hoosier R6

has anyone run the hoosier R6 ON there panoz was your time faster are slower :confused:

Devin is running hoosiers, I believe they are R6's

this past weekend at CMP I was .5 seconds faster in his car with the new hoosiers than in mine with the old Pirelli's

I think the times would be farther apart but i swear by car has more HP than his! :-D

has anyone run the hoosier R6 ON there panoz was your time faster are slower :confused:
I've run Hoosiers on my car. I've run new R6 tires, and scrub Cup tires. The new R6's were faster by about 0.5 a second per lap on a tight, slow 14 turn (1.6 mile) track. But this was only for the first session. After that they were roughly the same.
The fastest tires I've run on the car were well used Kuhmo V-710's. These were faster than the new R6's by a full sec per lap. I would expect that new V-710's would be a couple of seconds faster than the R6's.
All Hoosiers go off over their life time. From new until they are corded they drop about 3 to 4 seconds. It's the one thing that I don't like about the Hoosiers.

Well, first experience was not what I expected. I ran them at CMP with nothing to compare as I had not been there in over 4 years. I am running VIR week after next, so, I should have more information for you after that (if Eric let's me borrow his TraqMate)...

Honest opinion after CMP though -- I was not totally impressed and if they don't provide any difference at VIR -- I will be shopping for replacements.

more to follow.

Devin, never heard back on your feeling about the Hoosier R6's at VIR. Any input?
I'm buying tires this week. I've narrowed it down to Hoosier R6, Kumo V710 or Nitto NT01.That is most expensive to cheapest.
My car currently has 275/40-17's all around. Looking through a bunch of past threads you BBS 9" x 17" rim guys guys are:
running 275's all around;
to 275's front, 295's in the rear;
to 295 front and 315 in the rear.

Please chime in!

FWIW, I been using NT01s (several sets) on two 04 cobra mustangs for two years. They seem to grip and wear well considering these cars weigh 3,800#. I don’t have any comparable experience with the other tires mentioned above. The mustang crowd loves the NT01s they are relatively inexpensive compared to the other brands. One thing though, early on we figured out that running equal dimensioned tires allowed us to rotate front to back. This dramatically increases our tire life. Keep in mind that our 3,800# pound cars were absolutely brutal on the fronts. This might not be an issue on a car weighing 1,000# less.

Not to hijack this thread, but this brings up a question. In this forum I do see quite a number of people running tires of a greater width in the rear. Would this be a major improvement on performance. Our Panoz cars are stock GTWC cars. With that kind of horse power, are 275/285 sufficient to hold the power? Our Cobras had almost 500RWHP and when we switch from 315 to 275 (to achieve rotation ability) there was a noticeable difference but didn’t ruin our fun and it lasted longer. Granted though, we are not racing.

Just my .02

The V710's are going to wear better and grip better longer IMO than the Hoosier. The Nitto's last forever and stick well, but not as well as the Hoosier or Kuhmo, BUT they are much more consistent across their lifetime. A Nitto will wear every ounce of tread off before it stops being sticky. Where a Hoosier turns into a brick after 15-20 heat cycles.

not to speak for Devin, but I guess I will... He has not been happy with his Hoosiers and plans to replace them after the next event with the V710's, that's the tire I will be using as well for next season.

Thanks for the feedback on the tires. Any input on the tire sizes I mentioned for the BBS rims? Equal all around vs larger rears.

Thanks for the feedback on the tires. Any input on the tire sizes I mentioned for the BBS rims? Equal all around vs larger rears.

I run 285-30-18 all around, I like being able to rotate front to back and side to side helps prolong the tires.

Thanks for the feedback on the tires. Any input on the tire sizes I mentioned for the BBS rims? Equal all around vs larger rears.

Uwe, if you are sticking with the 17" x 9" inch rims, a 275 would be the biggest tyre width that would mount reasonably properly on the rim. Check out the recommended rim width for the tyre manufacturer that you end up choosing (i.e. Hoosier etc). I see that for a 275/40/17 R6, Hoosier recommend a rim width of between 9" & 11". In reality this tyre would probably perform at its best on a rim around 10".

You can go bigger than recommended by the manufacturer but you will not get optimum performance out of the wider tyre, as the tread contact area will be negatively affected by sidewall distortion.

I currently have 240 slicks mounted on my 17" x 9" rims and these are pretty close to a perfect mount. The 9" rims may take a 265 slick but again they may not end up being faster than the 240's. My last race car (classic racer a bit heavier than a GTRA but with lots more power) had 275/35/15's on 9" wide rims on the front and these went OK, but would have preferred to run them on 15 x 10's.

Will be interested to see what others think on this topic, reality is that you would need to test back to back to be sure. Otherwise use the tyre manufacturers recommended rim widths as a guide. I think this topic is a bit like carburettor sizing, conservative is best..........(i.e. for a race car, big rim & smaller tyre rather than the other way around)!!

I'm glad I asked the question. The Yoko street tires that are still on the car (They are what the school was using) are 275/40-17's. I ass-u-me'd that would be the narrowest tire for the 9" rims. The sidewall doesn't look like its bulging past the edge of the rim. Is the tread of your 240's narrower than the edge of the rim? If so, wouldn't you be giving up rubber contact. Ideal would be matching tread width to rim width, yes?

Is the tread of your 240's narrower than the edge of the rim? If so, wouldn't you be giving up rubber contact. Ideal would be matching tread width to rim width, yes?

The sidewalls on the 240's are just in from being parallel with the rim face. Effective rim width of a 9" rim is 228mm, the effective tread width of the 240 slick is 225mm, so pretty well spot on. This means that the side walls will provide lots of support to the tread. If you start getting sidewall bulge, this will translate to additional sidewall movement during side loading that will negatively affect the tread contact area.

I get the 240's used off competitors in a professional race class over here (our premier tin top class, called NZV8's which are 5 liter V8 cars). They run the 240's on the same size rim - 17 x 9.

I see a lot of racers cord Hoosiers (and other tyres) prematurely. A lot of the time I believe that this is due to using incorrect tyre/rim size combo's, wrong air pressure or incorrect camber settings...........or of course the killer combination of all of the above. I used to get a complete season of 7 - 8 race meetings out of my Hoosiers on a 3000lb car with 460 RWHP.

Again, I am interested to hear what others think on this topic. I have done some reading and played on my cars with this quite a bit but have usually looked at what the pro's are doing as a good guide. I believe that our cars would benefit from using the widest tyre possible as Brian has found on their GTS's (i.e. up to around the 300 or 320 mark) but they must be fitted on appropriate size rims to get the best from the wider tyre.

[quote=NZGTRA17] Effective rim width of a 9" rim is 228mm, the effective tread width of the 240 slick is 225mm,

Here's a link to a quick size calculator http://www.discounttiredirect.com/direct/brochure/info/tmpInfoTireMath.jsp

What you are saying makes total sense. How did you come up with the 225mm measurement?-Is it published somewhere or did you take an actual measurement on your tires? What is the aspect ratio on your 240"s?

A very knowledgeable local tire salesman had recommended 245/45-17 for my fronts-to aid in turn in and lessen my plowing (remember, the current tires are crappy) This was still thinking the 275's would be on the rear.

I am leaning to same size all around for the ability to rotate. Agree?

[quote=Wess-RA How did you come up with the 225mm measurement?-Is it published somewhere or did you take an actual measurement on your tires? What is the aspect ratio on your 240"s?

I am leaning to same size all around for the ability to rotate. Agree?[/quote]

Measurement is actual Uwe. Dunlop slick tyre size is 240 / 625 / 17, compound is D11.

Regards square sizing Vs stagger sizing, I always lean towards square if you can get away with it and still be competitive in whatever class you are running. I was running staggered sizes on the classic car and it was quite a pain in the ****. Reasons for this are;

- Need more tyres and rims to ensure you have spares in case of tyre damage = bigger budget,
- Transporting additional wheels/tyres takes up more transport room & weight,
- More storage required at home,
- Cant rotate front to rear which is very very useful,
- Small issue but worth considering is can require more set up time to account for tyre size induced aero 'wedge' put into the car.

For endurance running I am likely to use 255 DOT tyre (most likely a Kumho V70A) on the car on all 4 corners on the 9" rims. Had considered a 275 but given the tyre I choose will be a compromise between a dry and a semi wet (to avoid need to pit and change if it rains), going wider would compromise the wet weather performance as it would be harder for the 275 tyre to evacuate water and not aquaplane. Track I will likely be running a 6 hour race on is bad for puddling so need to account for standing water in tyre choice.

Your size 240/40 (converted) -17. Doesn't seem to be available on line in the U.S. The choices jump from 235 to 245. Can't find the compound either http://www.onlinetires.com/default.aspx?PageData=tech I guess I have a lot to learn.

Thanks for the experience on the front/rear tire sizes.

Your size 240/40 (converted) -17. Doesn't seem to be available on line in the U.S. The choices jump from 235 to 245.

I suspect that this size tyre is a slick size which is not common in DOT's. If you are going for Hoosiers Uwe, I would choose either a 255/45/17 (probably the best performer on a 9" rim) or a 275/40/17 (if you cant resist going big).

275/45 rear and 245/45 front. my car had a little bit of oversteer that the 245's in front corrected. Falken rt615 for the first set of tires. better way to learn how the car handles and then i will go to slicks.

That would explain it. Thanks for your help, I'll let you know what a difference they make. Should be substantial!

275-40-17s all around are perfect for the school cars. They don't have enough HP to make use of a bigger tire in the back. Keep it simple/square. Anything larger and you cant get the ass around and the car pushes too much. On the GTS cars (450hp) we still run the same 17"BBS wheels with 295s on the front and 315s on the back with good ballance. No mounting problems.

Kevin

Greetings ... I ran BFG R1's last summer ; 275/45/17 all four ; first set lasted over 9 track days at Brainard ,MN . www.birperformance.com (http://www.birperformance.com) ... First set heat cycled out prior to tread loss w/ 9 days on track ... Second set had 60% plus tread left after 6 days prior to season end... I'm very happy w/ them & will be looking for a fresh set this spring ...They stick very well & have great feed-back ...
BIR's lead instructor / Gary Curtis raced Panoz GTS Professionally stated he could put my car any where he wanted ... Note : Springs / 550 front ; 350 rear ; sway-bar kit from Panoz ... Set-up by Archer Racing

Thanks for all the great feedback. I bought the 274/40-17's all around. Nitto NT-01 to save a couple bucks. ($790, for a set of four) It will be a great improvement over what I am used to.

Wess,

Where did you get them.

David

discount tire direct has the Nitto's the cheapest I've ever found.

I found them at onlinetire.com but then called Discounttire.com to have them beat the price. Discount tire is affiliated with a local shop that mounted/balanced them. That made the most sense overall.