PP2 Cooling Upgrades? Per criticism…

[EFI]

So now track cars are for dummies, ok, whatever you think.

No, but car manufacturers don't know who's buying these and driving these. There's no "dummy" test prior to purchasing the car so any joe schmo with enough money can buy these regardless of their driving skill.

And understeer is safer not only on track, but on the street also. How many videos are on youtube about dummies spinning out of control because they can't handle high power rwd cars?

Point is, manufacturers set these "track capable" cars up for safety first and foremost, not track capabilities as much as their brochure makes it out to be.

Sponsored

 

[Ewheels]

So now you're assuming I have no "real world experience ", wasn't aware we knew each other.

Ok, you're right. We'll be fair.....what tracks do you go to and what are your lap times at those tracks? I'll give mine for total transparency. Buttonwillow - 2:03, AutoClub - 1:54, Big Willow - 1:33

I'm stating that your statement that staggered is for drag and vintage look is wrong. And I proved it by giving several examples of cars made for track use that are indeed staggered.

That you did. However, if you can't grasp that Ford has different goals than an enthusiast consumer, that's on you.

Fitting 11" wheels with 305s or bigger in the front won't work on all cars.

We're not talking about all cars; we're talking about S550 mustangs.

I'm not a spacer fan myself.

Oh goodness, you're one of those. If you'd like, I can explain and provide evidence why this distaste for spacers is unwarranted but I doubt you want to hear any more from me.

But you saying 285s are useless is totally wrong

For the third and final time, if someone's goal is ultimate grip and they are buying wheels/tires in the aftermarket, it makes zero sense to go 285/305 stagger when 305/305 fits perfectly. If one's goals are something other than ultimate grip, sure maybe 285/305 makes sense, but sticking to the topic at hand, I stand by what I said.

and I'll refer you to the GT series of racing where they run 285 tires in the mustangs.

This is completely irrelevant as different racing series require certain tires/sizes based on the rules.
Perfect example: NASA American Iron series mandates Toyo RR tires and cannot go above a 275 width. Is this setup utilizing maximum possible grip? No, but that's what the rules demand. If drivers in this series were unrestricted by tire size, do you think any of them would still be running tiny 275s?....



EDIT:
I thought of another point...
@boardkat 's goal is to set the fastest possible laps, no matter what. I guarantee he doesn't care about squared or staggered; whatever makes him go faster is the setup he's going with.
Guess what tires he runs......335 square *mic drop*

 

[luc]

So now track cars are for dummies, ok, whatever you think.

Dude, we all due respect, you don’t know what you are talking about
As explained the only reason a lot of front engine sport car, including my Viper, come with smaller tires on the front is indeed to promote understeer because it’s safer and easier to handle for average driver
the first thing that anymore having any modicum of track experience do on those cars, is to put bigger tires on the front
The Simple physics and car dynamics behind this modification is quite easy to understand
And btw, simple physics also explain why bolt through ( as opposed to bolt on) spacers are totally safe.. the impact and extra load on the knuckle/hub is not different than a wheel with extra offset

 

[tosha]

So now track cars are for dummies, ok, whatever you think.

I kinda lost track of what you are trying to prove. yes, majority of 911/Corvette/GT500 buyers will never take their cars anywhere close to a track, let alone pushing them to 10/10s. so yes, manufacturers try to make them more idiotproof for more typical scenarios like leaving cars and coffee parking lots without smashing into a light post. we all know how well even that goes... you may call it "track cars are for dummies", because that's how they are actually set up. any adequate track enthusiast would know what needs to be done to tune such cars into more proper setups.

now, moving back to the more relevant question, that was actually asked:

Would like to perform above PP2 level on occasional track/ road course days.

I again fail to understand what you are after. are you saying that 295/305 setup would be a better choice compared to 305 square? or should he get a set of 285 wheels? or you just don't like @Ewheels and nitpicking on his posts? just trying to understand.

 

[Arknsawchuck]

No, but car manufacturers don't know who's buying these and driving these. There's no "dummy" test prior to purchasing the car so any joe schmo with enough money can buy these regardless of their driving skill.

And understeer is safer not only on track, but on the street also. How many videos are on youtube about dummies spinning out of control because they can't handle high power rwd cars?

Point is, manufacturers set these "track capable" cars up for safety first and foremost, not track capabilities as much as their brochure makes it out to be.

I'm not disagreeing with understeer vs oversteer issues, I'm just questioning the whole staggered is for drag or show and squared is the only track setup. If ford is dummy proofing cars then why aren't base model cars staggered, and why only the ones purpose built for track use staggered? There's way more crashes on the street than on the track. Why didn't they "dummy proof" the regular cars too?

 

[RocketGuy3]

Oh goodness, you're one of those. If you'd like, I can explain and provide evidence why this distaste for spacers is unwarranted but I doubt you want to hear any more from me.

I would actually be interested in this evidence. I've read what seemed like intuitive explanations on why even small spacers can wreak havoc on wheel bearings after extended track use.

 

[tosha]

If ford is dummy proofing cars then why aren't base model cars staggered, and why only the ones purpose built for track use staggered?

Are you flat earther by any chance?

 

[Arknsawchuck]

Ok, you're right. We'll be fair.....what tracks do you go to and what are your lap times at those tracks? I'll give mine for total transparency. Buttonwillow - 2:03, AutoClub - 1:54, Big Willow - 1:33


That you did. However, if you can't grasp that Ford has different goals than an enthusiast consumer, that's on you.


We're not talking about all cars; we're talking about S550 mustangs.


Oh goodness, you're one of those. If you'd like, I can explain and provide evidence why this distaste for spacers is unwarranted but I doubt you want to hear any more from me.


For the third and final time, if someone's goal is ultimate grip and they are buying wheels/tires in the aftermarket, it makes zero sense to go 285/305 stagger when 305/305 fits perfectly. If one's goals are something other than ultimate grip, sure maybe 285/305 makes sense, but sticking to the topic at hand, I stand by what I said.


This is completely irrelevant as different racing series require certain tires/sizes based on the rules.
Perfect example: NASA American Iron series mandates Toyo RR tires and cannot go above a 275 width. Is this setup utilizing maximum possible grip? No, but that's what the rules demand. If drivers in this series were unrestricted by tire size, do you think any of them would still be running tiny 275s?....



EDIT:
I thought of another point...
@boardkat 's goal is to set the fastest possible laps, no matter what. I guarantee he doesn't care about squared or staggered; whatever makes him go faster is the setup he's going with.
Guess what tires he runs......335 square *mic drop*

Well I guess your times and tracks makes you a pro now. My hats off to you. I've never said that squared and width aren't better, I'm just questioning your statement that staggered is only for drag or show. And when I mention "all cars" it means S550 since that is the cars we are talking about. It just covers all the package models. And goodie for mister 335 guy. Those will not fit my car. And I don't need your lessons on spacers. You like what you like and I'll like what I like. You are acting like if you don't run 335s you will suck. I'm referenced the other race cars to show that even 285 tires can run impressive times, and times that will make your times seem slow. Anyway, this has come full circle so I'm done trying to reason with you, have a nice day and enjoy your track time, if nothing else I'm sure we can agree it's fun no matter what tires you have.

 

[EFI]

Why didn't they "dummy proof" the regular cars too?

Because they don't need to dummy proof a 120hp FWD econobox. But they do need to dummy proof a 650hp RWD car.

why only the ones purpose built for track use staggered?

Because those are the cars most likely to be driven aggressive and/or on track. More people take corvettes and vipers and 911s to the track then corollas. And track oriented cars usually have more power than econoboxes, thus they need more dummying for the average driver.

 

[Arknsawchuck]

I kinda lost track of what you are trying to prove. yes, majority of 911/Corvette/GT500 buyers will never take their cars anywhere close to a track, let alone pushing them to 10/10s. so yes, manufacturers try to make them more idiotproof for more typical scenarios like leaving cars and coffee parking lots without smashing into a light post. we all know how well even that goes... you may call it "track cars are for dummies", because that's how they are actually set up. any adequate track enthusiast would know what needs to be done to tune such cars into more proper setups.

now, moving back to the more relevant question, that was actually asked:

I again fail to understand what you are after. are you saying that 295/305 setup would be a better choice compared to 305 square? or should he get a set of 285 wheels? or you just don't like @Ewheels and nitpicking on his posts? just trying to understand.

No, I'm just stating that a staggered setup is not going to be a deal breaker. I run squared myself, my wheels are staggered but my tires are not. As for my car I will be going staggered tires this year using my rear to 315, since my car cold use some understeer since I have oversteer issues more often. As for the post wanting "better than PP2 performance" out of a PP1, well it's gonna take more than tires. For cost, and clearance I'd go a squared 285 or 295 before I'd go adding spacers and spending money to get the clearance needed for wider tires. Hope this clears it up some

 

[Ewheels]

Well I guess your times and tracks makes you a pro now. My hats off to you. I've never said that squared and width aren't better, I'm just questioning your statement that staggered is only for drag or show. And when I mention "all cars" it means S550 since that is the cars we are talking about. It just covers all the package models. And goodie for mister 335 guy. Those will not fit my car. And I don't need your lessons on spacers. You like what you like and I'll like what I like. You are acting like if you don't run 335s you will suck. I'm referenced the other race cars to show that even 285 tires can run impressive times, and times that will make your times seem slow. Anyway, this has come full circle so I'm done trying to reason with you, have a nice day and enjoy your track time, if nothing else I'm sure we can agree it's fun no matter what tires you have.

There are more points I could argue here, but agreed, this isn't going anywhere productive.
You have a nice day as well, Chuck.

 

[luc]

I would actually be interested in this evidence. I've read what seemed like intuitive explanations on why even small spacers can wreak havoc on wheel bearings after extended track use.

Let me try to explain
Let say that we are using a 1”/25mm spacer, that will move the wheel out by the same distance
A wheel with an extra 25mm negative offset will move out the wheel by exactly the same distance
The less load on a bearing would be a wheel with 0 offset, meaning the center, width wise, of the wheel would be directly in line with the bearing. Any positive or negative offset , because of the leverage factor, put some extra load on the bearing but a spacer only add extra negative offset and for the bearing there is no difference if the wheel has 45 negative offset or 20 negative offset plus a 25 spacer. In both case the number, therefore the load is the same
Hope that make sense

 

[tosha]

No, I'm just stating that a staggered setup is not going to be a deal breaker.

sure, I was running 255/275 setup for a year before I decided to move to 305 square. not a deal breaker, but also far from being best possible option

For cost, and clearance I'd go a squared 285 or 295 before I'd go adding spacers and spending money to get the clearance needed for wider tires.

and spend more money after a bit of time to actually do it properly? where are the cost savings in that?

look, a track is just asphalt paved road, you can run a tricycle. the question here is what is the better choice, not what is minimally needed to drive around.

As for the post wanting "better than PP2 performance" out of a PP1, well it's gonna take more than tires

it's gonna take a set of 305 tires, FP track suspension package and camber plates. that's all you need to get better than PP2 level. without the tires, you won't get there.

 

[tosha]

Let me try to explain
Let say that we are using a 1”/25mm spacer, that will move the wheel out by the same distance
A wheel with an extra 25mm negative offset will move out the wheel by exactly the same distance
The less load on a bearing would be a wheel with 0 offset, meaning the center, width wise, of the wheel would be directly in line with the bearing. Any positive or negative offset , because of the leverage factor, put some extra load on the bearing but a spacer only add extra negative offset and for the bearing there is no difference if the wheel has 45 negative offset or 20 negative offset plus a 25 spacer. In both case the number, therefore the load is the same
Hope that make sense

let me support this with a visual representation:

After all, wheel bearings/hubs are considered consumables in track duty and heat kills them much faster than spacers.

 

[RocketGuy3]

Let me try to explain
Let say that we are using a 1”/25mm spacer, that will move the wheel out by the same distance
A wheel with an extra 25mm negative offset will move out the wheel by exactly the same distance
The less load on a bearing would be a wheel with 0 offset, meaning the center, width wise, of the wheel would be directly in line with the bearing. Any positive or negative offset , because of the leverage factor, put some extra load on the bearing but a spacer only add extra negative offset and for the bearing there is no difference if the wheel has 45 negative offset or 20 negative offset plus a 25 spacer. In both case the number, therefore the load is the same
Hope that make sense

I understand, but to be clear, what I've read and understood about the problem also applies to more aggressive (than OEM) wheel offsets. From what I gather, you risk the life of your wheel bearings with either choice.

Sponsored