Why LTO style frames?

alvin l nunley

Premium User
I see people saying to run the right rear tireVery close to the frame, asClose possible? I see people saying to run the seat very close to the right-hand frame rail?I hear people saying to ignore recommended corner weights?

So why do we have LTO's?
 

JPMKarting

Premium User
I see people saying to run the right rear tireVery close to the frame, asClose possible? I see people saying to run the seat very close to the right-hand frame rail?I hear people saying to ignore recommended corner weights?

So why do we have LTO's?

Whats your definition of "very close"
 

alvin l nunley

Premium User
InI don't remember the exact number, around 2 inches, +/- a little. Why do you ask? Do you not understand the subject of my post?
 

JPMKarting

Premium User
InI don't remember the exact number, around 2 inches, +/- a little. Why do you ask? Do you not understand the subject of my post?
You're looking at the relationship of LTO completely wrong.

The right rear tire may be 1/4" off the frame where in sprint its a few inches or more.

But the left rear (and left front for that matter) are tucked in closer to the drivers center mass.

I dont really care about the right rear tire spacing or how close the seat is to the right side frame rail. The entire design of an LTO chassis makes your question irrelevant.
 

alvin l nunley

Premium User
You're looking at the relationship of LTO completely wrong.

The right rear tire may be 1/4" off the frame where in sprint its a few inches or more.

But the left rear (and left front for that matter) are tucked in closer to the drivers center mass.

I dont really care about the right rear tire spacing or how close the seat is to the right side frame rail. The entire design of an LTO chassis makes your question irrelevant.
I'm surprised,, after 15 years on Bob's I had the idea that those things were a lot more important.
 

JPMKarting

Premium User

alvin l nunley

Premium User
Sounds like you need a new theory.
You may be right, me and the whole flat kart racing world! When the whole world is doing something a certain way, It's extremely hard to change their mind. I reference my efforts regarding the EGT versus the CHT. It's been a 30 year struggle!
 

"J'-remy

Member
Manufactures want the right rear close to the frame rail .125 clearance and a 39-39.25 rear track. i suspect any adjustments you make are to the left rear only. IMHO the chassis has become somewhat irrelevant due to the majority of focus being placed on the tires. Phantom is pushing stiff chassis Charger is winning on soft chassis who's right, who's wrong?
 

alvin l nunley

Premium User
There was a guy, who owned one of my Sprint frames, 1 inch 065 chrome Molly. This was way back in 1985. We were talking one day and I suggested he might want to buy a stiffer frame. He was racing on the dirt at the Fremont Raceway track. Maybe 1/8 mile. He told me "no way". Apparently he was real happy with the way the kart was handled.
 

jaymancds

Premium User
There was a guy, who owned one of my Sprint frames, 1 inch 065 chrome Molly. This was way back in 1985. We were talking one day and I suggested he might want to buy a stiffer frame. He was racing on the dirt at the Fremont Raceway track. Maybe 1/8 mile. He told me "no way". Apparently he was real happy with the way the kart was handled.
He wouldn't be able to keep up with rookies today.

Manufactures want the right rear close to the frame rail .125 clearance and a 39-39.25 rear track. i suspect any adjustments you make are to the left rear only. IMHO the chassis has become somewhat irrelevant due to the majority of focus being placed on the tires. Phantom is pushing stiff chassis Charger is winning on soft chassis who's right, who's wrong?
Jump into a kinetik if you get the chance. Felt really soft to me and I'm on a charger.
 

josheezpapa

Member
I still think the Force chassis shoulda been revolutionary, not outlawed. Or Mike Clements' 5 wheel chassis, the name escapes me... ?? Cheyenne??
People that think outside the normal box intrigue me, but its not a real common stance ... its much easier, and, frankly, gains better results frequently, than doing it your own way.

Like your reference to Temps, both those methods are reactive... jetting to match air density is proactive.... but its always been the thing to read CHT, so thats the normal method....

Remember, if everyone does the same thing, everyone gets the same results.

I liked open class outlaw karts... single cylinder, under550cc, and let's get it on .

Ive always said if we ever get fast, between heats im gonna pee on my tires... then next week between heats everyone will be peeing on their tires...

Do your own thing with rear tire placement, maybe you will find something we don't know, and we will do it your way
 
Last edited:

JPMKarting

Premium User
I still think the Force chassis shoulda been revolutionary, not outlawed. Or Mike Clements' 5 wheel chassis, the name escapes me... ?? Cheyenne??
People that think outside the normal box intrigue me, but its not a real common stance ... its much easier, and, frankly, gains better results frequently, than doing it your own way.

Like your reference to Temps, both those methods are reactive... jetting to match air density is proactive.... but its always been the thing to read CHT, so thats the normal method....

Remember, if everyone does the same thing, everyone gets the same results.

I liked open class outlaw karts... single cylinder, under550cc, and let's get it on .

Ive always said if we ever get fast, between heats im gonna pee on my tires... then next week between heats everyone will be peeing on their tires...

Do your own thing with rear tire placement, maybe you will find something we don't know, and we will do it your way

This theory might have held water 15-25 years ago when chassis design and raw speed were exponentially developing.

But like anything else, we have sort of "maxed" out design and speed potential. We saw huge leaps and bounds from the mid 90's to the mid to later 2000's. From 2010 (roughly) to now, we arent seeing any major developments in speed.

"if everyone does the same thing, everyone gets the same results" would be true in 2001. Nowadays, its a matter of doing the same thing as everyone else, but doing it better, more precise, and more consistently. That's where speed comes from.
 

josheezpapa

Member
Speed also comes from ingenuity ... if we just accept that we are going as fast as we can, then the future would be bleak at best
In 1966, my dad raced go karts very sucessfully. Paved closed course. Max speed 120+ mph on dinky lil 5 inch slicks... a marauder Enduro kart at long defunct greenwood roadway.
They probably thought technology was at its peak, too

I'm no longer involved in karts. Though we may buy one for indoors winter racing... it was fun. But its only at its peak until someone proves its not

Just my 2 cents
 

jaymancds

Premium User
This theory might have held water 15-25 years ago when chassis design and raw speed were exponentially developing.

But like anything else, we have sort of "maxed" out design and speed potential. We saw huge leaps and bounds from the mid 90's to the mid to later 2000's. From 2010 (roughly) to now, we arent seeing any major developments in speed.

"if everyone does the same thing, everyone gets the same results" would be true in 2001. Nowadays, its a matter of doing the same thing as everyone else, but doing it better, more precise, and more consistently. That's where speed comes from.
If everyone does the same thing we call it engineering ;)
 

flattop1

Dawg 89
The 5 wheel thing was something .
 

XXX#40

2A supporter
There was a guy, who owned one of my Sprint frames, 1 inch 065 chrome Molly. This was way back in 1985. We were talking one day and I suggested he might want to buy a stiffer frame. He was racing on the dirt at the Fremont Raceway track. Maybe 1/8 mile. He told me "no way". Apparently he was real happy with the way the kart was handled.

The 5 wheel thing was something .
Also had a big loop on the LS rail.
 
Top