stagger
- Thread starter e p 880
- Start date
racing promotor
Moderator
Right sides 34", 1 1/2 " front 1 1/4 " rear if banked hard INCREASE rear to 1 1/2 "
(racing promoter) thanks for you help with the stagger...now can you help me with the clutch...i have what is called a "rock star" made by Gecker...currently i have red springs...can you help me with spring height and air gap...it's a 2 disc and 4 springs...still running that 1/8 mile oval in clone lite/med...do i need to add any weights...thanks
alvin l nunley
Site Supporter
can you do me favor? The next time you're at the track, measure the distance between the straight sections on the inside edge, and the width of the track. Just walk across the track, one medium large step is about three feet. It would also be nice to know the angle of the banked turns. Close is good enough. I have an eighth mile track laid out that is 150 feet across the infield and my software says one inch of stagger on the rear. Even less if there is banking. I'm told I know nothing about this subject, but humor me.
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)
racing promotor
Moderator
I'm no Clutch or Motor guy, but Ill try to find out for you, I know a real good clutch guy.
racing promotor
Moderator
Al you will NEVER find an 1/8th mile track that is 150 lf across the turn radius just where the tangent points start, and Yes you don't know what ya think ya do if you BELIEVE more Banking = less rear Stagger.
hotelcalifornia
Member
If the track was a perfect cylinder, let's say you do run 0" stagger, the kart would not travel downward in the cylinder at all. It would spin around on the same spot.
rebsfan4
Member
And the kart would NEVER see any lateral weight transfer. And therein lies the difference.
kartkevin39
Member
if i would to take baby steps it would not be 150 feet...
alvin l nunley
Site Supporter
I have a CAD program and I've laid out a bunch of tracks. One of them is an eighth mile. The distance across the infield, between the straights, is 150 feet. Do the math. The straightaways are 95 feet. Added up, that's 1/8 mile measured on the inside line of the track. Now I'm not saying this is typical, I'm not even saying you'll ever find an eighth mile track with those numbers, but those numbers do add up to 661.24 feet.
If you do the math for stagger, you will see that the difference in distance traveled by the inside tire compared to the outside tire becomes less as you bank the track. It's only theoretical, but it's a place to start. Your idea maybe the way to go, I'm not saying it's not, but the math doesn't support your idea. Read my sig.
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)
racing promotor
Moderator
Agreed but You can make anything work on paper, but like you Acknowledge your not Saying there out there, GUESS what there not so by giving that Info your not giving correct info that ACTUALLY helps anyone, your not showing ENOUGH stagger for a 1/8th mile, Just Like your Gearing Math you post you make it seem like if it shows more MPH on paper it will on dirt as well, It don't work that way with Gearing Either, to Many obstructions like, Grip, Set-up, Tires, Driver Input It's not that Simple.
If you want to be usefull, Layout ALL the actual Tracks on your CAD then post your Sheets.
alvin l nunley
Site Supporter
as they say, "garbage in, garbage out". You can make anything work on paper, this is true, but only if you enter incorrect information. (And of course I'm assuming the formula in the spreadsheet cell is correct) There are dyno's out there that are incorrectly calibrated and give out big numbers. Only the dyno owner's know if this is intentional or not.
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)
racing promotor
Moderator
That's my point your entering incorrect data, NO 1/8 th mile track is 150 lf Across where Tangent point starts. So you getting Incorrect data back.
There ya go al, there is the kind of information you have been requesting everytime someone mentions a track or stagger for a track.....so now that you have the numbers, put them in your spreadsheet and tell us the stagger your sheet says is correct for that track. Bryan can confirm whether or not your data is giving the correct amount of stagger for that track, since i assume he knows people who race there and what stagger works well for most racers and chassis
alvin l nunley
Site Supporter
not knowingly. If my estimation of 150 feet is off, tell me what the actual number is and I will recalculate. It's no trouble at all. I may be getting incorrect data for your track, obviously because I don't know the radius of the turn, but the data is correct for the track I laid out.
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)
alvin l nunley
Site Supporter
my spreadsheet calculates 1.25 stagger. Are you measuring the grove of the inside tire or the outside tire? My spreadsheet uses the centerline of the inside tire for input. If your measurement is the groove of the outside tire, then add 1/16 to that number.
Now I'm not saying this is a hard number, just a calculated starting place. The stopwatch will be the final arbitrator on what is the exact stagger to use.
Racing promoter, in the post ahead of yours, says, "NO 1/8 th mile track is 150 lf Across" and yet your 1/7 mile is 140 feet across.
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)
alvin l nunley
Site Supporter
24 hours and no response. I expected some people to jump all over this.
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)
