Suspension....
I'm inclined to believe, and that's why I'm posting HERE, that this variable can be controlled for.
e.g. Maximum Motorsports Fox body mustang etc
Of course driver, course etc. But what about *the car* am I missing? If you could create the perfect slalom car, what would the stats be? If you couldn't just say "it handles good." How would you quantify that?
Weight is probably number one, suspension number two, tires number three.
Width of the vehicle is a critical part of slaloms. It is part of what makes E street and STS miatas, and STS Hondas such strong autox cars.
They're super narrow.
The Mini in HS is also a part of this. The 2019 Texas champ tour was a HUGE percentage slaloms and Ron Williams took us all to school in a HS mini cooper.
The less a car weighs the better it does EVERYTHING
CG will make a big difference
wheelbase too
Hard to tell if the OP is asking specifically about what makes a car fast through a slalom or if that word is being used in place of autocross.
There is a natural chassis "frequency" for lack of a better term that you have to deal with as well, especially with street class cars. You turn the front wheels, they generate slip angle, the front starts to move, that movement generates slip angle on the rear tires, they start to move, then car transfers weight to the outside tires and the suspension compresses and everything gets very close to a steady state condition. Ideally. Realistically there are more than a few cars that can't get all of that done in the time between cones on a slalom. The car never settles and you're turning the wheel to move the car back before it has settled.
Yep. Main function is vehicle width. Imagine how fast you could slalom on a motorcycle.
I'll say this: I have an E street Miata. Body roll is my biggest gripe in slaloms. I want stiffer sway bars, and I want smaller sidewalls. The side walls will be taken care of this season. The sway bars I can't do a whole lot about (at least at both ends).
everytime I'm a course worker, they put me in a slalom. Everytime a fox body goes through that slalom I stare death in its face. I kid you not. I've actually brought it up to the safety steward several times.
spacecadet said:Width of the vehicle is a critical part of slaloms. It is part of what makes E street and STS miatas, and STS Hondas such strong autox cars.
They're super narrow.
The Mini in HS is also a part of this. The 2019 Texas champ tour was a HUGE percentage slaloms and Ron Williams took us all to school in a HS mini cooper.
While I agree with this, the Swift GT was even narrower but due to it's horrific steering ratio was terrible at slaloms.
In reply to bobzilla :
I'm with you. The Non Si Ef civic's have a terribly slow rack.
The question was what else should be factored in the ultimate slalom car.
Same reason the Honda Fit does amazingly well at slaloms, narrow and really quick and accurate steering.
Well, this thread caused me to do a bit of math. I used a car that can do a 6 cone, 100ft per cone slalom at 60 mph and was 60 inches wide. I assumed constant acceleration the whole time, which won't be perfect but should be an easy approximation for perfect driving. And I assumed the car can achieve the same constant acceleration at both widths.
Adding 2 inches of width adds .11 seconds to the total slalom section time of about 6.8 seconds.
If you go with the assumption that slicks make about a 1 second difference on a 60 second track, 2 inches of width makes a very similar difference over a 60 second slalom.
Also good to note that this is one place great drivers find time. Giving the cones 2 inches breathing room is a one tenth penalty. Giving them 12 inches adds .7 seconds to a 6.8 second slalom section!! (That's like 10 seconds on a 60 second course if you extrapolate).
In reply to bobzilla :
Absolutely! That was one of our mantras with the AMC tuning this year (not that we were great at pulling it off, oh well).
But the point is that driveability really matters. Car performance doesn't matter if you can't use it.
Robbie said:Adding 2 inches of width adds .11 seconds to the total slalom section time of about 6.8 seconds.
Now add 500 pounds, but keep the width the same.
spacecadet said:Same reason the Honda Fit does amazingly well at slaloms, narrow and really quick and accurate steering.
The downside is slaloms are the condition most likely to put a tall/narrow car (*cough* fit) on its roof as well. So while the narrow track makes it better at slaloms, it also makes it worse.
The best slalom car is a Lotus 7. Low CG, excellent geometry, potential for stupid grip, narrow, and excellent view of the front wheels from the drivers seat, so you can get really close to the cones and not just by "feel".
If you want to read more about wheelbase, read here: https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/autocross-theory-and-wheelbase/155568/page1/
In reply to Nickerz :
I think slalom is probably the most difficult of the typically published performance numbers to tie to a just 2 or 3 independent variables. All of the things mentioned in this thread play a role.
One I have not seen mentioned (EDIT: Seth kind of did) is a lack of slop in the suspension and steering. A car with soft bushings and mounts can be made to "take a set" on a skidpad or dragstrip and still put up good numbers. This is not an option in the slalom. You need a tight, intuitive connection between the steering wheel and the front tires to be effective there, and a lot of general controlability and predictability.
You'll need to log in to post.
