autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: minimum weight requirement

To: "Brian Davis" <brian.davis@rose-hulman.edu>, <autox@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: minimum weight requirement
From: "Jay Mitchell" <jemitchell@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 13:10:52 -0500
Brian Davis wrote:


>> Well, first you have the 7" rim width limitation in ITS,
whereas
>> most SP competitors in the smaller cars are running at least
8"
>> rims (some FWD cars run 9s on the front and 8s on the rear).
>
>True.  I didn't mention this one, but realize it.

Don't underestimate the added grip that wider rims afford. Given
the choice between wider _tires_ or wider_ wheels_, I'd almost
always go with the latter.

>Mentioned this one.  Most of these mods only help much on the
very high end
>anyway...

I disagree. It's possible with judicious tuning to get
substantial improvements in midband torque with SP-legal
induction mods.


>The minimum weight I could get it to under SP rules was around
2300.

Did you take full advantage of every SP allowance that can
legally reduce weight? Examples: exhaust system, clutch/flywheel,
alternator, wheels/tires, dirver/passenger seat (kart seats are
really light, OEMs are pretty heavy), update/backdate,
alternator, starter, battery, pulleys, etc.? If not, then there's
more you can get out of your car.

Jay

>Are you referring to the fact that the same FD would not serve
auto-x and
>club racing duty well?

No. If an SP-legal FDR (original or legal via update/backdate)
optimizes the engine torque curve vs. speed - say, 20-60 mph -
then changing it won't help in autox.

>While not true for many cars, on my specific car I say it's
pretty even.

I think the rim width restrictions alone are a deal-breaker.

>I
>guess I'll wait and see :o)

I'd be interested in hearing how it works out.


Jay
65 ASP

///  unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net  or try
///  http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
///  Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>