Quote
Billyee
This has nothing to do with RA, they are illegal to use in the state of Michigan.

MCL 257.710 allows for the use of studded tires if they meet the specifications listed in subparts (c), (d), and (e). The part that specifically deals with studded tires is subpart (d) which states; "The department of state highways and transportation shall promulgate rules establishing acceptable standards to permit the use of a tire with studs or other traction devices to be used on a street or highway after April 1, 1975. The rules shall make separate provision for the extreme winter snow and ice conditions of the Upper Peninsula and the Northern Lower Peninsula. The rules shall include a restriction on the amount and dimension of protrusions that may be allowed on a tire, the type of material that may be used in a stud, traction device, or tire, and the amount of road wear that a tire with studs or other traction devices may cause on a street or highway."

Administrative Rules 247.171 through 247.175 govern studded tires and set the criteria for their use.

These rules state two conditions that must be met for the use of studded tires. Note: to date no manufacturer of tire studs has supplied information to the Michigan Department of Transportation that their product meets or exceeds the required pavement wear specifications.

First, they can only be used between November 15 and April 1 of the succeeding year except in the Upper Peninsula and the Northern Lower Peninsula , where, because of extreme winter snow and ice conditions, they may be used between October 1 and May 1of the succeeding year. Northern Lower Peninsula is defined as those counties whose southern boundaries are as far or farther north than the southern boundary of Missaukee county.

Second, studs or other traction devices shall not be used unless they wear either concrete or asphalt pavements, typical of those in this state, at a rate not to exceed 25% of the reference standard studded tire.

But regardless, what John said.

---

"Talk about drugs. Driving a car like that, going that fast, it’s like all the drugs at once." - Tommy Byrne

"Now, Pinky, if by any chance you are captured during this mission, remember you are Gunther Heindriksen from Appenzell. You moved to Grindelwald to drive the cog train to Murren. Can you repeat that?" - The Brain

If everyone is on snows then there is no benefit to changing to studs. As pointed out the field still finsihed in the normal order. It all washes out. Who cares if the field averaged 35mph or 45 mph? Its all relative.

I enjoyed the bits we watched. Matt was great and having a knowledgable commentator was awesome even with the goofs, changing order and lost start order. Could be the start of a great year.

in no particular order:

• although that vid claims to be from the slowest stages, the action it shows doesn't look nearly as slow and slippy as what was shown in the "live coverage" - ie. Chris D inching his way up the hill off the start on ss4? and the hairpin w/ almost everybody sliding out on day 2.
• are wrc-length studs street-legal for everybody in Norway/Sweden?
• the live coverage was, for the most part, a step up from the only other "live coverage" I've seen of US rally - the live cam from New York a year or two ago - except that the NY coverage didn't cut out nearly as often.
  
  Unfortunately, I don't think it's meaningful for anybody but us idiots who are already sucked in.
  
  IMO, there's three levels of rally interest in the US:
  1. "Rally Fans" - Folks that stop changing the channel when they see WRC on, or see an article on jalopink and say, "this is pretty cool, I wish there was an event within 10 minutes of my house so I didn't have to inconvenience myself at all."
  
  2. "Rally Enthusiasts" - Actively follow WRC, occasionally check in on rally-america's site, have been to an event or two as a spectator.
  
  3. the rest of us idiots - folks who volunteer, crew, compete, or waste hours on SS/here.
  
  Even if the stream worked perfectly, I don't see the coverage they've got appealing to anyone but those of us in group #3. And if you're going to have any success trying to grow the sport from the top down - you've got to be appealing to, and growing, groups #1 and #2.

---

KF7RWG
http://www.utahrallygroup.com

Quote
wvonkessler

Quote
Billyee
This has nothing to do with RA, they are illegal to use in the state of Michigan.

MCL 257.710 allows for the use of studded tires if they meet the specifications listed in subparts (c), (d), and (e). The part that specifically deals with studded tires is subpart (d) which states; "The department of state highways and transportation shall promulgate rules establishing acceptable standards to permit the use of a tire with studs or other traction devices to be used on a street or highway after April 1, 1975. The rules shall make separate provision for the extreme winter snow and ice conditions of the Upper Peninsula and the Northern Lower Peninsula. The rules shall include a restriction on the amount and dimension of protrusions that may be allowed on a tire, the type of material that may be used in a stud, traction device, or tire, and the amount of road wear that a tire with studs or other traction devices may cause on a street or highway."

Administrative Rules 247.171 through 247.175 govern studded tires and set the criteria for their use.

These rules state two conditions that must be met for the use of studded tires. Note: to date no manufacturer of tire studs has supplied information to the Michigan Department of Transportation that their product meets or exceeds the required pavement wear specifications.

First, they can only be used between November 15 and April 1 of the succeeding year except in the Upper Peninsula and the Northern Lower Peninsula , where, because of extreme winter snow and ice conditions, they may be used between October 1 and May 1of the succeeding year. Northern Lower Peninsula is defined as those counties whose southern boundaries are as far or farther north than the southern boundary of Missaukee county.

Second, studs or other traction devices shall not be used unless they wear either concrete or asphalt pavements, typical of those in this state, at a rate not to exceed 25% of the reference standard studded tire.

But regardless, what John said.

Bier für genosse Herr Advokat von Kessler...

viele dank, y'all.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Quote
john vanlandingham
The truth is: NOBODY has ever even bothered to ask if, along with closing temporarily roads, driving at whatever speed, etc, crews could use some sort of studs for the couple of hours the total time of the event runs is.

Just curious, how do you know nobody has ever asked about using studs.

Really, it doesn't matter - for what-ever reason the event and the sanctioning body don't allow studs. Their reasoning is immaterial. The DNF rates at the event were low (4/29 in the national, 6/38 in the first regional, 3/36 in the second regional and 2/22 in Sno-Attack)

But back to studs - what would you have them allow? 'Aggressive' street studs like we do up here in Canada or do you want to have full on WRC style studs 'cause that's what you see on TV so that's what you've got to have?

It's important to note that Big White has been won by a studless car all three years its run. (I think, buy can't be sure, that the entire podium has been studless all three years.) This year was an ice fest and studless still won.

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

one of the zero cars had studs.

Quote
john vanlandingham
The truth is: NOBODY has ever even bothered to ask if, along with closing temporarily roads, driving at whatever speed, etc, crews could use some sort of studs for the couple of hours the total time of the event runs is.

Quote

Just curious, how do you know nobody has ever asked about using studs.

Because after 10 years of listening to the smae lame answers in the "in before' post I basically cornered several of the key people and asked the question directly "Has anybody ever even asked?"
And was told "No, we never have even asked".

Thats how.

Quote

Really, it doesn't matter - for what-ever reason the event and the sanctioning body don't allow studs. Their reasoning is immaterial. The DNF rates at the event were low (4/29 in the national, 6/38 in the first regional, 3/36 in the second regional and 2/22 in Sno-Attack)

It only matters in that it simply is less fun.
I have done 3 no studs winter rallies, all 3 insanely icy, and it just wasn't fun to have t pussyfoot the approach to and thru every corner.
I have driven tens of htousands of KM in SNOW and enjoy that, but won't bother with ice with just rubber...
I know quite a few experienced people in the likely area up there who say they won't bother either, just hain't fun enough.

Quote

But back to studs - what would you have them allow? 'Aggressive' street studs like we do up here in Canada or do you want to have full on WRC style studs 'cause that's what you see on TV so that's what you've got to have?

I don't do WRC, I have always been a club guy, and only know what club guys use in Sweden and Finland and have seen it in person and it's flat exciting. So why not what they use?

Quote

It's important to note that Big White has been won by a studless car all three years its run. (I think, buy can't be sure, that the entire podium has been studless all three years.) This year was an ice fest and studless still won.

Good for them..
Can you assure me they would have had less fun had they had decent club type Finnish or Swedish studded tires?,

we all know what those are like...


Funny that for 10+ years there's all this push by newcomers to the sport "We need to align our rules to "best practices' elsewhere.
Well the Finns and the Swedes are the absolute best in the whole gawddam world at Winter Rally, it is enormously popular, and thousands of people stand out in the snow watching...

Yet a club level Swedish guy (top 10 clubbie) wrote me a PM on some world forum after watch SloDrift a couple of years ago and asked "What's wrong with everybody there? Something must be wrong because it looks like they're either out of control or unbelievably slow" and when i answered "No studs' he was not believing it "Are you sure? That can't be, its horribly boring to watch. Why in the world would they do that? it makes no sense."

How can anybody defend people flailing around and sliding off at 5 mph as "well its the same for everybody" when most of the folks are averaging Target speeds at T-bird?

In other words:
Why NOT? allow decent studs and have even more fun?

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2012 10:22PM by john vanlandingham.

i have looked into the reasons on my own time out of curiosity. I can run studs at Big White but they have to be "road legal" which ends up at much less than european standards. Again, not sure if anyone asked, but the other is at least there.

For RA, it states no studs directly in their rules. I could have sworn studs were allowed in Mi as a state law, appearantly i was right. (Used to live in Cleveland, knew some folks in Mi).

I would just like the option. I have rear wheel drive car. I dont have the weight up front over my drive wheels that also turn. For that matter, i cant "claw" with my turning wheels either. It would just be miserable.

I have heard the "it destroys the road" arguement, but I dont buy it. There is a layer of snow and ice. Both are naturally replenished. Ive seen plenty of videos of said Finns and Sweds, and they only see the gravel where the snow is thin. Even then, the roads dont look any worse for wear than a normal gravel road, with 60 cars tearing it up with rally tires.

Some organizers pay to have the road graded afterwards anyway, so whats it matter.

---

First Rally: 2010 First RallyX: 2004 (a bunch)
Driver (0), Co-Driver (7)
Organizer (3), Volunteer (3)
Cars Built (2.5), Engines Blown (2) Cages Built (0) # of rotations (3.5)
Last Updated, Apr 9, 2023

Quote
Morison
It's important to note that Big White has been won by a studless car all three years its run. (I think, buy can't be sure, that the entire podium has been studless all three years.) This year was an ice fest and studless still won.

Oh come on Keith, even you know that that is an incomplete data set, because afaik, no one has ever BOTHERED to run studs at the front of the pack because everyone is fighting to win the 4 A034's. So, it's not "studless is faster", it's "I can win a new set of tires by running what everyone else does anyway" :p

And just because of this, even though I will probably have a set of A034's by the time Big White rolls around, I am running studded winter tires like the altimax's or some sort of Hakka for the event. Unless of course we are racing on two feet of powder like the first two years, then I'll be on either A034's or skinny studded snow tires.

Still...if ya wanna run with absolute traction run on dry tarmac. Running on snow and ice presents a whole different skill set and car setup. Asking for studs only attempts to modify the conditions a bit. Why? If people want to run in snow then do so. Claiming studs makes it more fun then sunshine and hardpack is even funner. If it is all even and quite a large number of cars managed to survive it seems like quite a success.

Now studs for Ecrew, support vehicles are a different story.

Quote
john vanlandingham
... only know what club guys use in Sweden and Finland and have seen it in person and it's flat exciting. So why not what they use?

Quote


Which is what?

---

First Rally: 2001
Driver (7), Co-Driver (44)
Drivers (16)
Clerk (10), Official (7), Volunteer (4)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Last Updated, January 4, 2015

Quote
john vanlandingham
Blame is for idiots. losers.

Quote
heymagic
Still...if ya wanna run with absolute traction run on dry tarmac. Running on snow and ice presents a whole different skill set and car setup. Asking for studs only attempts to modify the conditions a bit. Why? If people want to run in snow then do so. Claiming studs makes it more fun then sunshine and hardpack is even funner. If it is all even and quite a large number of cars managed to survive it seems like quite a success.

Now studs for Ecrew, support vehicles are a different story.

Thats kinda taking it to the other extreme as well. I understand that you are protecting RAs position however. For myself, I dont mean it as an attack, I would perhaps give Sno Drift a shot either way once I live closer. The studs is more of a "why not" thing. Its still difficult, perhaps less frustrating for some. The biggest advantage I see in the no studs rule is that top levelcontenders dont need yet another set of wheels and tires. At the same time, tire costs are the name of the game in rally.

Seems like there are valid arguements for both sides of this debate.

---

First Rally: 2010 First RallyX: 2004 (a bunch)
Driver (0), Co-Driver (7)
Organizer (3), Volunteer (3)
Cars Built (2.5), Engines Blown (2) Cages Built (0) # of rotations (3.5)
Last Updated, Apr 9, 2023

Pssh, just run chains. If the average speed is 35mph, and chains fly off at 40, you'll win!

---

Welcome to the cult of JVL drink the koolaid or be banned.

Quote
Dazed_Driver
Pssh, just run chains. If the average speed is 35mph, and chains fly off at 40, you'll win!

That.

Is brilliant!

Anders

---

Grassroots rally. It's what I think about.

This is how rulebook additions are made.

RA 2012 Rule Bulletin #6 "No chains"

---

First Rally: 2010 First RallyX: 2004 (a bunch)
Driver (0), Co-Driver (7)
Organizer (3), Volunteer (3)
Cars Built (2.5), Engines Blown (2) Cages Built (0) # of rotations (3.5)
Last Updated, Apr 9, 2023