| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Justin Martin
Joined: 27 Mar 2012 Posts: 328
|
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:01 pm Post subject: Can't find a 1020 SKM 50mm T2 axle... |
|
|
I am having the hardest time trying to find any SKM 50mm axles that are 1020...
On my current track my fastest times are ran with the 1020, hubs all the way inboard...
This being said, I do not want a 1040 etc.
So, Can anyone help me find an SKM T2 (medium) 50mm 1020 axle? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Peter Zambos
Joined: 22 Jun 2006 Posts: 540 Location: United States, Illinois, near Chicago
|
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You can get them from IM:
http://italianmotorsusa.com/collections/axles-50mm
Or, if you're in the Chicago area, you can get them through L.A.D. Specialties. http://www.ladspec.com
Remember, axle width and where your rear track width is at have more to do with where YOUR center of gravity is (both vertically and fore to aft), and can vary greatly from where your competitor is doing. A 1020 axle with the hubs all the way in is a rather narrow rear track. Though I don't know your track, it's conditions and what tires are mandated, I would think that this set up would work for few drivers who are near or at adult proportions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Justin Martin
Joined: 27 Mar 2012 Posts: 328
|
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, Im a pretty small guy
Driver weighs 135 at 5'6"
Intrepid cruiser 30mm chassis with Rotax 125, racing SR Rotax/Sr Tag. Weighted to 365.
I have practiced at Phoenix once, but do most of my driving at Musselman in Tucson Arizona.
Because of the excess amount of weight needed I am not able to go up the back of the seat, so the kart has a relatively low CG.
With a 1020, I am able to get to 1040 axle length just with hub adjustment, however I am scared if I go 1040 I will be screwed when I want to go narrower.
Quite frankly I have only played with rear axle width a slight bit, but when I did mess with it, I was faster at 1020 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Justin Martin
Joined: 27 Mar 2012 Posts: 328
|
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I found IM right after I posted the question! but thanks!
Now any insight on why I would go 1040 instead? Just curious f maybe I didnt go wide enough, and was in a limbo that wasn't as good as my narrow set up |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Peter Zambos
Joined: 22 Jun 2006 Posts: 540 Location: United States, Illinois, near Chicago
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At that weight, the narrow set up is likely the way to go. The ballast that you have, since you're on the lighter side, is probably on the seat. If my guess is correct, it's probably pretty low on the seat as well. If that's the case, your center of gravity is pretty low, and you could use a narrow rear track so that you're transferring weight to your outside rear tire with the greatest efficacy.
If you go the opposite way, and try a very wide rear track, my guess that you would wind up either flat sliding the rear, or have oodles of understeer. Either way, it's not the fast way to get around a track. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Justin Martin
Joined: 27 Mar 2012 Posts: 328
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thats exactly what I was thinking....
Ill stick with a 1020 then |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Clark hadden
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 Posts: 201 Location: Canada, Not usa, Nesleton
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|