LeanPocket

iTrader: (6)

Hi everyone,

Currently own a 2004 CTS-V, and I was wondering what clutch/flywheel everybody would recommend for roll racing?

Was considering a Monster stage 3, with the 18lb option. When all is said and done, the car will be making about 600 to the tires on nitrous, car weighs about 3700-3800 lbs.

Since its a first gen v, it just cant handle digs, period; Right now id like to compete in local roll racing events, tx2k stuff ect.

Thanks everyone.

blue99fbody

iTrader: (5)

that would be a good choice of clutch. you will be very happy with monsters product and service.

redbird555

iTrader: (14)

A really light one...seriously a light clutch roll racing is deadly lol. A monster or really any large single disk like that is very heavy. Try looking into some 9.xx dia twin disks with aluminum flywheels. A McLeod rxt would meet your demands and weigh roughly 33-35 lbs

LeanPocket

iTrader: (6)

I appreciate the replies,

Wouldn't a heavier clutch keep me up in the powerband and not fall down in RPM's?

redbird555

iTrader: (14)

Not really, thats over exaggerated. A light clutch will get you into the powerband much quicker though, imagine spinning up a 50lb weight up to 6k rpm vs spinning one that weighs 30 and has a smaller dia... Even if the rpms do drop a little fast (i dont have any issues with my 34lb setup) the smaller clutch disk is easier on the synchros and will allow the trans to shift faster.

LeanPocket

iTrader: (6)

I'll have to look into the twin disks then, I was under the assumption the heavier hit harder from a roll, carrying over the inertia from a 50 roll much like how you would launch from a dig. I guess there have their advantages and disadvantages;

So twin disks are naturally smaller in diameter and general weigh less? (Hard to find the weights and diameter of the clutches on the manufacture websites)

LeanPocket

iTrader: (6)

And thank you for the reply

redbird555

iTrader: (14)

a heavier clutch hits harder from a stop because it stores (energy) inertia from the engine. that stored inertia is lost power that goes into spinning the clutch. when you mash the pedal the engine has to overcome that inertia and start spinning the clutch up to 6k rpm, then when you shift it has to do it all over again. with a lighter clutch the inertia it stores is much less meaning more energy goes to the tires, so when you mash the fun pedal the engine accelerates the clutch (and car) much easier to 6k then when you shift it now only spins a smaller weight back up to speed.

dropping the clutch at the line is usually better with a larger clutch because ti releases more energy to get the car moving. however with a lighter clutch ou could also increase launch rpm, although the car would take more finesse to launch correctly. but from everywhere else in the rpm band having a 50-60lb mass on the back of the engine isnt a good thing vs having one that weighs 30-35.

if you scroll down to the next thread started by scotty2000 about light clutches I posted a full list of clutch weights

Midnight02

iTrader: (8)

As noted by redbird above, I would favor a lightweight combo for roll racing. My car is setup for road racing and I run a McLeod RST with aluminum flywheel (35 pounds combined). It's noticeably quicker through the gears in comparison to the previous LS7 clutch combo I was running before.

The trade off is lauching from a dig takes a little more practice. It is absolutely possible to still launch hard with the twin discs, however the window for getting it right seems to be more narrow (as opposed to the LS7). I doubt you're have much desire to launch hard from a dig with your current rear and expected power output, however I thought it would still be helpful to understand the advantages and limitations of the lightweight setup.