LTO kart racing stagger question

my tire pressures on the pavement vary by track conditions and the track surface heat itself....they can vary between 10 and 15 pounds...my usual set up is 15RR, 14LR, 13RF, 11LF.....that sets me at about 7/8 of an inch across the back and just about 1.25 across the front....and the track temp between 85 and 90....any hotter and I go down by about .25 to .5 per on each...the temps of the tires after a hard run average about 105 to 110 ...I try to get them about equal all the way around.....

I also go into turn one at the bottom and let it slide up thru two and down the sweeping back stretch (track is "D" shaped).. I go high into three and hitting the apex, run it down the bank getting a run off the corner and down the front.....seems to give me the best momentum....
 
When banking is introduced(above 10 Deg.) and because of our low center of gravity, weight/ forces stop trying to turn us over, and actually try to roll the kart under itself
 
Mikey. with 7/8 rear stagger your running a low banked track, when I built clay city we had 13 in the straights and 23 in the turns, that is med. banking and bull rings will run up near 30 deg
 
Al, tires have a minimum roll out. They will grow with rotational speed, but they will never shrink below their minimum roll out.

The RR or outside rear tire on the track Al, has grown depending on the speed it is rotating. But no matter what load is put on it, it's roll out will remain the same.

Think of a military tank tread Al. No matter how it is contorted it's distance traveled in one revolution remains the same. Now if the tank track is made out of rubber and is spun fast enough it will stretch or grow. But once again while it is stretched, no matter what load is put on it, if it's rpm remains the same, it will keep it's roll out the same.
 
i got the pressures wrong for the rear! it's 14LR and 15RR.....the track is called a medium banked track with like 9 or 10 degrees in the turns and 5 or 6 degrees in the straights....turn two is a sweeper and you get some good run off heading down the back, but turn four is super tight getting straight for the front stretch...that's why i try to diamond turn three/four and get the run down off the banking...i think the track is great for kart racing. nice banking and big and wide! the draw back is the tight turn four....it's easy to run out of room coming out of the turn and get up close and personal with the wall!

the tank tread is a nice thought, but think of the drag tires....they distort something fierce during a run, but they still will only roll out so much...whether under power or sitting in the garage....if the rollout changes any, it's so minor that it's not worth trying to measure....
 
Dragsters go straight. Oval karts turn left. Any change in roll out during a race can very well be the difference in winning or losing.
 
the tank tread is a nice thought, but think of the drag tires....they distort something fierce during a run, but they still will only roll out so much...whether under power or sitting in the garage....if the rollout changes any, it's so minor that it's not worth trying to measure....
if you've ever been to a drag race where they ran AA fuel dragsters, when they do their burn in's, you would see that the tires grow quite a large amount in diameter and this means a much longer rollout. Pi times the diameter equals the rollout. At 300 miles per hour that same thing happens, maybe not as much, but it's substantial.

From the desk of Al Nunley
Comments compliments criticisms and questions always welcome.
If the data does not support the theory, get a new theory. (Al Nunley)
 
Dragsters go straight. Oval karts turn left. Any change in roll out during a race can very well be the difference in winning or losing.

I like and think you just wrote a great reply. And here's the 'me' of it and a darn good reason for me to like your reply. ... :)

Ever read on here someone say, "With stagger unless your traveling a perfect circle which matches up to your stagger, one tire or the other must be slipping.

I think the above sentence is true, but there is a lot more which goes into determining how much each tire will slip and all of them are things which relate to the tires and the tracks, physical characteristics. Some for the tire would be the operated diameter, the grip characteristics of it's rubber, side wall flex, etc., and the resulting operated slip angle and slip ratio. For the track we will look at the clay; is there a layer of dirt, stone or rubble between the tire and the clay; a layer of water; and the list goes on and on. I have no doubt Al's spread sheet is accurate for determining diameter when just one radius is involved. And I see him searching to try to relate his calculations to as large a history of data as possible, in an attempt to find some close starting point for any track. Al, what your missing is if you do gather data on all tracks and you are able to tweak your spreadsheet to become close enough to be useful for a starting point, they what? The fact is to prove the validity of the spread sheet, you already have gathered the needed data, on what is required for a good starting point.

I realized the falsehood of a spread sheet to predict stagger many years ago. It came along with gaining knowledge about the seemingly endless amount of variables involved with tires and the track. I chose instead Al, to see if I could come up with a less complicated way of predicting needs out on the track to fix on track problems. I hope you see Al or should I say I hope you all see, identifying and fixing on track problems is the only way to go faster. I found over the years a solid staggered axle, must be used in an ideal specific way to go fast. And everything you do is to enhance your ability to make your staggered solid axle, work in the ideal way.

Back to the subject. For every staggered solid axle out there on a track, and because of your ability to adjusted what you race towards the ideal, there is a best amount of stagger to use. In general if all are racing karts on the same track, with the same tires, needed stagger will be close. And for any given track the close amount of stagger, may match up very closely to calculations of a chosen single radius. The radius picked to make the calculations, may more often then not come close to what is needed. But if the only way to prove the calculations come close is to have knowledge of what is needed, the effort seems to me to be fruitless.

Trying to find a way to get value out of the effort, I just thought about this. Al, if you do indeed find a spread sheet which does predict accurately a close stagger baseline for tracks, I think it could then be used to help determine which way you may want to go on other variables, which you may want to change. Al, looking forward with your spreadsheet, if it's to be used to predict setup there must be at least one accurate baseline. Assuming the stagger baseline is accurate, then a number could be put on other variables and all could be interacted with numerically and used. If your spread sheet proves to be accurate, I can then see others saying, "hey, what if I included this or that to Al's spread sheet".

Long story short, everything using a solid staggered axle, has a best stagger based on a thousand other inputs. And in general more stagger will get you more turning power, depending on a lot of other things. Now if I take all this back to my original question and only include turning power, I think I could change the question to be, "As banking increases, do you need more turning power?".

I think I'd like to take a shot at answering my new question. Let's say you are on a 90 degree track, going fast enough to over come gravity trying to pull you down; as a result are stuck to the track very well and going straight. Because of all the forces involved holding you on the vertical wall going straight, wouldn't it take a lot of effort to turn the wheel, opposing all the force holding you on the wall? Then if stagger helps you turn, wouldn't you need the most stagger helping you turn and over come the forces holding you to the wall? When you on the wall going straight all the logic would remain the same and if you had stagger, one tire or the other must be slipping. So depending on how you had your rear tires loaded, even on the wall going straight, you could have either the left or right rear tire doing the slipping. ... It gets to be complicated again and include all the same variables again doesn't it? I think the thoughts will be, even if your glued to the vertical wall going straight more stagger will likely help you turn. or it won't because this is all IMHO and ain't necessarily right anyway. ... :)
 
Replying to thoughts about dragsters:

With us it's about how much turning ability you get our of your axle and controlling when the turning ability occurs. If you cannot make the rear tires roll in the direction you want to go, then the front tires MUST make the axle turn and roll in the direction you want to go. ... period.

With a dragster it's all about controlling slip ratio and having maximized equal slip ratio across the back through all phases of tire growth.

Our front tires are fighting the rear tires slip angles for control of direction and we loose speed because of the battle. A dragsters front tires are fighting the rear tires slip ratios for control of direction and they loose speed because of the battle.

If our rear tires are creating too much of a conflict for over all direction of travel and the front tires can not over come it, we must slow down or hit the wall. If a dragsters rear tires are creating too much of a conflict for over all direction of travel and the front tires can not over come it, they must slow down or hit the wall.
 
Here is how my spreadsheet works.

As a kart goes around a circle, the inside tire is turning one diameter circle and the outside tire is turning another diameter circle. All my spreadsheet does is calculate what the difference in run out has to be so that both tires turn the same number of revolutions on the circles they are rolling on. It says right on the spreadsheet that this is only a theoretical calculation. Meaning; it's a place to start. Nowhere on the spreadsheet does say, "if you don't follow these instructions you will lose".

One thing I hate is to see somebody misquote me and then build their case based on that erroneous misquote. If you want to quote me, and then prove that my assumptions are wrong, at least quote me accurately. And don't say my name and in the same sentence tell people what I'm thinking. Unless I write it down, you have no idea what I'm thinking, and even if I write it down, there are some that will not understand.

From the desk of Al Nunley
Comments compliments criticisms and questions always welcome.
If the data does not support the theory, get a new theory. (Al Nunley)
 
"And don't say my name and in the same sentence tell people what I'm thinking. Unless I write it down,"

I'll do my best to remember and not do it again.
________________________
"Unless I write it down, you have no idea what I'm thinking,"

I know what your thinking Al. Because you wrote it down, I know your thinking I don't know what your thinking.
________________________

"and even if I write it down, there are some that will not understand."

So? Get over it and move on without letting it bother you.
________________________

The point I'm making Al, is to prove your spread sheet valuable you need data from tracks and if you have the data then your spread sheet is not needed for it's intended purpose. But I think if you do prove it to be correct, even though it's not needed for it's intended purpose, it can become a valuable base for other things.
 
Personally I feel that Al's spreadsheet would be a great source for a starting point, particularly for those that haven't had success on their own. I find tha tafter about 30 yrs. of running dirt ovals, I can often go to a new track and visually pick my ratio within 2-3 teeth, based on previous tracks we've run.
 
Last edited:
Al,

" It says right on the spreadsheet that this is only a theoretical calculation. Meaning; it's a place to start."

Just because it's a theoretical calculation, does not mean it's >"a place to start". Just because you state it's "a place to start", does not mean it is. If you gather proof of it being a "place to start", then it is no longer needed and would hope you offer your proof, as a place to start.

How is your spread sheet used, Al? What are the steps necessary to use your spread sheet?
 
Personally I feel that Al's spreadsheet would be a great source for a starting point, particularly for those that haven't had success on their own. I find tha tafter about 30 yrs. of running dirt ovals, I can often go to a new track and visually pick my ratio within 2-3 teeth, based on previous tracks we've run.

I also feel, if it's accurate, it would be a great source of help.

I guess it all boils down to is it accurate or not. If it reflects needing less stagger as banking increases, then IMHO, it is not accurate. Others and myself respond to Al, that it is not accurate because regarding banking the opposite it true. And Al always comes back saying everyone is wrong because his calculations are correct.

Nobody disputes his calculations, everybody I read, including myself, are disputing what his accurate calculations include and relate to.

Jack, I respect your racing experience and knowledge. Do you feel it's generally true that when banking increases, your run less stagger?
 
Al, every time someone in a post in any area of this board mentions stagger, you jump in suggesting your spread sheet be looked at.

Well Al, in this thread I'm suggesting just that. I'm suggesting we look at your spread sheet. Since it's involved so much on this board, we need to look at it and determine if it is accurate. We need to look at it to see if it's general conclusion of needing less stagger as banking increases, is true or not.

On the Al side, I want to say I'm wrong when I think about a flat indoor track and it's high stagger. On the other side I hear and read on here, about not reducing stagger as banking increases. I don't see the possibility of there being an in between on this. I only see the possibility of using wrong inputs and coming to a wrong conclusion.

I just had another thought on it, which also makes it puzzling. If zero stagger is what's required to go around a 90 degree banked track, then what is the numerical amount of stagger required to go around a 0 degree track. Either it's 0 stagger for a 90 degree banked track and infinite stagger for a flat track, or there something else involved and not being included in the equation.

hummmm... ok... What IS the number amount of stagger needed for a flat track, which has the same turn radius of the 90 degree track? What does the spread sheet tell us? What are our inputs? Lets say it's a 30 foot radius turn, wheels in the back are 30 inches apart, right side tire is 30 inches in circumference and naturally the banking is 90 degrees. What does the calculated stagger become? I assume it will calculate to zero, because we are told zero stagger is needed on a 90 degree track. OK... now lets change only the banking to zero degrees... what does it give us for a starting point for stagger?

Answer: ?
 
I just had another thought on it, which also makes it puzzling. If zero stagger is what's required to go around a 90 degree banked track, then what is the numerical amount of stagger required to go around a 0 degree track. Either it's 0 stagger for a 90 degree banked track and infinite stagger for a flat track, or there something else involved and not being included in the equation.

hummmm... ok... What IS the number amount of stagger needed for a flat track, which has the same turn radius of the 90 degree track? What does the spread sheet tell us? What are our inputs? Lets say it's a 30 foot radius turn, wheels in the back are 30 inches apart, right side tire is 30 inches in circumference and naturally the banking is 90 degrees. What does the calculated stagger become? I assume it will calculate to zero, because we are told zero stagger is needed on a 90 degree track. OK... now lets change only the banking to zero degrees... what does it give us for a starting point for stagger?

Answer: ?
30 inches apart, center to center, 2 5/16 stagger on a 30 foot radius turn. Assuming a RR tire of 30 inches circumference.

I shouldn't even respond to this gobbledygook.

You hypothesize gobbledygook then come to conclusions that are gobbledygook.

One thing I'll say, the subject sure got your attention.

My Excel spreadsheet is 690,000 bytes. I have been working on this thing for about five years. I have had some help. My corners weight spreadsheet is so extensive I'm afraid some people don't know how to use it. It tells you a lot more than any corners weight spreadsheet has ever told you.

Please do not send private messages asking for the spreadsheet. If you would like to see it, it's free, send an email to anunley@austin.rr.com

From the desk of Al Nunley
Comments compliments criticisms and questions always welcome.
If the data does not support the theory, get a new theory. (Al Nunley)
 
Thank you for the reply Al. You made no reference to banking. Can I assume as banking increases to 90 degrees, stagger would reduce proportionally to zero at 90 degrees?

... I'll just rant on about it for the sake of who know what..

If it's 2 and 5/16 at zero banking and zero stagger, at 90 degrees banking, then at 10 degrees of banking the stagger needed would be 1/9 of 2 and 5/16's. Does that sound correct?

(using 2.3125 instead of 2 and 5/16's)
or trying to do the math I can divide 2.3125 by 9. I think that = 2.3125 less .2569 or 2.0556 inches of stagger.

I'll round it off and say your spread sheet will say: When going from a flat track where 2 and 5/16's stagger was working, to a 10 degree banked track, you should reduce your stagger to, 2 inches. Up front it does not sound unreasonable. I wonder what others will say. Maybe your winning me over Al. ... :)

nawwww... I just got to argue it more. To argue more I have to ask, is 2 and 5/16's is a reasonable amount of stagger for a flat track with a 30 foot radius? I don't know the answer to the question, I suspect it's more.

thanks your making my brain hurt


edit: Al, I'm not about being right. I'm about finding out if I'm right and then moving on.
 
People shouldn't use the 90* banking thing as an attempt to theorize anything associated with stagger. First of all, we will never run 90* of banking. Second of all, IF we did we not be turning. We would still be traveling straight forward. Think about that. That's why 90* banking would require zero stagger. The only weight transfer would be vertical. The kart would never see any lateral weight transfer. Stagger is used not only to help keep the kart freed up in the corner, but also as a means to help control lateral weight transfer. Now dang it I said I wasn't gonna get in this mess. Lock the thread. NOW!!!
 
I don't assume there is no need to turn or accelerate, when racing on a 90 degree track. I see the kart behind turning left, gaining acceleration to over take the kart ahead. I see racing on a 90 degree bank being very exciting, with karts constantly darting down the bank to pass or get along side another kart. When they do I also see how rear tire loading and stagger could come into play. Who's to say on a 90 degree banked track you won't have the right rear loaded up big time and only use the LR, when you want to turn left or down to accelerate past the kart ahead.
 
This stuff is fun to think about. At least it's fun for me. ... :)

Ain't never going to learn it all, best I can try for is to find out where I'm wrong and move on.
 
Back
Top