole instinct is to
understand it and correct it, and to keep testing and trying
until you do understand it.
The whole thing smacks of cost-cutting, like Goodyear's management
said "this problem is going to cost money and time to fix, and
we don't want to spend the money". So rather than invest any
money in doing it right, they crossed their fingers and hoped
that what they had would be good enough, sorta, maybe. And they
got burned.
You see this a lot when technology companies get run by non-tech
people. I have no idea who runs Goodyear, but I'd be willing to
bet it's a bunch of MBAs and business school grads, who don't
understand their technology and can't make an intelligent decision
about spending money. So they cut costs where they shouldn't,
and eventually disaster ensues.
Couldn't, in my opinion, have happened to a more deserving bunch.
John
Re: Goodyear tires
John McCoy wrote:
> Megan Zurawicz <listpig@sbcglobal,net > wrote in
> news:C4B631C7.5280%listpig@sbcglobal,net :
>
>> What concerns me here, based on what I'm reading, is this (based in
>> part on Vickers' and Earnhardt's comments on the tire testing here
>> that I watched in April:
>>
>> Goodyear knew that their Indy tire would not, in April, last more than
>> five or six laps on the right side of the car. They chose, in
>> response to that information, to assume that changing variables such
>> as # of cars on the track, differences in temperature, differences in
>> amount of rubber laid down on the track, would somehow miraculously
>> "fix" the problem without human intervention.
>>
>> They were wildly wrong, obviously.
>>
>> I'm sure there are variables here I'm not aware of. But the idea that
>> a company with an exclusive contract to provide a particular piece of
>> equipment could discover major problems in testing that piece in a
>> particular context (this track) and simply respond by assuming that
>> the problems would go away in non-test circumstances is disturbing,
>> and certainly would lead to some questioning whether or not they take
>> that exclusive contract seriously, or whether thought should be given
>> to awarding it elsewhere.
>>
>> It's not that they got it wrong: under the best of circumstances I'm
>> sure that can happen. It's that it appears that they had all the
>> evidence in the world in advance that they were in the process of
>> getting it wrong, and chose to discount that evidence.
>
> I would agree with every word you said, Megan. As an engineer
> myself, I can say that what Goodyear appears to have done is not
> what any engineer would call competent engineering. You simply
> don't do a test, observe a failure, and then say "well, maybe
> it'll be different next time". That's not how engineering works.
> If you see a failure, as an engineer your whole instinct is to
> understand it and correct it, and to keep testing and trying
> until you do understand it.
>
<snip>
> John
>
Old school, John. ;-)
--
>G< ©
John McCoy wrote:
> Megan Zurawicz <listpig@sbcglobal,net > wrote in
> news:C4B631C7.5280%listpig@sbcglobal,net :
>
>> What concerns me here, based on what I'm reading, is this (based in
>> part on Vickers' and Earnhardt's comments on the tire testing here
>> that I watched in April:
>>
>> Goodyear knew that their Indy tire would not, in April, last more than
>> five or six laps on the right side of the car. They chose, in
>> response to that information, to assume that changing variables such
>> as # of cars on the track, differences in temperature, differences in
>> amount of rubber laid down on the track, would somehow miraculously
>> "fix" the problem without human intervention.
>>
>> They were wildly wrong, obviously.
>>
>> I'm sure there are variables here I'm not aware of. But the idea that
>> a company with an exclusive contract to provide a particular piece of
>> equipment could discover major problems in testing that piece in a
>> particular context (this track) and simply respond by assuming that
>> the problems would go away in non-test circumstances is disturbing,
>> and certainly would lead to some questioning whether or not they take
>> that exclusive contract seriously, or whether thought should be given
>> to awarding it elsewhere.
>>
>> It's not that they got it wrong: under the best of circumstances I'm
>> sure that can happen. It's that it appears that they had all the
>> evidence in the world in advance that they were in the process of
>> getting it wrong, and chose to discount that evidence.
>
> I would agree with every word you said, Megan. As an engineer
> myself, I can say that what Goodyear appears to have done is not
> what any engineer would call competent engineering. You simply
> don't do a test, observe a failure, and then say "well, maybe
> it'll be different next time". That's not how engineering works.
> If you see a failure, as an engineer your whole instinct is to
> understand it and correct it, and to keep testing and trying
> until you do understand it.
>
<snip>
> John
>
Old school, John. ;-)
--
>G< ©
Re: Goodyear tires
In article pig wrote:
>Goodyear knew that their Indy tire would not, in April, last more than five
>or six laps on the right side of the car. They chose, in response to that
>information, to assume that changing variables such as # of cars on the
>track, differences in temperature, differences in amount of rubber laid down
>on the track, would somehow miraculously "fix" the problem without human
>intervention.
>I'm sure there are variables here I'm not aware of.
>
>--pig
This is the last I will respond to this, I promise.
I am not a GY schill, for the record..
The way it was explained to me, is that the tire wear at the
test, was the SAME as it always was. There was nothing to
indicate that even though the tire wore out after a half dozen laps,
it always came around after practice/qualifying/practice...
So... my interpertation.
There was NOT a full fied of cars at the test.
The test went as it always had in the past.
The races have NEVER been like it was this year.
Everyone seems to say "they should have known".
BASED ON WHAT?????
I don't get it.
Same tire, same track, same test. Same results.
UNTIL... race weekend, when all the cars were there..
Then... the new car proved to be a lot different.
But obvioiusly, way too late to do anything about it.
But at the test, there was nothing unusual.
Dan
****************************************
Defeat isn't falling down.
Defeat is not getting back up......
In article pig wrote:
>Goodyear knew that their Indy tire would not, in April, last more than five
>or six laps on the right side of the car. They chose, in response to that
>information, to assume that changing variables such as # of cars on the
>track, differences in temperature, differences in amount of rubber laid down
>on the track, would somehow miraculously "fix" the problem without human
>intervention.
>I'm sure there are variables here I'm not aware of.
>
>--pig
This is the last I will respond to this, I promise.
I am not a GY schill, for the record..
The way it was explained to me, is that the tire wear at the
test, was the SAME as it always was. There was nothing to
indicate that even though the tire wore out after a half dozen laps,
it always came around after practice/qualifying/practice...
So... my interpertation.
There was NOT a full fied of cars at the test.
The test went as it always had in the past.
The races have NEVER been like it was this year.
Everyone seems to say "they should have known".
BASED ON WHAT?????
I don't get it.
Same tire, same track, same test. Same results.
UNTIL... race weekend, when all the cars were there..
Then... the new car proved to be a lot different.
But obvioiusly, way too late to do anything about it.
But at the test, there was nothing unusual.
Dan
****************************************
Defeat isn't falling down.
Defeat is not getting back up......
Re: Goodyear tires
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:52:49 CST, chuck_steak@nospam,com (Chuck Steak) wrote in <a87kk.438$iM5.313@trnddc07>:
>So... my interpertation.
>There was NOT a full fied of cars at the test.
>The test went as it always had in the past.
>The races have NEVER been like it was this year.
>Everyone seems to say "they should have known".
>BASED ON WHAT?????
>I don't get it.
>Same tire, same track, same test. Same results.
>UNTIL... race weekend, when all the cars were there..
>Then... the new car proved to be a lot different. ...
That makes good sense.
On NASCAR Now (where Alan Bestwick seems to have
come into his own), they said that there is a big
difference between the COY and the COT.
In the old car, there was a pre-sprung weight
imbalance favoring the left side. In nice round
numbers, they said it was like 900 pounds on
each of the left-side tires and 700 on each of
the right. In a left-hand turn, the G-forces
would shift the weight distribution so that all
four tires were carrying equal loads, more or less.
In the new car, by design and by rule, the cars
have to weigh in evenly. In the turns, the right
side tires are carrying more "weight" than the
left side--and therefore they are more prone to
wear and tear.
Beyond that, for whatever reason, the track didn't
get "rubbered in" in the days before the race, as
it had in the past, and that meant more stress on
the tires, too. They were counting on what had
happened in the past to happen again. That's not
bad engineering per se. Someone may eventually
come up with an explanation for the discrepancy
(more rain this summer? different compound?).
I'm sure they'll be MUCH better prepared next
year. It should be a fun race to watch ...
Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http :// www .big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:52:49 CST, chuck_steak@nospam,com (Chuck Steak) wrote in <a87kk.438$iM5.313@trnddc07>:
>So... my interpertation.
>There was NOT a full fied of cars at the test.
>The test went as it always had in the past.
>The races have NEVER been like it was this year.
>Everyone seems to say "they should have known".
>BASED ON WHAT?????
>I don't get it.
>Same tire, same track, same test. Same results.
>UNTIL... race weekend, when all the cars were there..
>Then... the new car proved to be a lot different. ...
That makes good sense.
On NASCAR Now (where Alan Bestwick seems to have
come into his own), they said that there is a big
difference between the COY and the COT.
In the old car, there was a pre-sprung weight
imbalance favoring the left side. In nice round
numbers, they said it was like 900 pounds on
each of the left-side tires and 700 on each of
the right. In a left-hand turn, the G-forces
would shift the weight distribution so that all
four tires were carrying equal loads, more or less.
In the new car, by design and by rule, the cars
have to weigh in evenly. In the turns, the right
side tires are carrying more "weight" than the
left side--and therefore they are more prone to
wear and tear.
Beyond that, for whatever reason, the track didn't
get "rubbered in" in the days before the race, as
it had in the past, and that meant more stress on
the tires, too. They were counting on what had
happened in the past to happen again. That's not
bad engineering per se. Someone may eventually
come up with an explanation for the discrepancy
(more rain this summer? different compound?).
I'm sure they'll be MUCH better prepared next
year. It should be a fun race to watch ...
Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http :// www .big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.
Re: Goodyear tires
Something I heard in passing yesterday---might have been finally watching
Biff and Mikey on TWIN, not sure---was that in the end Goodyear chose to
bring something OTHER than the compound(s) they tested in April, implying
but not stating that what they did bring then wasn't tested at all.
I understand if that came out of "well, what we tested didn't work...." but
I don't quite get "so let's bring something entirely untested."
Gets weirder and weirder.
If you read the columns at Fox Sports, I rather liked DW's take on how to
handle it, although I realize that a lot of teams already had commitments to
Road Atlanta on Monday.
DW's answer was, given the tire disaster that the race was, that Goodyear
and at least some of the teams should have said "OK, we're not going home
until we figure this out. Get more (varied) tires here by Monday morning
and by God we're gonna stay here and test till we find the right tire for
next year" rather than "Oh, well, we'll figure it out somewhere down the
road....."
What say ye?
--pig
On 7/30/08 9:38 PM, in article
edmdndx2NtP1lAzVnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@supernews,com , "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
<moleski@canisius.edu> wrote:
> Beyond that, for whatever reason, the track didn't
> get "rubbered in" in the days before the race, as
> it had in the past, and that meant more stress on
> the tires, too. They were counting on what had
> happened in the past to happen again. That's not
> bad engineering per se. Someone may eventually
> come up with an explanation for the discrepancy
> (more rain this summer? different compound?).
> I'm sure they'll be MUCH better prepared next
> year. It should be a fun race to watch ...
Something I heard in passing yesterday---might have been finally watching
Biff and Mikey on TWIN, not sure---was that in the end Goodyear chose to
bring something OTHER than the compound(s) they tested in April, implying
but not stating that what they did bring then wasn't tested at all.
I understand if that came out of "well, what we tested didn't work...." but
I don't quite get "so let's bring something entirely untested."
Gets weirder and weirder.
If you read the columns at Fox Sports, I rather liked DW's take on how to
handle it, although I realize that a lot of teams already had commitments to
Road Atlanta on Monday.
DW's answer was, given the tire disaster that the race was, that Goodyear
and at least some of the teams should have said "OK, we're not going home
until we figure this out. Get more (varied) tires here by Monday morning
and by God we're gonna stay here and test till we find the right tire for
next year" rather than "Oh, well, we'll figure it out somewhere down the
road....."
What say ye?
--pig
On 7/30/08 9:38 PM, in article
edmdndx2NtP1lAzVnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@supernews,com , "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
<moleski@canisius.edu> wrote:
> Beyond that, for whatever reason, the track didn't
> get "rubbered in" in the days before the race, as
> it had in the past, and that meant more stress on
> the tires, too. They were counting on what had
> happened in the past to happen again. That's not
> bad engineering per se. Someone may eventually
> come up with an explanation for the discrepancy
> (more rain this summer? different compound?).
> I'm sure they'll be MUCH better prepared next
> year. It should be a fun race to watch ...
Re: Goodyear tires
Megan Zurawicz <listpig@sbcglobal,net > wrote in
news:C4B76400.52FC%listpig@sbcglobal,net :
> Something I heard in passing yesterday---might have been finally
> watching Biff and Mikey on TWIN, not sure---was that in the end
> Goodyear chose to bring something OTHER than the compound(s) they
> tested in April, implying but not stating that what they did bring
> then wasn't tested at all.
>
> I understand if that came out of "well, what we tested didn't
> work...." but I don't quite get "so let's bring something entirely
> untested."
>
> Gets weirder and weirder.
As I understand it (and different reporters have managed to report
almost every possible variation), Goodyear took new tires and 2007
compound tires to test (which makes sense, take the old ones as
a control to see how the new ones differ). The drivers did not
like the new tires, so Goodyear decided to use the 2007 design,
and hope that it would, in some magical way, work better than it
did in 2007.
> If you read the columns at Fox Sports, I rather liked DW's take on how
> to handle it, although I realize that a lot of teams already had
> commitments to Road Atlanta on Monday.
It'd make more sense to let Goodyear's engineers work on new
designs for a while, and then test. Testing the Monday after
wouldn't tell you much more than "these tires wear out in 10
laps!".
John
Megan Zurawicz <listpig@sbcglobal,net > wrote in
news:C4B76400.52FC%listpig@sbcglobal,net :
> Something I heard in passing yesterday---might have been finally
> watching Biff and Mikey on TWIN, not sure---was that in the end
> Goodyear chose to bring something OTHER than the compound(s) they
> tested in April, implying but not stating that what they did bring
> then wasn't tested at all.
>
> I understand if that came out of "well, what we tested didn't
> work...." but I don't quite get "so let's bring something entirely
> untested."
>
> Gets weirder and weirder.
As I understand it (and different reporters have managed to report
almost every possible variation), Goodyear took new tires and 2007
compound tires to test (which makes sense, take the old ones as
a control to see how the new ones differ). The drivers did not
like the new tires, so Goodyear decided to use the 2007 design,
and hope that it would, in some magical way, work better than it
did in 2007.
> If you read the columns at Fox Sports, I rather liked DW's take on how
> to handle it, although I realize that a lot of teams already had
> commitments to Road Atlanta on Monday.
It'd make more sense to let Goodyear's engineers work on new
designs for a while, and then test. Testing the Monday after
wouldn't tell you much more than "these tires wear out in 10
laps!".
John
