PedalFaster

I'm also puzzled by these. As aklucsarits pointed out, BFGoodrich built the highly successful Comp T/A R1 tire in the '90s, but its construction was the opposite of the Scott tire -- it had a softer *outer* sidewall, which is logical since it allowed the tire to conform better as the car rolled during cornering. The Scott tire uses a softer inner sidewall combined with lots of static negative camber, which allows for a larger contact patch when driving in a straight line, but would seemingly result in worse response to body roll.

As asrautox pointed out, the non-R-compound Scott tires actually produced worse test results than the OEM tires, which doesn't help the case for the new tires.

tunerjetta29

People have been doing this for years when shaving tires for road racing. Thats why it is specifically banned in several classes.

omairtheman1

The only way I'd actually consider this is if I see some proven numbers under hard acceleration with a comparable tire and some cornering G's along with slalom tests. The design makes sense in my head... but the only part that I'm conflicted with is cornering load.

Saki GT

The problem is, without the same tread compound, comparisons are almost meaningless.

ace123

Why doesn't he bias-shave a tire as his proof of concept, then market the tire to lower performance vehicles? That's cheaper than a prototype and will give a better test result.

PedalFaster

Yes, but again, they do the opposite of what this tire does. Racers shave the outside edge of the tire to allow it to conform better when the car rolls in a corner. This guy's making the outside edge of the tire taller to allow it to lie flat with large amounts of static negative camber.