What would be the effects of to much left side weight too determine if you needed to reduce your % ?

4 wheel drift, no side bite equals to much left side. about 54-56% is a good middle baseline probably for most tracks.

For me the kart goes flat when I've got more left than I can effectively transfer. However, I rarely fix the problem with less left; most often I try to add bite or something like that.

Todd
www.dynamicsofspeed.com

Can we say as traction decreases so does LS%

Dead on 100% what we've seen. With the newer karts that prefer the LS weight, we'd prefer to create more transfer through bite in the tires than to pull LS off the kart.

- B

Trick Speedcuts

54-56% will get you lapped on most SE tracks.

No, you can't say as traction decreases so does LS%. You can create grip with LS tires just as well as RS tires. The key here is to get the kart rotating well on its own (stagger, geometry and grip).

If you're counting on load transfer to create rotation then yes as traction decreases so does leftside. HOWEVER, that is not the fast way around the racetrack.

54-56 was just a starting point suggestion.

Also a pretty dead nuts post.

- B

Thanks for all info. I know about the way the manual's read and people say as far as lite,med,hvy.& super hvy. what there percentages should be "BUT" they only go by weight. You can have a guy 5'6 205lbs. running super hvy. or like me 6'2 230lbs running super hvy. the weight is going to transfer a bit different in my opinion. But was wondering what to look for to determine if you have to much. That way your not thinking it's a cross,cam,tire issue. Thanks for any further info.

IMHO, Available bite in the track will determine the amount of ls weight that should be run. In the south were there is a lot of bite in most tracks they run anywhere from 58-60+ leftside weight. In the north where most not all track are moist slick or dry slick you usually see lwer leftside weight because of lower available bite to transfer weight. In my area you rarely see a fast kart with more than 57 %.

JMO

__________________
06 Rage Champ
07 Slack Reactor
05 Buller Velocity
Parilla ReedJet
Stk Animal
Stk + controlled 5 HP
Stroked Big Valve Animal
610-509-6789 cell

look at the tire wear,,, if out side tires wear faster than inside,, you don't have enough left side weight,,,,, if you start out real good early in a run and you slow down, you may not have enough left side,, we race down here in the south,,,, but all track are not bite up like some think up north,,, several track you will have to run a Vega in the teens to be fast,,, but most track do require a tire duro in the 45 to 60 range..........

I dont race dirt but on pavement when i see a kart with too much left side weight its usually flat from apex out or has a 4 wheel drift.

I start off around 57% in sr champ karts. pavement

Animals seem to like more ls then flatheads

look for a dead kart...(handles fine but slow off) or 4 wheel drift. look at banking, track grip, and the track shape/size when choosing a ls weight

too much left side wont allow it to transfer to the right front...jg

ok now how can you tell when left side is to low

If you know the tires are close for the conditions, it'll usually fly for about 3 laps and then start skating on you. I know it's sounds backwards and was biting me for awhile when I wanted to keep taking left out and it never got better.

Basically, the kart starts out good and then the RS will start giving up/releasing. It needs the LS tires to help make grip.

Scottie - Mantis Racing

What do you mean by flat?

the kart will have no roll speed up off corner.

"If you're counting on load transfer to create rotation then yes as traction decreases so does leftside."

How would you explain the setup logic of: 'counting on load transfer to create rotation'? Is it logic consumed with planting the right front and rolling around the corner on the outside tires?

Though it's more complex I think I see what you said with: "No, you can't say as traction decreases so does LS%. You can create grip with LS tires just as well as RS tires. The key here is to get the kart rotating well on its own (stagger, geometry and grip)".

But I'm not sure what you mean with "counting on load transfer to create rotation".

Thinking about over all setup in terms of left side weight:

Would it be correct to say the goal of setup is to have a very responsive kart with left side weight maximized?

_______________________________


Though not stated the above question takes into consideration high cross verses low, when track grip is brought into the picture.

The specific way high cross verses low cross is brought in; is with lower grip situations shifting setup towards higher cross and higher grip situations shifting setup towards lower cross.

When I wrote the last sentence; I also took speed into consideration as a way of putting you at the limit of grip.

It means that even if you are on a high grip surface, speed can move your setup towards a high cross situation because speed also moves you towards the limit of grip. Conversely if you’re on a high grip surface at lower speeds, the lack of speed moves you towards a low cross situation.

______________________________

I think what I wrote brings together what Todd introduced about left side weight and what Joey brought in with his statement of: "The key here is to get the kart rotating well on its own (stagger, geometry and grip)". The connection is that using the tools you have available to you to adjust and coordinate stagger, geometry and grip, along with maximizing left side weight and maintaining a responsive kart... is fast.

Maybe?

Had nothing better to do and it's fun so I expanded on my last post and made it real regular long winded. Hope it makes a little sence... nawww I don't really care if it mades sence or not so long as someone explains where it's wrong...

anyhow:------------------------------------

This first post of the thread is based on looking at setup from a left side weight perspective.

As usual I’m hoping for conversation about weather or not my theory presented is correct or not. If you see part of it correct and can relate it to what you race, I’d appreciate it if you would explain to me; how you see it match up to your thoughts and how you setup your car. If you see part of it incorrect; I’d appreciate it if you point out to me what is incorrect and why so we can learn from my mistake.

If I disagree with you I am on here for conversation and I will do my best to explain why I disagree, hopping it will lead to you either seeing it the way I do, or you helping me see what I still am missing. Either way, I think we might learn something along the way.

Before I get into this I want to make it clear this is all written to conventional LTO (left turn only) race car setup and aero/wing effects are not any part of the it.

I’m going to start by making a statement. I will then do my best to explain my statement. Hopefully it will show that your over all setup objectives all fall in place, when your setup goal is to maximize left side weight, while maintaining a very responsive car and chassis. And what allows you to do it is shifting cross higher or lower, accordingly to how near or far you need to run your car from the limit of grip.

I guess after all that I can just say the statement is: The goal of setup is to have a very responsive car and chassis, with left side weight maximized.

____________________________

My statement takes into consideration a higher cross setup verses a lower cross setup, when track grip is brought into the picture.

The specific way I bring higher cross verses lower cross into the picture is by relating cross and grip. With lower grip situations generally mandating shifting setup towards higher cross, and higher grip situations shifting setup towards lower cross.

I realize the above paragraph by itself is not enough to relate grip to higher or lower cross. That is because no definition exists of what actually is a high or low grip track. And further confusing it is that there is not a definition of what is high or low cross.

Fortunately when thinking and writing in terms of theory I don’t need to define either. All I need to do is state and try to show how each relate to each other, when over all setup or grip is shifted in one direction or another.

To make it possible to bring together left side weight, high cross verses low cross and grip, I have to bring one more thing into the picture and it is g force. The reason g force has to be included is this is all based on being in a turn and g force is a factor in determining how much grip is available. Increasing or decreasing g force is a way to move your car either toward the limit of grip or away from the limit of grip.

It means that even if you are on a high grip surface, speed can move your setup needs towards higher cross, because increased g force also moves you towards the limit of grip. Conversely if you’re on a high grip surface at lower speeds, with lower g force, the lack of speed will move your setup needs towards lower cross.

If I try to put this all together. What is high or low cross is relevant to your personal perspective, definition of cross and what type of car you are using. And how you shift your over all setup from higher cross to lower cross, depends on where your situation comes in, when considering available grip. Finally I’m stating as fact that any conventional LTO race car, will be at its’ fastest when it is setup maximizing left side weight, and insuring the maximization of left side weight does not interfere with chassis operation. I describe a non interfered with chassis operation, as a chassis and car which is very responsive.

If you took the time to read all this bs thank you for your time and I hope it was not time wasted.

Not wasted at all, Probably the most clearly defined and comprehensible piece you've written. I take it as a definition of the dynamics which take place in the corner. Next, to my way of thinking, is to achieve the utopian goal of perfect balance. For me, that is to maximize the grip of all four tires in spite of the dynamics at work.

We have an object in motion attached to the surface by four tires. The total weight and CG of the object is fixed and none adjustable. Then we attempt to defy the laws of physics and reverse the direction of the object while maintaining as much speed as possible.

I see the first bullet in our arsenal as geometry [stagger] which makes the car want to turn without scrub breaking traction. Next is "scrub radius" of the front wheels which allows the wheels to turn in the plane of least resistance. These two adjustments can be tested and measured by hand, pushing the car around a parking lot. I add two more settings, lead on the RF wheel and keeping the LR inside the LF.

Now comes "dreamland". Without g-force monitors and weight sensing devices, we calculate in our minds, when, where and how much force and weight is directed to, or unloaded from, each wheel.

Now we're at the crap table shooting for the hard eight. We've calculated all these forces and compensate with LS, cross and nose. Track conditions change and we start all over again.


My goal is all four tires doing equal work. Troy's magic potion is some salt on my fries !

__________________
Hogans Goat
CCI

thank you.

I could not have made the connections I did and things would not have come together this time the way they did and allow me to relate stuff to maximizing left side weight...

Without what Todd and Joey posted in this thread. What they said was just so clear to the point and revealing it cause me to bring a lot of thoughts together in a different way. It's all just the same stuff but with Joey and Todd helping as they always do, the puzzel just fit together differently tonight.

Thank you Joey and Todd.

and I still ain't sure bout nothing about setup and how things work...

Flat is basically a condition where the kart isn't flexing enough to move weight around correctly. It'll also typically be unresponsive to changes when it's flat (or possibly unpredictable).

Todd
www.dynamicsofspeed.com

This thread SS#97 started got me thinking about how to relate over all setup to left side weight. And it's now lead me into some other thoughts, don't know if there right or wrong but that's the way I headed...

In the long winded post I purposely left out front to rear balance when trying to relate setup to left side weight and available grip.

I think most look at balanced in terms of how grip is balanced front to rear. I think the norm might be if your loose, think front grip is over powering rear grip, and if your pushing to think rear grip is over powering front grip. That's all well and good but in my thinking it's not enough to consider. If I have one general first rule it's unless absolutely necessary, you never fix any on track problem by doing something to reduce grip anywhere. What the rule means when looking to fix a loose or push condition is, "How do I fix the on track problem by increasing grip?".

I think when fixing a loose condition first look at which rear tire or maybe both, to go to and fix the loose condition, before you have any thoughts of doing anything up front.

My thinking is you never first look at reducing grip to solve the problem and put things in balance. If you go to the front and fix a loose condition it's almost 100% certain your going to do something that will reducing grip up front, to end up with balanced. And it's also almost 100% certain in the process you've lost something. In particular you probably lost some ability to hold the it down on the track, and probably also lost some ability to apply hp if your in a higher hp situation.

There's a common idea that to fix loose or the back, you do something up front; and to fix a push or the front, you go to the rear. In most cases if you look at what is actually being done up front or the back, it's something that will reduce grip at one end, to gain grip at the other. And along with that thought process the results of what you do, always makes a front to rear or rear to front change of applied weight. It either happens because of a physical movement of weight or a change in dynamic weight transfer. In my opinion that's not the best way to first approach and look for finding and fixing either loose or push.

If I now take the ideas I brought up in this post and put them into my thought process of looking at and applying setup theory to solve problems; instead of a do this to fix that and do that to fix this, way of looking for a fix; the answer to loose or push gets found in what general direction does the over all setup have to be moved.

If you know the over all direction setup has to be moved to fix a problem, based on common variables (same old bs stuff I talk about all the time of available grip, available hp, the need to maintain momentum, etc.), all you then need to do is make adjustments which will move your over all setup in the correct direction. I think this thread may be getting me into defining what those "general directions" are. Thunkin on, setup is not always an if you gain something here, you must loose something there proposition. In many cases it becomes an add something here or gain an ability there type of thing. With you expecting the result to shift over all function out on the track, in a specific direction.

Thanks again for your time reading this. Its fun to write, mostly bs anyway, but I hope it also makes a little sense and brings on some more conversation. And hopefully some criticism of what I wrote so I can bs more on how I look at it verses what was said. OR BETTER YET change my ideas towards a more correct way of looking at things and learn something.

Thank you for your time reading this. And I hope it helps answer your origional post, Sammy.

paul

And to throw some more stuff in here to think about, how about... Let's say you are hard on the LR and your chassis is "flat" and not able to operate and get weight moving left to right, what different track conditions and 'common variables', would make your possible solutions match up with:

maybe to raise the cg?

or move weight to the right at the rear?

or move weight from the LR to the LF/RR?

of just move weight in general to the LF?

or move the RR in/increase grip at the RR?

or increase grip at the RF?

or make a timming adjustment at the RF?

or change when and where you turn during the corner to increase g forces when needed?

When I wrote each of the possibilities to move your setup away from being "flat", I was thinking of different combinations of the same variables of things like available grip, available hp, the need to maintain momentum, etc.. And also thinking of specific on track problems I've seen in the past. Can anyone else see how different on track conditions would warrent one solution for the same problem over another?

or it don't because this is just all IMHO and ain't necessarly right anyway...