[mc/rider]

Continental Tire took over in 2016. Where there quality or quanity issues back then?

[spankytoo]

Originally Posted by Tim Folks, A local racer here just received two American Racer MC2 right rears. Assuming what he told me is true, which I have no reason not to believe him, he paid $600 for the two, including $60 for shipping. If my second grade arithmetic is correct that equates to $540 for the pair, or $270 each. Just FYI Tim Simmons

Because AR gave up. No one in Indiana will sell you an AR tire. There are only two tracks you can run an AR tire on all four corners (Paragon and Vernon). Last year when spiker had Paragon, it was Hoosier only. And vernon wasn't racing sprints with any regularity.

Still, Hoosier pushed out AR in the midwest and AR finally gave up.

[DaleDuBois]

I often wonder if the tire companies are lining the pockets of those in charge of any racing series. This is going on in our political world and we see it every day.

[stp6237]

I am not an economics professor, but in my opinion, the fact that Continental now owns the Hoosier brand, along several other brands, Hoosier is now more beholding to the stockholders of Continental than to the racers who buy their product. The stock market fluctuates wildly on a regular basis, but the few shares I have owned for a long time in various companies have grown in value. From what I learned in Economics 101 over 50 years ago, to increase stock value you need to increase demand for your product or service. You can do that by making the best product on the market, cut the cost to manufacture your product or reduce your product's competition by merger or buyouts. If you want to race you need to buy tires. If a track or organization says to race with us you MUST have this tire, you are reducing that product's competition thus increasing the value of the stock. Again, I am not an economics professor but a retired science teacher who stressed to the kids observation was the key to problem solving. Observe the problem, gather as much information about the problem, form a hypothesis to solve the problem, test the hypothesis (experiment), collect data, evaluate if your hypothesis was valid, (did the data support or reject your hypothesis.) There has to be a solution out there to our problem, we just have to work at finding it.

[TQ29m]

Originally Posted by DaleDuBois I often wonder if the tire companies are lining the pockets of those in charge of any racing series. This is going on in our political world and we see it every day.

Not in my wildest dreams would I imagine anything like this, but looks can be convincing!

[Tim]

Originally Posted by stp6237 I am not an economics professor, but in my opinion, the fact that Continental now owns the Hoosier brand, along several other brands, Hoosier is now more beholding to the stockholders of Continental than to the racers who buy their product. The stock market fluctuates wildly on a regular basis, but the few shares I have owned for a long time in various companies have grown in value. From what I learned in Economics 101 over 50 years ago, to increase stock value you need to increase demand for your product or service. You can do that by making the best product on the market, cut the cost to manufacture your product or reduce your product's competition by merger or buyouts. If you want to race you need to buy tires. If a track or organization says to race with us you MUST have this tire, you are reducing that product's competition thus increasing the value of the stock. Again, I am not an economics professor but a retired science teacher who stressed to the kids observation was the key to problem solving. Observe the problem, gather as much information about the problem, form a hypothesis to solve the problem, test the hypothesis (experiment), collect data, evaluate if your hypothesis was valid, (did the data support or reject your hypothesis.) There has to be a solution out there to our problem, we just have to work at finding it.

To explain this a bit further, I was re-educated about how the economics work in a publicly traded organization. I was always under the impression that the customers of the CEO of an organization were the folks that bought their particular product. My re-education came when I was informed that the customer of the CEO/Board of an organization are actually the investors of that organization, and the powers-that-be will do whatever it takes to insure those investors get their dividend/income in order to keep the stock price at satisfactory levels. I realized this when I put a notice in my office reading "When our focus shifts from our customers to our investors we deserve the failure that will result". I was told to remove this notice immediately. You see, if an organization begins to believe the product they make will not meet the investors expectations they are tasked with either increasing sales (such as removing competition , etc.), increasing sale price (and thereby margins/profit), or eliminating that product from their offering.

What this boils down to is publicly traded organizations have gotten to the point that they cannot continue to operate without investors so they keep them satisfied even to the point of upsetting their customers. The focus has shifted for many organizations.

Kind of backwards to my way of thinking but that's the way I see it.

Tim Simmons

[TQ29m]

Originally Posted by Tim To explain this a bit further, I was re-educated about how the economics work in a publicly traded organization. I was always under the impression that the customers of the CEO of an organization were the folks that bought their particular product. My re-education came when I was informed that the customer of the CEO/Board of an organization are actually the investors of that organization, and the powers-that-be will do whatever it takes to insure those investors get their dividend/income in order to keep the stock price at satisfactory levels. I realized this when I put a notice in my office reading "When our focus shifts from our customers to our investors we deserve the failure that will result". I was told to remove this notice immediately. You see, if an organization begins to believe the product they make will not meet the investors expectations they are tasked with either increasing sales (such as removing competition , etc.), increasing sale price (and thereby margins/profit), or eliminating that product from their offering. What this boils down to is publicly traded organizations have gotten to the point that they cannot continue to operate without investors so they keep them satisfied even to the point of upsetting their customers. The focus has shifted for many organizations. Kind of backwards to my way of thinking but that's the way I see it. Tim Simmons

I finally figured it out myself, took a long time, but that's how the rich get, well, you know how the story goes , like I can remember when the stock market was only 4 digits long, I think, then overnight it was 5 digits, and our world was running on the stock market, if you were wise, lucky, or rich, you could buy your way in, that's why the sudden abundance of millionaires, or billionaires, and as the trend continues, the lower class remains, but are no longer included in the count, a lot of us are no longer middle class, we drive pickup trucks, and not motor homes, I think I was middle class for a while, but no longer feel like it. My 2018 van has Conti's on it, and at about 6k, they got hard, and the road noise is getting worse, run over a new strip of pavement and it's like new again.

[cornerthree]

Any way you could post the to a facebook [page? Or send it to me to post on my page Help grow the sport of Racing. Everyone thinks sanctions and tracks are getting rich of thing they mandate.