I am a retired automotive engineer. That makes me worthless and my option even more so. But from the first information on the COT it seemed obviious that a larger tire was needed to handle the greater loads from the higher weight and roll center. The NASCAR COT gets much more expensive when you add room for a bigger wheel and tire package. Goodyear has lots of very educated intelligent engineers. Every engineer is always asked to put ten pounds of you know what in a five pound bag. There comes a time in every engineers career when he stands up politly and says it wil not fit or work with the given paramaters. This is not in the best interest of the engineer. He is admitting he is not man enough to do the job. In my career I figured out I would rather be fired up front for telling the truth, with data to support me. The other choice is to be fired at the end when the program fails because management wants to do things that fit into their plan for the future by ignoring reality. At this point when the product fails you are in a lose lose situation. All you can do is keep your head down and plod forward while looking for a new job.

Tires wider??? The COT car design move was TOO radical in geometry! Don't blame the huge balloons they race on now. CENTER of GRAVITY! An engineers nemesis raises it's head and NASCAR won't deal with the REAL problem. They (NASCAR) strive for safer cars and end up with a 'Checkered Cab' design worse than the Impalas they had!!!
Bigger tires are the 'short' answer ... A true engineered design car, by engineers not bowing to NASCAR, is the answer. But they don't ask anyone not already involved in NASCAR do they? We are ONLY fans!

This was brought up on the roundtable show on the 4-letter network tonight. Both Ray Evernham and Brad Daugherty agreed that NASCAR needs to "give Goodyear a bigger box to work in" because with the design of the new car, they are putting about 100 lbs more force on each of the right side tires than with the old car. Ray mentioned possibly increasing the diameter, width, or both of the right-side tires, allowing for both improved traction and improved wear rate.

Shouldn't all of this been taken into account during the design and testing of this car in the begining? I'm no engineer but making a heavier car, with less downforce and a higher center of gravity be a harder on the tires? It just seems like common sense to me.

nice avatar btw kaveman

NASCAR 'TOTALLY' dropped the ball allowing Goodyear to slide on the 2008 Brickyard fiasco. How many NASCAR tracks with cornering side forces equivalent to INDY are on the schedule for 2 1/2 mile distance?
Fans and NASCAR need to grasp the fact: there is NO track like Indy. Sure, Tony George could 'black top' the place again, but that's the gist of the problem. 'Run what you Brung'. The track surface challenge was TOTALLY brushed off by GOODYEAR. They dropped the ball for the COT [lack of down force] capabilities to run on tires on the surface. PERIOD! Even though they 'tested' with a few teams.
Goodyear is the ONLY guilty party. Sure the car handles like a checker cab but ...
Goodyear should have stepped up sooner and they didn't. Pocono tires in the wings ... what a joke!
Complacent attitudes are no excuse for lack of performance. Heads should roll and Tony George should be wielding the bat.

NO testing no info NASCAR floobed up at indy