Are karting tires too wide?

Ted Hamilton

Helmet Painter / Racer
I hear some teams occasionally say their tires "got down in the dirt" and worked really well....and other drivers say that their kart handles better at 420# than it did at 375.... which leads me to consider the contact patches and relative pressure. Friction is a function of the pressure available, and the apparent downward vector of weight (loading) is a relative constant in oval racing... Has anyone tried running 6, 8, 10" tire widths back to back and found any interesting results? I'm wondering if our karts are too wide tired for the stock classes... High hp classes may benefit from being "over tired" in the static sense to take advantage of wider contact patches for acceleration... Just something I've been wondering.
 
I hear some teams occasionally say their tires "got down in the dirt" and worked really well....and other drivers say that their kart handles better at 420# than it did at 375.... which leads me to consider the contact patches and relative pressure. Friction is a function of the pressure available, and the apparent downward vector of weight (loading) is a relative constant in oval racing... Has anyone tried running 6, 8, 10" tire widths back to back and found any interesting results? I'm wondering if our karts are too wide tired for the stock classes... High hp classes may benefit from being "over tired" in the static sense to take advantage of wider contact patches for acceleration... Just something I've been wondering.
I call it rolling resistance. Not sure if that term is correct, but on the plate classes I think it would apply without a doubt, not sure about the stocker classes. I've thought about putting the 6.0 tires that everyone runs on the LR on a narrower rim and put it on the RF and only running the 9's on the RR. It would be a lot of R&D to get the tire size back to the 34 everyone runs on the RS then you have 4 different tires/wheel sizes vs 3 and have to work to get the balance back.
 
They are wide enough until you lose traction . Then there not wide enough .
What you gain on the straight you would lose in the turn .
 
I've often wondered about this. I built a specialty Sprint sit up kart for induro racing. I equipped it with smaller (then normally used) front and rear tires with the medium compound and raised the pressures way up. My driver, with very little induro experience, led every lap but the last one. Long story.
I take that back, he did lose the lead for a couple laps. He saw the EGT reading only 1050 and thought he could get it to go higher, he couldn't, (small amounts of detonation) and he lost the lead until he tuned it back in.
 
They are wide enough until you lose traction . Then there not wide enough .
What you gain on the straight you would lose in the turn .

I'm not looking to gain on the straights...I'm looking to make the tires work in their optimum loading and temperature windows... That makes them gain everywhere.
 
I think in high horse stuff it would take you steps backwards... but nothing you couldn’t tune chassis and driver through but in the small plate and stock predator stuff I’d almost bet the right sides are overkill and scrubbing way more speed than they are helping with the cause. I’ll find out this year because I’m building a stock predator kart for myself. May be a pain getting the numbers right but I’ll try it for sure. Was also gonna try going old school with an aluminum axle and if need be I’ll drive the wood dow rod back the right side of it.
 
I remember running what is currently the left fronts on the left front and the LR. size on the RF and RR and a weird smaller size on the LR. But the older chassis and bars couldn't clear the big tires we run now on them. The mid 90's was a fun time in kart racing with no prep and actually different compounds. The RF. Spindle was to short rim rubbed on tie-rods or stuck real far out if you used the current right sides on a older chassis. On asphalt a few years back we ran the small left front on left rear seamed to work fine.
 
I hear some teams occasionally say their tires "got down in the dirt" and worked really well....and other drivers say that their kart handles better at 420# than it did at 375.... which leads me to consider the contact patches and relative pressure. Friction is a function of the pressure available, and the apparent downward vector of weight (loading) is a relative constant in oval racing... Has anyone tried running 6, 8, 10" tire widths back to back and found any interesting results? I'm wondering if our karts are too wide tired for the stock classes... High hp classes may benefit from being "over tired" in the static sense to take advantage of wider contact patches for acceleration... Just something I've been wondering.
Friction is certainly part of the equation for grip, as well as loading, but there are more parts such as the heat buildup in the tire, air pressure, dynamic load changes (you described static loading), tire spring rate, shape of the tire contact patch, and of course track conditions...

Years ago I did some back-to-back tire width tests, but since tire compounds have changed since then I'd need to retest (using modern tires) to see what's currently relevant. Also, my tests used tires with no prep - preps change things drastically. My kart liked wider tires while the track was wet than when the track dried out or wore in. I could feel my 10" RF dragging and fighting me in the turns once the track got worked in - it was definitely happier with an 8" RF, and our stopwatch agreed. We were running stock heavy (350 pounds) back then with a home-built Briggs flathead that was making less power than today's clones. When we switched over to a professionally built Limited Modified flathead then the kart did work fine with that 10" RF on worked-in tracks. I figured that we needed the extra width while turning, due to the increased momentum that the modified engine created going into the turns.
 
A stock car weigh's anywhere from 3,100 to 3,700 lbs and uses a 15" tire. I've been trying to save up to get a kart just to go and test different stuff like this. I personally think you could run 6's on right side along with the right adjustments.
If any engine builder's finds let say 1 HP, I'd guess that engine's price just increased and half the field would eventually pay. Well I'd guess that the difference in weight between a 9" and 6" tires would be a pound of turning weight in the rear axle and would be close to equalling the speed that 1 HP gave. The one who trys odd things like this and work more in the shop than at the track earns there speed, they don't buy it....
 
Last edited:
Yes, try out different stuff to find out how it really works. But be careful to compare apples to apples.

The energy needed to get a tire spinning, or change the amount it is spinning, is its moment of inertia ("I").
The moment of inertia is the mass ("m") times the square of perpendicular distance to the rotation axis ("r"): I = mr^2.

Now what does that really mean? Well, that "mass" is at a point somewhere out from the center of the axle ("r"). You can get "m" by weighing the tire... but the wheel contributes too so you should weigh it too... trouble is, the tire's weight matters more than the wheel's weight because it is further away from the centerline of the axle.

For a tire mounted on a wheel, which in turn is mounted on an axle, "r" can be measured from the centerline of the axle to anywhere along the sidewall of the tire. You'll get different answers depending on where along the sidewall you choose to measure - especially because this measurement needs to be squared in the calculation.

Your stock car's tires are a lot bigger in radius than a kart's tires. The kart probably has a better power-to-weight ratio than the stock car. So while you can do these experiments to get a general feel for reactions to different size tires, the two vehicle's size and power differences can skew the overall results enough to fool you if you're not careful.

Then you have the question of "what are you trying to optimize?". Acceleration? Corner grip? Drag? These can work against each other.

BTW, for the question of where to measure "r" on the tire, I prefer to use the outer (tread) edge of the tire. Since the "I" calculation is sensitive to this "r" value, I use what I feel is the "worst case" which would be the longest possible "r". If the track tends to stay heavy during feature races, I measure "r" on a tire after I come off the track and the tire is still dirty (I include the thickness of the mud). For "m" I also weigh the wheel / tire / mud assembly. That buildup of mud is heavy enough to effect the calculation - especially on small tires like on a kart. I weigh while the mud is still wet because it will weigh less when it dries.

Now what do I do with the results? Compare them to what the stopwatch says.
In my experience with both stock cars and karts, I've found that often the stock car has more horsepower than I can hook up to the track while the kart is opposite (it is too easy to bog the kart motor down by getting the tires too hooked to the track). So for stock cars it was more important to optimize tire grip for turning... for karts it is important to balance tire grip with engine torque.

I'm not faulting your idea, I'm just trying to warn you about my own problems while travelling down that road.
 
Back
Top