6 replies to this topic

[dirtstudent]

Sprint cars seem to me to still be evolving. Slowly it seems, because the small things done can be accepted and the changes become part of the integrety of the sprint car looks. When I see old racing pictures the tires are thin and narrow. Are the front tires still so thin and narrow because wider tires are not needed because of the wing? It seems to me that the cars could get around the track better if the front tires were wider. I think wider front tires, especially the rf, would allow for a reduction in stagger. I would really like to see big block rf tires tried on both fronts of a sprinter. I think that if you could get more turn up front on a sprinter, all ready having enough engine to overcome the additional grip, it might be possible to use a fixed wing in a more forward position. The fixed wing more forward would be allowed because of the reduced stagger replacing the slight loss of down force. Also with a fixed wing the big boys could lighten the car up and get still more performance out of the cars. After writing the above, why are the front tires on a sprint car so small?

[Jon Banas]

The front tires are the size they are because of the amount of weight that each front tire has to carry. A smaller width would cause the tire to skate across the track as would a wider tire. Its all pounds per square inch. Quit trying to re invent the wheel and look at why things are the way they are. Chassis hasn't really changed much in the last 20 years. Just lighter stuff, more horses and a little fine tuning. In other words more money spent...get the book from Steve Smith, written by Jimmy Sills.

[dirtstudent2]

"A smaller width would cause the tire to skate across the track as would a wider tire. Its all pounds per square inch." It's been years since I've read this but if i'm remembering correctly, The pounds per square inch applied to the track will be no different from a 6" wide tire to an 8" wide tire, so long as the air pressure remains the same.

[Jon Banas]

If a 6" wide tire has a 3" long section touching the ground at any one time, there would be 18 sq. inches of foot print. If an 8" tire had 3" of contact length there would be 24 Sq. inches. How could both tires be carrying the same weight per Sq. inch?

[dirtstudent2]

Quote

Originally posted by Jon Banas:
If a 6" wide tire has a 3" long section touching the ground at any one time, there would be 18 sq. inches of foot print. If an 8" tire had 3" of contact length there would be 24 Sq. inches. How could both tires be carrying the same weight per Sq. inch?

If the "air pressure" remained constant the 8" tire would not have a 3" long contact length. It would be less. I could be wrong but I think what I wrote is correct.


[This message has been edited by dirtstudent2 (edited 12-10-2001).]

[Jon Banas]

Don't you think if 6" tires gave the same bite as 8" tires, Karl Kinser would have it figured out and be looking at the weight savings. your putting to much mud into it...don't sweat the small stuff.

[valojanda]

How can you blame Microsoft for virus writers? Do you really think all other systems are immune to viruses, because they are not. Its just that no one bothers to write viruses for other systems because of the market share they have.