Yellow Bullet Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have an odd question. I'm building a 93 C4 Corvette street strip turbo LS car with a straight axle swap.

The Corvette has a relatively short wheelbase and I want to make sure the chassis is stable as possible so it's not too much of a handful when it breaks traction at high speed. (for no prep or street work with a small tire)

I know getting it as low as possible is positive for stability, and extending wheelbase, (I plan on adding a couple of inches in the back) but assuming wheelbase is static, does track width influence stability? Do I want to keep it relatively narrow and tucked in the fenders, or if they stick out a bit in front and back will it not influence stability?

What about track width difference front to rear? How does a wide or narrow track in front make a difference? (same for rear)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
334 Posts
So I’ve been told....In an ideal world, the centerline of the front wheel spacing should be in line with the centerline of the rear wheel. When I say centerline, I’m referencing the midpoint of the wheels width.
I race a 97” WB AMX, same as ‘Vette. I love the short WB. You typically have your rear wheels 12” or more closer to the starting line, the spot where the longer WB car’s are really laying down the rubber. I’ve not gone faster than 133 MPH yet as it’s a Class car, but I have experienced tire spin even in 4th gear before and I feel it’s manageable. But I’m sure we’re talking a whole lot more HP for your ride.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
So I’ve been told....In an ideal world, the centerline of the front wheel spacing should be in line with the centerline of the rear wheel. When I say centerline, I’m referencing the midpoint of the wheels width.
I race a 97” WB AMX, same as ‘Vette. I love the short WB. You typically have your rear wheels 12” or more closer to the starting line, the spot where the longer WB car’s are really laying down the rubber. I’ve not gone faster than 133 MPH yet as it’s a Class car, but I have experienced tire spin even in 4th gear before and I feel it’s manageable. But I’m sure we’re talking a whole lot more HP for your ride.
Yeah it's a 6.0l with an 88mm turbo so it should have a bit more chooch. 😁

Thanks! Yeah the tire thing makes sense for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,349 Posts
I believe this works without adding wheelbase... :)
Truthfully, you're overthinking it. More folks crash due to never letting off the gas or getting back on it after letting off.
With modern traction control stuff, you should be able to manage given the proper effort to dial it in.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I believe this works without adding wheelbase... :)
Truthfully, you're overthinking it. More folks crash due to never letting off the gas or getting back on it after letting off.
With modern traction control stuff, you should be able to manage given the proper effort to dial it in.

Yeah I wouldn't be worried about it if I was on a prepped track all the time. But it won't have traction control at first. Maybe not at all until I can afford a dominator. My ms3 supports traction control but I've never seen it used in a competitive situation so I don't know it it'll be adequate.

Obviously this is an extreme example, but that one guy with the Vega on street outlaws has wrecked that thing so many times for a reason lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Most of my curiosity lies with funny cars which have an awfully narrow track width. Front wheels stick way inside the body. So I suspect the track to wheelbase ratio possibly adds to the stability for those 7000+ HP cars. And the top fuelers are even narrower.

But they are obviously on a whole different level so there could be other engineering reasons they do that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,076 Posts
My stock frame solid axle c3 is stable at 155 and has no extra downforce+slightly better than a brick aero . but on prepped track
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68,009 Posts
Most of my curiosity lies with funny cars which have an awfully narrow track width. Front wheels stick way inside the body. So I suspect the track to wheelbase ratio possibly adds to the stability for those 7000+ HP cars. And the top fuelers are even narrower.

But they are obviously on a whole different level so there could be other engineering reasons they do that.
The front track width isn't as narrow as it appears. Is the track width narrower compared to when F/C's were first built (full tube) -- yes. The way the body has been designed for the aero package, the leading edge of the front fender opening is wider compared to bodies made twenty years ago. Done this way to clean up the air disturbance around the spinning wheels. Same applies to the way the body envelopes the leading edge of the rear slicks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Is this what you're spooked about?
I think there is a lot of backstory to this one.
This one seems to go A to B.
No, it was really that Vega I mentioned, the one out of OKC with the red stripe.

That dude has crashed at least 2 times if not 3. Obviously they're doing like 3000+HP stuff on low traction surfaces, but where I'm trying to play it safe is the fact that I don't have wheel time in a 1200hp street car and the Corvette is shorter wb than even most short street cars like fox bodies or S10s.

If everyone says it's not a big deal I won't worry much about it. But that's why I asked. If there was low hanging fruit like changing track width than I might as well make those choices. Especially since my track width is totally up in the air. I still need to buy wheels.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top