Box Stock

rear sprocket or clutch driver

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...

He is saying that in our case, the source of energy, which is the engine, never changes Al. If you have an engine that makes 14 ft lb of torque, and you only change the gearing to a bigger or smaller gearset while still keeping the same ratio, you still are not changing the source of energy or adding/removing the amount of energy that source is putting out. Now if you were to change jetting, pipes, timing or something like that on the engine (source) then you would be changing the output most likely, but we arent in this case, were talking about only changing gearing. And usually, the gearing is changed to a different gearset because of the track conditions or how the kart feels. For example, on a track that is higher bite, i would be on a larger front driver using a 4.0 ratio, say 16/64, but if it rains and the track changes, going from high bite to low-no bite, i would then drop the front driver 1 or 2 teeth (most likely 1 tooth) and change the rear gear to compensate so i keep the same ratio, this will help keep up with the track changing. If i were to stay on the larger driver when the track went from high bite to low bite and wet, i would probably go from running in the front to running mid pack or in the back, because most of the other racers who know what they are doing have already changed their gearing to compensate for the track changing. Do you understand what im saying here? Not only do we use the size and configuration of the track to determine what gearset to run, we also use track conditions as well when choosing a gear. I would not run the same gearing on a sloppy wet track that had just been soaked with water as i would on a good high bite track that had been ran in and rubbered up, that would be a mistake and likely cost me the race. Im with Rebsfan4, you guys are nitpicking the numbers apart, but not paying attention to the other half of this puzzle, which is physics and track conditions.
 
paulkish said:
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 ... :)
Click to expand...

Lol.


This is turning out to be a great discussion, i dont like to argue but i like these kind of discussions because most of the time i learn something new from them, like in the many posts that you post with information, like alot of them you have put in this thread. This thread would make a good sticky, so newbies can read it and not keep asking the same question every couple of weeks, sparking this same discussion over and over again and getting everybody all riled up again. There will always be those who just refuse to believe anything they cant visually see on paper. I would be willing to bet that most of those who do not understand what we are trying to tell them about gear ratios and always using the biggest driver possible, are the ones who come from asphalt and sprint racing rather than dirt oval racing, or any kind of oval racing. When you race oval, especially dirt, you learn pretty quickly that a ratio is not just a ratio and that bigger or smaller driver gears can give you an advantage over the rest of the field when the appropriate driver is used for the conditions and at the right time. When i started racing, i too thought a ratio was just a ratio, but learned pretty quickly from one someone who had been around dirt oval kart racing for most of his life, he taught me the advantage of using different driver gears using the same ratio, and using that information, i quickly worked my way from the back of the field, to the front in a short period of time. No it was not only that information that got me there, but that info did play a big part in it, along with driving improvement, chassis setup, and a better engine and tire program.
 
alvin l nunley said:
thank you for your attempt at clarification. Still.............
Click to expand...

Yes, 'Still...." You Al, STILL act like the kid who was chosen last during the 4th grade playground football draft picks, and can't get over it, so you pick every opportunity to jump on here and attempt to provide all these theories of relativity, etc, to prove any and everybody wrong when YOU don't agree with their thoughts, or even their real-life experiences. The fact of the matter is whether or not the rest of us can explain it in a way that meets your criteria is completely irrelevant to someone else's true-blue findings. There have been 6 pages and (as of now) 165 posts on this subject with many good, well-thought out examples/theories of how this misunderstood phenomena exists, and you sir, STILL, act as if the rest of us are wasting our time exploring the why's and how's because your calculator tells you 'a ratio is a ratio'.....and (here's the part I expect you to copy and paste in your rebuttal) while THAT PART is true, it doesn't take into account every variable that plays into the karts ability to lay down faster lap times with the same ratio. Rather than exhausting all your effort to disprove our thoughts just because you don't agree - or have yet to be convinced - why don't you just sit back and WATCH/READ and maybe, just maybe, someone will say something that will turn that propeller on top of your head with enough energy to light that bulb....
 
In relation to posting #159 no matter what you do to a flywheel, change it's weight, diameter, RPM, the amount of energy it stores never changes. In other words the only thing a flywheel does is store energy, it never produces energy, it never multiplies energy, in fact the energy put is always more than the energy it gives back, percentage wise depends upon many factors. Just so I don't get long winded I won't bother attempting to explain that.

If the world was so simple that we could multiply the stored energy with a flywheel all of our problems would be solved.

Paulkish Thank you for the first two links: They are homework helpers, they contain less information than a typical High School Physic text.
The second link has no references, nor a bibliography, it is part of an amatuer radio enthuiasts ramblings.
There is correct information on both sites, and a lot to be learned and further evaluated, but they both have only snipets of relevant information.

I know you don't like me just asking about a single theory you present, but it is the only way it can be.
Your statement "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, " I know there was more to your statement but that is something completely different. Can you explain that statement for us.

I assume all of the discussions of stored energy and flywheel effect are still in reference to increasing the gear sizes in the drive system.

Here are simple facts to remember, rotating masses, only store energy, you know where the energy comes from, rotating masses do not return 100% of the energy put into them..

In regard to posting #160 I picture a 15 yr old doing a happy dance trying to pat himself on the back.
 
It is a great system where we can investigate or attempt to arrive at a rational explanation. We are allowed to ask why, nobody should have the gall to present incorrect information and then not accept a rebuttal. It is unfortunate when it gets personal, and in some cases plain childish.

I present another idea, if the rotational mass of the extra chain and larger gear diameter is truly the cause of the improvement. I should be able to install an additional brake hub on the axle and machine steel disc much like gear halves, I could vary the dia. and weights to tailor for different tracks. I don't say this is actually feasible but give sensible reasons why not.
 
I've stayed out of this-one (4good reason) and just finished scanning it! In conclusion, I believe the answer-is;....'Yes'....'Maybe'....and/or, "Un-likely"! I Do know, in-fact....that when my kart gets beaten, I 'look' at the 'gear' that beat me, and then I think...."Maybe"! Regardless....(Bob), I vote this 'thread' go down in history as...."The GREAT Debate!" :)
 
godaddyracing said:
Yes, 'Still...." You Al, STILL act like the kid who was chosen last during the 4th grade playground football draft picks, and can't get over it, so you pick every opportunity to jump on here and attempt to provide all these theories of relativity, etc, to prove any and everybody wrong when YOU don't agree with their thoughts, or even their real-life experiences.
Click to expand...
early in life, I discovered that I tended to think that people that agreed with me were much smarter and nicer than those who didn't.
One thing I didn't do was insult the intelligence of somebody that didn't agree with me. I instead would redouble my efforts to convince them of my point of view.
Now it's true that I'm pretty hardheaded when it comes to my views, but I have changed my views when the factual data proved them wrong. The problem with that is, your idea of factual data and my idea of factual data could be different.
 
(Darn you kart43, darn you) Just to clarify, Years ago, my academic career included Va Polytechnical Institute and State University, an engineering school. In my time there I got to know more than a few physics guys and gals as well as engineering types. Since that time I have had the pleasure of knowing and being associated with more than a few race teams up to and including nascar organizations. ALL of my personal race experience is LTO. It has included numerous wins as well as more than a few championships. I can barely type. this post alone will probably take me an hour. What does this mean? Not a darn thing, other than to let some know that I am not just setting, typing away with zero experience and only "theory" to keep me warm at night. I have always been the guy to ask "why?" Just because "I said so" has never really cut it. I was told many things about gear selection over the years. Many of it similar to the posts on here. Not receiving an answer as to why, other than "I don't know, just cause I said so" I started testing for myself. In post 81 I attempted to give a brief synopsis of this test. It took several years and many many race entries. I typically have 3 or 4 entries per race. My results clearly showed me that barring set up changes, engine tuning and aero, ratio IS ratio. That's my findings. I don't care if others agree with me or not. I freely share my findings with most anyone who asks. I don't proselytize my beliefs to anyone. I've always been humored by those that say "bigger drivers(of the same ratio) are faster" or "smaller drivers(of the same ratio) pull off the corner better" or "I don't know why, but its just has to be cause that's what bubba said". I've been told that my "ratio is ratio" mentality will get me lapped. Hasn't yet. I've been lapped before but my setup and inability to drive is usually the case. Lets review, Its mostly accepted that a bigger driver of the same ratio "pulls harder at the end of the straight" and "a smaller driver pulls off the corner better". The reasons are that "the chain has to wrap sharply around a small driver" causing issues. "the bigger driver has more leverage" causing advantage and now in this thread "inertia and momentum is the reason". Though the links posted are interesting and from what I can tell correct, they are about as relevant to the "ratio is not ratio" argument as me giving my wifes shoe size is to "proving" my point. If the scant few ounces saved from one gear to the next or the weight of a 16 driver vs a 17 driver actually caused a significant performance gain, then drilling a few holes in the rear gear will have tremendous gains (or losses) depending on your post above. Bob even posed a test to "prove" the larger driver was superior and when tested, "proved" it wasn't. Clearly my test proved nothing, the variables alone would constitute about a 50% margin of error. In the racing I do, you can easily use a 16 through a 20 or even 21 driver. I will be on a 17. Because this "driver/gear" combo is superior? No, its because that's the clutches I have by far the most of. Any and all are welcome to come "prove me wrong" . While I am passionate about many things, having others share my "ratio" beliefs is not one of them. I know what the physics are as it pertains to this. I know what the math says as it pertains to this. I know what my own experience is with this. All 3 seem to say the exact same thing. I have never persecuted anyone for thinking differently on this. Not sure why this topic brings so much angst to the discussion table either. Good luck to all in their endeavors. I just like to see more racers, regardless of there ratio selection. While Al clearly states any and all criticism is accepted, I only accept cash.
 
All I go on is the brown eye and the red stopwatch, and it makes me no nevermind who else believes it. Kinda one of those horse and water things. :)

jsstump#70- 17 tooth clutch is a good one. Odd numbered teeth are faster than even numbered ones.

Seriously, I've always felt there was a "sweet spot" with the rear gear size between 57 and 62 (35 chain), and always selected the driver to work with that range.
 
no need to be sorry . this very question has brought about the same arguments for the last 10 or so years.
 
davis20 said:
I'm sorry I asked the question.....I'll just figure it out myself.
Click to expand...

Good to I'm glad your figured it out for yourself. Don't ever be sorry you asked a question on here, all anyone is trying to do is help you get fast.

I looked at your other posts and if you race sprint, don't worry about it. It doesn't make much if any difference.

Good luck on your racing. We enjoyed sprint racing for many years.

paul
 
Kart43 said:
I don't know about odd number of teeth being faster , but it is better for even wear.
Click to expand...

Ok im gonna go out on a limb here and ask how? How does an odd number of teeth make it better for even wear? I just cannot wrap my mind around this one.
 
Weddle Racing said:
Ok im gonna go out on a limb here and ask how? How does an odd number of teeth make it better for even wear? I just cannot wrap my mind around this one.
Click to expand...

Normally the tooth behind the one pulling isn't doing much of anything. Put your five fingers in a circle pointing towards you, as in odd toothed.

Now count around your fingers twice skipping a finger and you will see it takes twice around to touch all fingers. Do it with four and skipping a finger you'll only touch two of your four fingers. Assuming the second link after the holding link of the chain doesn't do much and the chain skips holding every other tooth, it's the same as when you count around on your fingers.

I think that's the theory. The chain grabs the gear and turns it mainly by one tooth at a time and it doesn't release and grab the very next tooth.

maybe?


paul


Speaking of an even number. What is 32 dirt karters sitting on the grid ready to go race?


answer: A full set of tooths.
 
A chain has a wide link and a narrow link, the odd number of teeth alternate which type of link comes into contact, each tooth will be subjected to both types of links. Common engineering practice, probably not much to worry about in our application.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top