[Rob Kozakowski]

Yep, price gouging is pretty unfortunate.

As for the rest of the debate, how is MG or SKUSA or an importer or a distributor of kart tires really going to be able to judge the number they’d need to supply?  That decision comes from the demand that is driven by the customer – and it seems pretty clear the customers weren’t demanding MG wets…

SKUSA put it out there well in advance that competitors could PRE-ORDER through them, or they were free to go to whatever dealer they wanted to get their rains.  SKUSA received very few pre-orders.  What does that tell you about demand?

My guess is the dealers weren’t asking MG / importer / distributors for more tires either (until the last minute).  Why?  Because the competitors weren’t asking for them.  Again, where’s the demand?

If nobody is asking for rain tires, a pretty fair and reasonable assumption would be that the competitors HAVE WHAT THEY NEED.  So why flood the market with more?  That would just raise the cost by carrying excess inventory.

It’s nice to think that MG or whomever should have been sitting on $250,000 of rain tires, but that’s not how the world works.  This isn’t F1 where Pirelli is contractually required to supply X number of wets and slicks at each event well ahead of time.  This is kart racing, where the onus was clearly on the competitors (SKUSA told the competitors to come prepared well ahead of time – they didn’t tell MG to come prepared).  SKUSA provided a deadline to pre-order to ensure that MG could meet whatever demand existed.  The competitors spoke and said they didn’t want them.  Why can’t some people admit that many of the competitors screwed up and stop blaming others for their mistakes?

I admit, when I first heard the story, I thought SKUSA screwed up.  I now realize the only thing that SKUSA screwed up was trusting the competitors to be prepared.  Next year, the problem can easily be solved by raising the entry fee by another $500 to include 2 sets of MG wets.  Instead of doing that, SKUSA tried to be fair and let people pay whatever they wanted for the tires from whatever dealer they wanted.

[Rob Kozakowski]

[quote quote=16575]Food for thought after looking at the entries. Out of 600 entires not one american made kart. No Margay, Ikart or whatever. Thats got to be concerning on some levels. [/quote]

That is pretty interesting.  Nothing like the years where Trackmagic was fighting for wins with the best of the Euro chassis – I’ve always had a lot of respect for what Trackmagic was able to accomplish.

That said, SKUSA has never really been the focus of many of the American manufacturers, so maybe it’s not such a big surprise.

[Rob Kozakowski]

Wade, I’m also 6′ and 200 lbs, running Rotax Masters.  I run an Italkart Rapido V, all 30 mm frame.  Most of the guys at my club in our class run OTK (Tony, FA, Kosmic), CRG, or Energy karts because that’s what’s supported here by local dealers.  Within the OTK, CRG, and Energy crowd, there is a mix of 30 and 32.  I wouldn’t say any brand or frame size is better than or has an advantage over another.  It really comes down to driver and ability to tune.

There is no local Italkart dealer in my area, but I’ve been around the sport long enough that I can survive without the at-the-track support. Honestly, the only reason I run the Italkart is I’ve got a history with IM dating back to the early-90’s – they treated me real well and I haven’t forgotten that.  If I had no history with IM, I’d probably be on a Tony or CRG too for the at-the-track support – like I say, they’re all good chassis.

[Rob Kozakowski]

Gary’s absolutely right – listen to everyone when they say support is key for a beginner.

Whether it’s 30, 30/32, 32, red, black, green, orange, blue, purple, etc., any newer chassis can win in the right hands – there really aren’t many “bad” karts.  It really won’t be until you get enough experience behind the seat that you MIGHT be able to tell what suits you better, and how to tune the chassis to work best for you.

Everyone could chime in, and tell you their preference and why, but end of the day, you won’t be any further ahead because everyone will prefer something different for a different reason.  The only thing to really pay attention to is what will get you the best support as a beginner.

It sounds to me like you have a lot of choices, which is fortunate.  My advice would be to talk to the different dealers, and see who you feel most comfortable with and go with them over going with a particular brand of kart.

[Rob Kozakowski]

I wouldn’t call it a “poor” article.  If anything, it was a good article given the subject matter at hand – which was that particular family’s experience.

Just because, like many, I’m a relative “have-not” in the karting world, doesn’t mean that all of karting is about us “have-nots”.  And there’s no reason to pretend the big bucks and higher levels don’t exist for those that want to choose that path – that would be just as stupid as reporting that karting is all about club-level clone racing.

One thing I love about the sport is the diversity in backgrounds that you’ll find, especially at the club level, where you’ll have guys like me hauling their kart on top of an ugly old freebie utility trailer, and I’m racing against guys with massive haulers.

But face it, to run at the top levels, you’d better bring some money or some ridiculous level of talent and salesmanship ability to convince someone else to spend their money on you or to reduce your costs.

No, you might not need $30K to win at the top levels, but I doubt there are many at that level spending less than that.  Even back in the early-90’s, we had competitors who we used to run neck-and-neck with who told it to our faces that they protested us on occasion because they were spending more than that $30K /year figure to run on a Regional level, and they would do whatever it took to win.  Sure, it’s a small percentage, but it does exist.

[Rob Kozakowski]

Heron would probably be late 90’s.  It was a popular shifter chassis in it’s day – definitely a sprint chassis.

Remember a few things have changed over the years with the components – bigger axles rear and front, wider fronts, changes to front, rear, and side pod bumpers, more magnesium vs. aluminum wheels and other components, etc. – that have likely had some impact on how the frames themselves are designed to work in conjuction with those components.

[Rob Kozakowski]

Wade, not sure where the carb regs are at today with the Rotax, but generally speaking it’s pretty much main jet and clip position that you’ll play with.  There are various free “cheat sheets” and websites where you input weather conditions, etc. that  you can use in order to get started with jetting, but ultimately, the best way is to get a weather station and do your own testing from there because every engine and carb WILL be a bit different.

All the engines have +’s and -‘s. 

The good about Rotax:

• Very reliable engine
• It’s a sealed package, so theoretically all engines should be close, and it really comes down to driver, chassis and carb tuning
• It’s easy to be in the “ballpark” with jetting, which means you’re not likely to lean stick the thing
• Rotax isn’t trying to develop the “latest and greatest engine package” to beat the Max, so the engine isn’t going anywhere and the rules aren’t likely to change “too much” over time

The bad about Rotax:

• It’s a sealed engine package so you can’t do your own rebuilds (but seriously, this only affects a VERY SMALL number of people who would tackle this)
• It’s a sealed engine package, so you CAN CHOOSE to spend big money with the builder to have them pick and test for the “best” combo of sealed parts to gain an advantage (but again, anybody can test and match parts on any engine)
• It’s a sealed engine package, so if it is torn apart in tech, you have to pay someone to re-apply a seal (seriously, this might be the only thing about the Rotax that truly sucks compared to any other engine)
• It’s not always easy to maximize your jetting (ballpark is easy, but “dialed in” not so easy)
• Rotax does come out with updates every so often, and they’re generally not cheap (on the other hand, other engines tend to get replaced completely) – generally at the club level, you get a grace period to update to current specs, so this applies most at the higher levels

The other engines are good too.  The biggest differences are that they’re not sealed packages (several advantages or disadvantages, depending on your point of view) and you might give up a little in reliability mostly because with a carb that can be tuned on the go, it’s easier to keep pushing the limits and work the engine harder.  It can also be harder for an inexperienced driver to be in the “ballpark” on carb tuning.  That said, it’s easier for an experienced driver to get “dialed in”.  Just like the Rotax with it’s updates, the original Leopard is rarely seen anymore, as it’s MY09 Leopards, with talk that Parilla might be heading towards the X30 in the future.  The original ROK was “upgraded” with the ROK TT.  Etc.

Karting isn’t always cheap, but none of these engine packages have to be expensive to run.

Pick what has the best numbers and/or support locally and have fun.

[Rob Kozakowski]

I remember back in the mid-90’s, running against a guy who had a VERY LARGE friend who push started him.  Not to sound mean, but the friend was of a shape and size that he couldn’t bend down to push start him.  The tool they used?  A hockey stick, with the blade cut off and the end of the shaft of the stick cut into a “V” groove.  He could basically stand in one spot or maybe take one or two steps in an upright position at a normal walking pace and give a push and the thing would fire up.

The point being, you don’t need anything fancy.  You don’t really need much speed or distance to start a shifter, so anything to just get the thing moving will usually do.

I used to run direct drives against some guys who used the 5th wheel that Walt mentioned.  I never saw then used on shifters though – not that they couldn’t be – I just think they might be more suited to direct drive that normally takes more speed and space to get going.

[Rob Kozakowski]

That could even be a real old reed valve.  Look up the TM KL.   It’s the predecessor to the K7 reed, which was the first shifter I had (and still have one in the garage).  The KL was a reed with intake on the side of the case.

 

[Rob Kozakowski]

Mind you, I think some, like CRS, only made a reed valve FC engine, not a rotary.

[Rob Kozakowski]

I agree, Formula C with the rotary induction.  Could be from a bit earlier than that, Greg.

I ran TM’s, and by the mid-90’s, most of the head designs were going to a more rounded shape, like the TM KV95, compared to the previous generation like the TM KV92 that had more of a square head shape, like we see in the picture.

That said, all I remember from the pre-KV95 days was TM and Pavesi.  Once the KV95 came out, there seemed to be a lot more options – Vortex, CRS, KZH…  Could be that they came into the game with an older head design?  I don’t remember anymore.

[Rob Kozakowski]

http://eknclassic.com/viewtopic.php?t=2673&highlight=gear+ratio

 

 

[Rob Kozakowski]

Yep, the 4-cycle dirt guys definitely get upset when they’re challenged on that one.

Rotating mass and friction in the driveline are the 2 things they seem to throw out a lot of the time.  Hard to believe there’d be any measurable gains or losses from going bigger or smaller, but then again sometimes in life, there are things that you just can’t really explain.

Fortunately over in the sprint world, we seem to be at a consensus that a ratio is a ratio.  We also normally go as big as we can reasonably get away with without risking chewing the teeth off the axle sprocket.

[Rob Kozakowski]

In sprint racing, I don’t know of anyone who disagrees with “a ratio is a ratio”.  It’s been tested by many of us, and I can’t find anyone who has found otherwise.

Apparently, iIf you’re talking dirt-LTO stuff, there’s a lot of debate to be had.  Many experienced guys in that arena will tell you it DOES make a difference.  As strange as that seems to me, I’ve got no experience with it, so maybe it does make a difference in certain situations.  I certainly wouldn’t rule out that possibility completely.

[Rob Kozakowski]

I agree with TJ that in very limited situations, Paul’s theory might work.  With real hard tires that don’t provide any “side-bite”, making the rear rotate by sliding, rather than unloading the inside tire can work.

The trouble is that with the tires we run in 99% of the applications, and with the design of “Euro” sprint karts, we have to unload the inside rear to make a kart work as designed.

We could probably work around the design of karts by moving the weight bias so far forward and bumping tire pressures so high that the rear might slide again, rather than needing to unload the inside rear.  Trouble is by doing this, you’re creating all kinds of other handling problems that you’ll end up slower than setting the kart up the way it is designed to work.

While you want to ignore stagger, you can’t ignore its impact on LTO karts.  It’s like ignoring the tires and the kart design we use in sprint karts.  It’s all part of the complete package.

[Rob Kozakowski]

In general one of three things can happen when you accelerate…

1) You continue traveling along the same (ideal) path.  This is what we all hope for.

2) You get oversteer, the back end starts to come around.  In this case you can either reduce speed to get back on the ideal path or you can correct your steering inputs (counter-steer) to keep on the correct path (although this will result in you slowing down even if your foot is held on the gas because you’ll be scrubbing speed).  The other options involve getting off-line or maybe even spinning the kart.  None of these options are ideal.

3) You get understeer, and the front end won’t track along the path you want it to.  In this case about all you can do is slow down to get back on the ideal path or induce a whole lot of extra steering input, which will again slow you down because you’ll be scrubbing speed.

Given this, how is this not an issue of kart setup, instead one of “the driver needs to learn to do it”?

[Rob Kozakowski]

Paul, you’re really just stating the obvious…

I’m going to disagree that “the driver needs to learn how to do it”.

I actually think most drivers know how to do it. It’s called accelerating.  Or applying throttle. Or getting on the gas. Etc…

After all, the only possible way to travel faster than your “end of deceleration speed” is to accelerate.

Personally, I’d change your statement that I quoted above to “you have to have the kart properly setup to do it”.

How do you go faster on that same line if the kart oversteers or understeers when you accelerate?  You haven’t answered that question and how it applies to the ability to travel the “exact same path at a speed above your end of deceleration speed”…

[Rob Kozakowski]

Ok, maybe I AM glad I asked the question… I think I’m starting to understand what you’re saying – finally!

Sorry Paul, but you have a tendency to get side-tracked in a lot of your responses, which makes it hard to understand what you’re trying to say at times, and that’s why we’re on page 3… I’m glad you kept going though because I’m always game to hear more ideas that might help me learn more.

Anyhow, I’ll agree with a few things you said…

1) It’s possible to maintain speed after decelerating, up to the point where you accelerate again, being at the limit of grip all the time – that should be obvious.

2) (SOMETIMES) It’s possible to take the same corner, on the same line, faster by being on the gas earlier because the acceleration forces will transfer weight – this might not be obvious to everyone, although I’d think that most people who have raced for any length of time should recognize this… hence, I’m not sure that it’s really “magic”.

So why is it only “sometimes”?  Well, (ignoring the driver) things like kart setup, grip in the tires, grip in the track surface, etc., all play a role.

What happens when you go into a corner, decelerate, apply throttle, and the back end steps out on you?  What happens when the front won’t turn anymore and the kart hasn’t rotated enough to make the corner exit?

This really has nothing to do with “slow in/fast out” concepts and everything to do with kart setup… which is why I think this has been over-complicated.

The fastest guys in any form of motorsports have 2 things going for them.  First, they’re talented.  Second, their car / kart is handling well.  The middle of the pack guys are lacking in one of those areas.  The back of the pack is lacking in both those areas or is seriously deficient in one area.

When you’re busy watching, look for the middle of the pack guys who try to apply the “magic”, but end up with karts that won’t respond to the driver inputs the way they’d like them to.  It’s not just driving skill that allows the “magic” to happen.

[Rob Kozakowski]

I’m not sure if this still has anything to do with “slow in/fast out”, but…

It’s taken us to Page 3, and ignoring everything else, it seems to me that what Paul originally called “magic” can now be summarized as “something between deceleration and acceleration” or a “transition area between deceleration and acceleration”.  I say that in part because I still have no clue what else he’s said!  Sorry Paul, just being honest!

I’m almost afraid to ask this, but what is that “something”?  Hopefully it doesn’t take us another 2 pages to get there…

[Rob Kozakowski]

Paul, if you really want to read about theory on the outside front, go to the eknclassic forums and search “John vs Bill”.  It’s a technical discussion from about 10 years ago.  While it’s impossible to “simplify” the discussion, one observation that John Learmouth makes is that the outside front does not have to be significantly loaded to make a kart corner quickly.

That particular discussion is more to do with the conceptual approach to kart setup from 2 slightly differing schools of thought.

But if you search anything by John Learmouth, you’ll see he keeps coming back to the same theory.

I’ll warn you, it’s some “heavy” reading…

[Rob Kozakowski]

Paul, I don’t know you, but I really like your persistence to want to learn and share your thoughts!

(I think) I’m going to disagree with your thoughts on differing amounts of hp, and how they might impact your line / apex points / grip levels / etc.  That said, I’m still a little unsure of what exactly it is you’re saying, so maybe we do agree???

The first and most important thing to understand is that in racing, we can rarely look at a single corner “in a vacuum”.  We almost always have to look at a series of corners (or potentially at the track as a whole) and how the choices we make in one corner will impact the next one, and the next one, etc.  As a result of this, we often have to compromise something in at least one of those corners to get the lowest combined time through the entire series of corners.  What good is it for me to fly around the first corner, only to completely miss the next one?

If you had a track where each and every corner was connected to the next by a long straight, then and only then could you look at each corner “in a vacuum”.

The next thing to understand is where you are most likely to see varying lines, apex points, etc. in order to achieve a fast lap time, is probably in a series of corners taken by karts of differing hp / speeds.

I’ll share an example from experience.  My club’s track has one series of corners that demonstrates this well.  This series of corners features a 90-degree left hander, followed almost immediately by about a 45-degree right hander.  These are 2 very critical turns.  They lead to a short straight followed by a fairly wide 180-degree turn.  If you screw up or get the first 2 corners right, you can lose or gain lots of time, and it makes the entry to the 3rd corner a good passing zone.

In a slower 4-stroke, you do not need to lift / brake for this section.  This makes it a true “momentum” section for the 4-strokes, where scrubbing any amount of speed will hurt you.  Therefore, the goal is to “round” off the first corner and make it as much of a constant radius turn as you possibly can.  You then “round” off the second corner as well, and that’s that.  Simple to explain, but the ability to execute separates the fast guys from the slow.

In a Rotax, etc., you absolutely have to reduce speed for the first corner, because if you don’t, you will run off the track on the exit and have no chance of making the next corner.  So, the question becomes, do I only reduce my speed through the first corner enough to be fast through the first corner, or do I reduce my speed through the first corner enough to be fast through the series of 2 corners?

I’ll tell you that a lot of the guys with average to slower lap times are amongst the fastest guys through the first corner of this section.  The guys with the faster lap times are some of the slowest through the first corner of this section.

The guys who take the first corner faster tend to approach it like a 4-stroke would, and try to “round” it off and make it a constant-radius corner.  The trouble is by doing this, they are having to lift / brake to make the second corner.

The guys who take the first corner slower, approach the corner almost exactly as shown in Eric’s graphical illustration on the previous page, with a later apex.  How do I know it’s slower?  Because when I’m qualifying and I’m behind the slower guys entering this section, they gap me around the first corner.  So why would the faster guys do this?  Because it allows us to not lift around the more important second corner, at which point we drive past the other guys with ease who are lifting (or at the very least not on the throttle hard) at a point where we’re hard on the throttle.

Now onto where (I think) I disagree with you about grip levels…

If I understand your logic correctly, you’re basically saying that if one guy’s cornering slower than the other, it means he’s not using all of his available grip, so he’s going slower than he could.

One thing to remember is that a tire has grip available to do one of or a combination of 3 things – cornering, braking, and accelerating.

So just because you might be cornering slower than someone else, doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re not at the maximum level of grip available to you.  Maybe you’re just using that grip for a different purpose than the other guy.

In my example above, the slow guy (who’s fast around the first corner) is dedicating almost all of his grip to cornering through the first and the second corner.  Sure he was fast around the first corner, but by doing so, he was then forced to use all his grip for cornering in the second corner as well.

The fast guy (who’s slow around the first corner) is using his grip to brake, then make a harder initial turn in (the harder you turn, the more grip is used), but then he’s using his grip to accelerate before he’s even hit his late apex mark, which is much earlier than the guy who’s still using his grip for cornering.  The REAL fast guys do this same thing with great handling karts.

That’s not how every corner should be taken, but in my opinion, this series of corners provides a great example of where you would want to apply the idea of “slower in = faster out”.  Notice I didn’t say “slow in”.

I’m with the others – there’s no magic to any of it, and I do agree with others that you’re probably over-thinking / analyzing / complicating it.  Hopefully this helps you understand a bit better what I think the rest of us are trying to tell you.

[Rob Kozakowski]

+1 to Ryan.  We bought our bead breaker from Italian Motors 20 years ago (they’ve not changed much if any and it’s been amortized to about $5/year of ownership so far) and finallly got smart and ordered the manual tire changer from them this year.

[Rob Kozakowski]

With a budget of $3-3.5k, you might have more luck going TAG.  Trust me, they’re still plenty fast.

If you keep your eyes open, there are good deals on quality used shifters that pop up from time-to-time.  Generally, in the $3-3.5k range, you’ll be getting a quality, proven used Stock Honda CR125 (engine only) that was prepared by Swedetech or a big name like that.  Go without the big name builder, and the prices tend to come down quite a bit, in which case you might find a complete (kart and engine) package within your budget.  The downside to used Stock Honda’s is that they are in demand, so it’s more of a seller’s market than a buyer’s market.  If it’s just for playing, a Euro KZ/ICC (pure kart engines) complete (kart and engine) package can probably be found in that price range too.  The downside to these engines is there’s not a lot of places to RACE them anymore, which helps a buyer because demand is low.

The best advice about what specifically to look for, which you’ll hear from almost everyone, is to see what is supported locally.  This is especially true for someone new to the sport.  If you’ve been kart racing for a while, it’s maybe not so important, but for you, you’ll want the support (whether you realize it right now or not).

Opinions differ on whether you should start in a 125 shifter – it’s not so much how fast they are, but it’s how many things you need to process very quickly, and that makes the learning curve of karting that much steeper.  Your Vette and Z-car will feel like things happen in slow motion in comparison.  Go with a 125 shifter if you want, but given your budget, you might be better off and equally satisfied with a TAG.

The one thing I’d personally avoid, through experience, is buying an older kart package that’s cheap because by the time you fix what needs fixing, you’ve generally spent as much as you would for a quality newer, lightly used kart.  And yours is still old and well-used.

[Rob Kozakowski]

The Rotax DD2 (2-speed) is where you’ll see most of the paddle shifters these days on karts.

[Rob Kozakowski]

My (admittedly limited) understanding is that piston ports can actully make more power – albeit in a relatively narrow band – it’s all a matter of what the purpose of the engine is designed to do.  A piston port designed for a lot of top end power, with a pipe (remember 2-pipes play a huge role in 2-strokes) designed for that could potentially produce higher peak hp than a reed or rotary?

One problem with a piston port is that it is relatively inefficient in the lower to mid rpm range, but is apparently quite efficient at high rpm’s.  When a piston port is designed to be used for karting (and most other) purposes, my guess would be they sacrifice the ultimate power available at the top end for increased bottom end.  What good is top end power if you’re a slug out of every corner and never get to use the top end power?

Taking that a step further, I’d also guess part of the reason most PP classes tend to run clutches is to run the engines where they’re designed to work best – basically bypassing the low-mid range where they suck.  I’d also guess that reeds and rotaries are generally run as direct drives because of their wider useable power bands.

Stihl is mostly involved in chainsaws, where I would guess that purpose, combined with design and packaging limitations (i.e. where do stick a tuned exhaust?) could possibly allow for a piston port to produce more power than a reed?

[Author]

Posts