Box Stock

rear sprocket or clutch driver

Kart43 said:
How many keyboards back a Nascar, Indy car or F1 team, your theory is flawed. There is no harm in trying to understanding what we do and why we do it. Those that just do what everybody else does are usually mediocre at best and are simply followers. A smart team that wants to be successful at a big event, is certainly not posting their set up publicly.

If you don't question what you are doing and try to educate yourself, you are simply a follower.

Out of these 5 pages there has not been a reasonable proof of this phenomenon put forth. Just because everybody does it, or that's the way Fast Bubba said to do it, inertia/friction spin up everything seems to negate the results.

If you go back through I certainly did not say it does not work, but I simply questioned and disproved many of the theories presented.

I have my conclusion, and I put this forth for thought, If a competitor was allowed to compete with a belt drive system the driver size to maintain equal ratios would not matter. I think the weakness is in the drive mechanism.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't realize where your coming from.

Did you just say when you said "I certainly did not say it does not work", you agree it does work?
 
Quote Originally Posted by paulkish View Post
Real funny then how Al jumps in on the next post and says, yeah see there is a difference and that proves what I always say about there being no difference.

Al commented:

I can only hope that people will go back and read what I really said.

__________________________

Sorry I'm so dumb but I have to ask. Do you think the same ratio with different size gears does change performance, even the smallest amount?
 
jsstump#70

I think I totally owe you an apology.

I'm sorry when I read Al's reply it was after reading about your test. I incorrectly thought you were saying your test was proof ratio doesn't make a difference.

I did use your test to show different ratio's do make a difference. I think by mistake I included you on Al's side by mistake.

I'm sorry I mixed up who I was replying to and who said what. I totally agree your test proves there is a difference.


paul
 
Do we all agree it maybe small, but there will be a performance difference when gear sizes are changed keeping the same ratio?


Are we now only arguing over reasons why and if the small difference will mean anything on the track?
 
Kart43 said:
How many keyboards back a Nascar, Indy car or F1 team, your theory is flawed. There is no harm in trying to understanding what we do and why we do it. Those that just do what everybody else does are usually mediocre at best and are simply followers. A smart team that wants to be successful at a big event, is certainly not posting their set up publicly.

If you don't question what you are doing and try to educate yourself, you are simply a follower.

Out of these 5 pages there has not been a reasonable proof of this phenomenon put forth. Just because everybody does it, or that's the way Fast Bubba said to do it, inertia/friction spin up everything seems to negate the results.

If you go back through I certainly did not say it does not work, but I simply questioned and disproved many of the theories presented.

I have my conclusion, and I put this forth for thought, If a competitor was allowed to compete with a belt drive system the driver size to maintain equal ratios would not matter. I think the weakness is in the drive mechanism.
Click to expand...

You will never agree anyway. This gentleman, http://karting.4cycle.com/member.php?1759-Gearhead , works for a NASCAR team and you, as well as others, have yet to accept any information he has ever given about this subject going back years upon years with this debate. And it's his specialty. He doesn't theorize about it. He apllies it. Big difference. Yet the there are those that can accept what he says as truth.

With every track, no matter the gearing, no matter if it's a flatfoot track or a lifting track, you WILL ALWAYS have a drop in RPMS while cornering. It doesn't matter the reason for decelleration or the rate of it. The thing that matters is how much. It's because of this drop in RPMs that the rate of acceleration is critical to gaining back all those RPMs lost. Choosing the gear that allows you regain those lost RPMs at end of the front or backstretch is key.

11/44, 12/48, 13/52, 14/56, 15/60, 16/64, 17/68 are all a 4:1 gear ratio. At the same time, they all ACCELERATE diferently. The acceleration difference (as small as it may be) will be the key to choosing the proper set. Too fast acceleration and you passed the powerband of your engine and you are floating the valves with race track left in front of you. POWER LOST!!!! (Used up too fast). Too slow on acceleration and you will be at the end of the straight before use can fully utilize the full width of your engines power band. POWER LOST!!!! (Left some in the engine).

I can't for the life of me understand why some people will remain so tunnel visioned on their beliefs and theories that they can't see the other physics that apply. You guys keep saying that no one has been able to show you anything that has/will/can prove you wrong and there is a difference. My question is.....why should we have to? The infomation is all over the internet. You just have to be willing to look for it.

Do you run Sprint or Oval?
 
paulkish said:
Biasing the size of the gearing for a LTO racer to racing needs is no different. It's a tool that would be generally useless sprint or road racing, but it's a tool to gain a racing advantage with LTO.
Click to expand...
And that reminds me of a story that I’ve told before.
At a road race I was using a 14 tooth driver. Along comes this guy and tells me that I should be using a 13 tooth driver. Why is that I asked? I don’t know, but that’s what all the best guys use. What best guys I asked? Burton for one. So I go over to Burton and tell him the story. He starts laughing. It seems he says, that Horstman got a batch of bad 14 tooth driver’s. The heat treat was off, so we had to go to the 13 tooth driver’s we had. Burton was pretty much one of the fast guys so people thought, hey, if he’s running it, it must be good. And so a myth began.

Comments compliments criticisms and questions always welcome.
If the data does not support the theory, get a new theory.
 
rebsfan4 said:
I can't for the life of me understand why some people will remain so tunnel visioned on their beliefs and theories that they can't see the other physics that apply.
Click to expand...
“some people will remain so tunnel visioned” sounds like an insult to me, and I’m just going to throw it right back at you.
If you show me, “the others physics that apply” maybe I’ll understand it better.
And if it’s so easy to find this information on the web, why not give us a link? Show me the information you’re basing your theories on and we can discuss them. But if I go to the web and find other, contradictory information, your argument will be based on your information and my argument will be based on my information. In which case we will get nowhere.

Comments compliments criticisms and questions always welcome.
If the data does not support the theory, get a new theory.
 
I just thought of something. There must be engineers all over this country that build machinery that uses chain. It would be interesting to see what they say about their choices when designing a chain drive system. I wonder if they have some kind of proof of the theory that big gear sets are better than little gear sets on chain drive systems. Within reason of course. Comparing a 9/53 to a 16/64 would do us no good at all.

Comments compliments criticisms and questions always welcome.
If the data does not support the theory, get a new theory.
 
alvin l nunley said:
“some people will remain so tunnel visioned” sounds like an insult to me, and I’m just going to throw it right back at you.
If you show me, “the others physics that apply” maybe I’ll understand it better.
And if it’s so easy to find this information on the web, why not give us a link? Show me the information you’re basing your theories on and we can discuss them. But if I go to the web and find other, contradictory information, your argument will be based on your information and my argument will be based on my information. In which case we will get nowhere.

Comments compliments criticisms and questions always welcome.
If the data does not support the theory, get a new theory.
Click to expand...

It sounds like an insult because that's how you choose to interpret it. It's not my place to provide a link. They are easily attainable if you want to find them. Google search works wonders.

You are convinced that 12/60 and a 14/70 will work/perform identically when each is presented to tracks varying in size say from 1/10 to 1/5 mile? They do not. And it's all due to acceleration and controlling the rate of acceleration where placement or target rpm is concerned.
 
http://www.cpo.com/ipcres/pdfs/unit1/Ch3Sec1.pdf

Pay attention to Newton's 2nd law of motion.

Another......

http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...eed-more-power-to-accelerate-at-the-same-rate

Keep in mind, our source of energy is a constant and never changes on the engine. Each different size driver will see the same ft-lbs of torque the engine has to offer. Provided the same engine is used in conjuction with two different gearing combinations.

While the ratio is a ratio thing is true......when given the SAME force (In our case torque in ft-lbs) the rate of acceleration HAS to be the different between the two different gearing combinations, even though they has the same ratio. The gear combination with the larger driver will have to see an increase in torque to provide the same rate of acceleration as the gear combination with the smaller driver. It's just the way the law of physics work.
 
alvin l nunley said:
that's a pretty bold statement, "our source of energy is a constant.", "And never changes"!!
If the air density changes, the energy changes, but more than that, how much difference is there in the track conditions from your classes 1st practice to your classes last practice.
And I've been wondering, on what criteria do you base your decision to change gear sets?
While I probably don't even know what I'm talking about, I can't understand how somebody can use the same jet in the hot afternoon as they do in the cool of the evening.
Click to expand...

Track size. Track configuration. Track surface. Time of year. Many things play into the choice.

If you have an engine that produces say 14 ft-lbs of torque and you change from a gear set of 12/60 to a get set of 14/70 you still have the same 14 ft-lbs of torque. You now have the same force trying to move a larger form of mass. Not only does the mass include the additional area of the bigger gear, but also the increased area of chain as it comes in contact with the larger outside diameter of the gear the chain lies on. More that one tooth will carry the load at the sprocket/gear.

You guys are going to knit pick it to death with numbers. Throw any number at it you so choose. The PHYSICS will remain the same. In order to make ALL things equal with the different gear sets, you HAVE to increase the output(Torque) of the bigger gear set in order for it to have the same proportional rate of acceleration as the smaller gear set. There is NO way around it.

Therefore if you DO NOT increase the rate of acceleration proportionaly, your two ratios will perform differently on the track. There's is no way around it other than to have the SAME proportional output on the two completely different sized gears.
 
Here's a link to rotating mass: http://physics.info/rotational-dynamics/

Here's a link to friction: http://physics.info/friction/summary.shtml

I didn't find one which combines the two. They both clearly explain the physics of variables LTO's racers are saying.

I had them handy because I often refer to each before posting.

The other areas in each of discussion, summary, practice and problems should also be studied, as I do before posting. At a minimum if you do not understand completely the information I referenced, your comments unlike mine will only be a guess.



... :)
 
Its all been explained before, and no one will accept it. Im tired of trying to explain, which others have explained it much better than me, it over and over for someone to say its not true, or accept, when they themselves never even seen a dirt or oval kart race and just want to argue.
Kart 43, i said keyboard, not as in using one to help out their team, but to argue certain facts and statements, instead of trying to learn actually what is real and what is not real.

Im not 100% positive why a certain prep will win me the big money, same as in im not 100% positive i know the entire reason why certain gear, same ratio, will work better, BUT i do know that it does and those who do win that big money.
 
Here's part of a racing article I just found on the subject.

It sure says some stuff I never expected and I think is good reading.

Here's the url to the article:

http://www.w8ji.com/rotating_mass_acceleration.htm

____________________________
What does a rotating mass actually do?

A rotating mass does not really consume or dissipate energy. A rotating mass stores energy. The rotating mass eventually either returns energy to the system in a useful way, or something converts the stored energy to some other form of unwanted energy. The conversion might be with a friction, converting to heat. The energy stored might be helpful, like the smoothing of cylinder pulses in an engine flywheel. The energy stored also might not do anything at all, or the stored energy can even be harmful, reducing acceleration or braking.

Accelerating an unnecessary rotating mass requires energy, and the acceleration process saps some of the horsepower we have available to accelerate our vehicles. Reducing available horsepower affects acceleration in a very predictable manner, and the horsepower amount needed to spin something up gives us some feel for how important a part change might be.

Four things determine the effect of rotating mass. Every one of these things is important:

How quickly and often a rotating mass speeds up or slows down. Every time it is forced to speed up or slow down, it takes or releases energy
How heavy the rotating mass is. More weight (with no other changes) stores or releases more energy
The rotating weight's distance outwards from the centerline. The further out, the more energy pushed in and out of a given weight
How fast the weight spins, or the speed the weight travels in a given circle diameter. The higher the RPM, the more energy stored
Here are how these things work:

If we push energy into the rotating mass and pull energy out several times, we move more power around than if we make a slow, smooth, change in speed. It takes much more effort to repeatedly speed and slow something in a short period of time than to gradually speed it or slow it
The amount of weight is the least important thing! If we double the weight (with no other changes) we only double the stored energy
Weight distance from the center line is very important, because it determines the weight's circular velocity (speed)! Stored energy goes up by the SQUARE of the radius change. If we replace a 4-inch diameter hollow driveshaft with an 8-inch diameter tube of exactly the same weight, it is not just double. It is twice the size squared, or four times the stored energy when it weighs the same!
The faster we spin the weight, the more energy it stores. If we double RPM, we multiply stored energy four times. Again it is a square of the change, just like weight distance from centerline is a square.
The above is very important. If we double the effective "circle size" the weight is rotating at, we get four times the stored energy. If we simply double the weight without changing the spinning radius, we just double stored energy:

If we reduce mass from twenty pounds to ten pounds, keeping the same distance out and same peak RPM, we reduce stored energy to half the original amount. Reducing weight is a one-for-one change.
If we cut diameter in half while keeping the same weight and RPM, stored energy will be 1/4 the original stored energy. This change is a square. Twice is a "four times" effect. 2*2=4. Four times is a sixteen time effect on stored energy. 4*4=16
If we cut RPM in half, we would reduce stored energy to 1/4 the original amount. Once again this is a squared change. Change RPM three times, and the stored energy changes nine times. 3*3=9
We should carefully think about what this means when we change things. Some changes are worthwhile, some are not. We also cannot use carte blanche rules, like the silly rumor that reducing a rotating weight is like dropping the vehicle weight four times that amount. As a matter of fact, it is probably never four times. It is more likely closer to one, and might even be less than one!
 
common now, how bout you all just throwing in the towel.

It's all about is there a difference or not and ... waa laa ... there is. ... :)


don't really care why there's a difference, just makes if fun that there is and YOU ALL three or maybe four of ya are wuaa wuaa wuaa... common now spit it out you can do it ... wuaa wuaa ...... wrong ... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top