Page 3 of 3
Posted: 21 Nov 2005, 21:47
by manchild
Not negligible but very important for overall performance of karting. Amount of flexing of karting chassis can be adjusted and together with tuning of tyre pressure and positioning of ballast it can bring huge gain or loss in lap time.
Posted: 22 Nov 2005, 03:49
by Guest
i'm assuming a carbon-monocoque kart would be like a nightmare
Posted: 22 Nov 2005, 11:14
by RH1300S
Anonymous wrote:i'm assuming a carbon-monocoque kart would be like a nightmare
Quite likely it would handle like a tu*d. Karts have steel tubes, which will flex and provide a "sort of"
supple response. Even if the carbon kart had tubular construction it is probable that the tubes would be stiffer and when they deflect they would deflect less and "spring back" more violently. The kart would probably be twitchy to drive. You did say monocoque, which would be even stiffer. I chose a tubular example to relate it to normal kart construction.
Posted: 22 Nov 2005, 12:22
by manchild
Anonymous wrote:i'm assuming a carbon-monocoque kart would be like a nightmare
Not really, take for example modern fishing rods, they are made from CF and we've all seen how much they bend. The problem with CF karting chassis would be fixing points for front wheels, rear axle, engine etc. because there you'd have to use steel elements similar to those used for wishbones on F1 (I’m not mentioning the price).
Uprights
Posted: 11 Jan 2006, 20:32
by tim
Does anyone have any f1 car uprights pictures showing the pushrod mounting to the upright clearly? If so please could you post them or email them to me?
Thanks
MrT
Posted: 11 Jan 2006, 20:41
by manchild
Posted: 11 Jan 2006, 21:06
by bernard
manchild wrote:Anonymous wrote:i'm assuming a carbon-monocoque kart would be like a nightmare
Not really, take for example modern fishing rods, they are made from CF and we've all seen how much they bend. The problem with CF karting chassis would be fixing points for front wheels, rear axle, engine etc. because there you'd have to use steel elements similar to those used for wishbones on F1 (I’m not mentioning the price).
I take it you mixed carbon fibre with glass fibre. Or are there really carbonfibre fishing rods out there?
Posted: 11 Jan 2006, 21:38
by manchild
No glass fibre rods are like 30-40 years old and CF rods are already some 15 years old. Just google "carbon fishing rod" or somthing simmilar.
And not just that but there are now nanotechnology fishing rods!!!!
http://tackletour.com/reviewairrus2006.html
The N-SYNC is the industry's first rod to make use of Carbon Nanotube Technology and is constructed using Carbon Nanotube Composites...
Mosley + F1 = Fishing rod with more advanced technology than F1
Posted: 12 Jan 2006, 13:22
by bernard
manchild wrote:No glass fibre rods are like 30-40 years old and CF rods are already some 15 years old. Just google "carbon fishing rod" or somthing simmilar.
And not just that but there are now nanotechnology fishing rods!!!!
http://tackletour.com/reviewairrus2006.html
The N-SYNC is the industry's first rod to make use of Carbon Nanotube Technology and is constructed using Carbon Nanotube Composites...
Mosley + F1 = Fishing rod with more advanced technology than F1
Man, I want to start fishing now!
Weird how technology just creeps in to the most unexpected fields without even noticing it. Next we'll be zapping fish with laserbeams, while drinking our delicious beer made by robots from atoms to give the absolute best taste possible.
Posted: 12 Jan 2006, 13:34
by manchild
bernard wrote:Man, I want to start fishing now!
Weird how technology just creeps in to the most unexpected fields without even noticing it. Next we'll be zapping fish with laserbeams, while drinking our delicious beer made by robots from atoms to give the absolute best taste possible.
http://wylie_rods.tripod.com/