1 2
bravenrace
bravenrace PowerDork
12/12/12 2:39 p.m.

In reply to Javelin:

It was just a question.

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
12/12/12 2:51 p.m.

In reply to bravenrace:

I understand that. I am not going to get into another round-robin with you. I explained it all in the email response. If that doesn't clear it up, email me again.

Hopefully your question has been sufficiently answered until Goodyear announces something or some more evidence comes out.

z31maniac
z31maniac PowerDork
12/12/12 2:56 p.m.

Javelin wonders why people bust on him for how he replies in threads.

33% of the posts in this thread are yours, half of them snarky.

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
12/12/12 3:03 p.m.

In reply to z31maniac:

Sorry, but I'm not going to drag all of the emails I got from brave into the public. Nothing I've said is intended to be snarky, and I'm sorry if it appears that way, but the context is those emails, and that's where it needs to stay.

I went too far on my original reply to his comment that I perceived as being in poor taste, and I apologized. Sorry if I'm trying to avoid a follow-up drama fest.

Thanks, and have a good day.

andrave
andrave HalfDork
12/12/12 3:08 p.m.

Perhaps it would help if you understood hearsay. For instance, the reply you hammered out in anger that initially sparked this extended diatribe from you; also hearsay. Its a third party conveying what was told to them from the party in question. Its hearsay.

Now, does it meet any exceptions? Is it an excited utterance, for instance? Is it a business record kept in the normal course of business? I submit to you, that it is not. Therefore, it is unexcepted hearsay and is therefore inadmissible in a court of law, and, apparently, this forum. Your objections are noted.

bravenrace
bravenrace PowerDork
12/12/12 3:28 p.m.
andrave wrote: Perhaps it would help if you understood hearsay. For instance, the reply you hammered out in anger that initially sparked this extended diatribe from you; also hearsay. Its a third party conveying what was told to them from the party in question. Its hearsay. Now, does it meet any exceptions? Is it an excited utterance, for instance? Is it a business record kept in the normal course of business? I submit to you, that it is not. Therefore, it is unexcepted hearsay and is therefore inadmissible in a court of law, and, apparently, this forum. Your objections are noted.

Please excuse me for not having 100% faith in everything I read on the internet. I know it's foolish of me.

Ian F
Ian F PowerDork
12/12/12 4:27 p.m.

I think the point Javelin was trying to make is the source - Kiesel - is fairly credible in autocross circles and would be unlikely to post anything negative about one his main sponsers without being damn sure of himself.

Don49
Don49 Reader
12/12/12 5:25 p.m.

The SCCA NEDIV Champion in GTL informed me that he will be on Hoosiers next season as Goodyear has told him no road race tires will be produced. I would take this a s credible source. I know he has been back and forth in discussion with Goodyear at the end of last season because of lack of available tires.

andrave
andrave HalfDork
12/13/12 8:02 a.m.

all the above are also hearsay. Please reread the definition. If the question is credibility, well, thats a different issue, and I'd need to run a criminal background check, at minimum.

sobe_death
sobe_death HalfDork
12/14/12 2:10 p.m.

Any 'utterances' that this might be the beginning of sweeping new revolutions in tire technology being released (carbon nanotubes, superglue, etc..) ?

Seems like if a tire company who advertises performance and racing pedigree is dropping ~85% of their competition tire lineup, there has to be something else going on behind the scenes...

andrave
andrave Dork
12/14/12 2:39 p.m.

seems unlikely you would want to alienate your most loyal customers (including your sponsors) before releasing an unproven technology?

oldsaw
oldsaw PowerDork
12/14/12 3:30 p.m.

In reply to andrave:

Loyal Goodyear customers are publically stating the company is constricting their product line. Rather than place the onus on the end-users, why not demand disclosure from Goodyear itself?

It seems apparent that the company has berkelyed-up a simple PR situation or doesn't give a damn about the affected competitors.

kb58
kb58 HalfDork
12/14/12 3:34 p.m.

Meh, line-out their name and look for alternatives. In the big scheme of things they aren't that important, and whatever competitive issues this may cause also affects your competitors as well. What's that saying, "if this is your biggest problem in life then you're doing well?" Time to move on.

Streetwiseguy
Streetwiseguy UltraDork
12/16/12 10:39 a.m.

Confirmation of the story through the short track stock car world. We have a meeting on Monday night, in part to discuss what to replace our Goodyear race tires with.

1 2

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
alPChwgjBxBqV68w8uxtLdKjTjeanPdAmjPZjLZuy0BpNqKvBBqwglnQfGHX6nCi