« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: balance  (Read 3035 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

terry russell

  • Guest
balance
« on: September 20, 2006, 12:01:52 AM »
Put my truck on scales last week found 42% of 3100lbs on rear.I have the thought of changing it to 48-49%. Would be a correct balance? If any one has a thought on this let me know
Thanks. Terry
Logged

Offline GH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
balance
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2006, 09:21:25 AM »
When I was building my Studebaker, Joe Timney told me to put 51% on the front end and 49% on the rear. Must be correct because the car goes straight, so far at 233 mph..good luck...
Logged

terry russell

  • Guest
balance
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2006, 09:56:56 AM »
thanks much thought 51-52% would be right. Heard you done good at speed week. Are you comning to maxton in Oct.?
terry
Logged

Offline Sumner

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4078
  • Blanding, Ut..a small dot in the middle of nowhere
    • http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/sumnerindex.html
balance
« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2006, 03:48:13 PM »
Our results with Hooley's Stude show about the same as Gary's and Joe Timney's suggestions.  We are very close to 50/50 and car has gone pretty straight overall.

In 2005 it was hard to keep it straight as our suspension was bound up on our runs and the course was so rough.

This year he spun the car on an early run (at 223 ), but I attribute that to the fact we were at about the max. speed we would be able to run at the weight we were at (about 3000 lbs.) and it was very hard to keep the tires from spinning up against the wall of air.

We then added over 600 lbs. to the car and Hooley said it was very stable again up to 241 mph.  The added weight was placed so that it keep the weight distribution still close to 50/50.

I feel it is just not the distribution, but also the total weight needed to maintain traction.  One helps the stability and the other the traction and they need to work together.

c ya,

Sum
Logged

Offline GH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
balance
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2006, 11:22:51 AM »
Sum, what is Hooleys total weight now? My car weighs 4500 lbs. with me in it.
Logged

Offline Sumner

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4078
  • Blanding, Ut..a small dot in the middle of nowhere
    • http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/sumnerindex.html
Re: balance
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2006, 12:18:24 PM »
Quote from: GH
Sum, what is Hooleys total weight now? My car weighs 4500 lbs. with me in it.


I think it is about 3800-3900 without him now and we have a little more weight that Jerry and John cut up that we didn't use.  I'll guess he weighs 190-210, but that is a guess.  They scaled it before b'ville, front-back and side-side.  Maybe John will see this as I think he has the weights.  I would like to see us have an additional 300-400 lbs. with us for next year just in case we need it.

Of course we can't drive ours on the street like you can, well he did take about a 5-10 mile "test" drive once, so you have stuff we don't have.  I think your weight will pay off with the speeds I expect to see you run.

Did you figure out the rad. hose deal??

c ya sometime soon,

Sum
Logged

Offline GH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
balance
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2006, 01:14:26 PM »
Sum, I went with a belt driven stock type water pump (30-40% more volume), got the engine running Tuesday afternoon, need to recalibrate throttle position sensor. I started it with the radiator cap off and it blew water out, it would never do that with the electric water pump.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »