THE RANKING OF THE 30 CRAZIEST KARTS IN HISTORY
Let’s retrace the last 30 years of the history of karting, ranking from the 30th to the 1st the most bizarre chassis designs ever seen. With a bit of irreverence and irony, yet well aware that they too contributed to enrich the wonderful journey of karting.
KART CHASSIS ARE ALL THE SAME…
So many times we hear that, after all, kart’s frames are all the same. On the one hand, the statement has some truth to it, because today chassis used by the main manufacturers actually have very similar geometries, which proved to ensure performance and reliability. On the other hand, however, research and development never stopped and chassis with different bends and geometries are not lacking. Sometimes with good results even on the track, while almost always with questionable aesthetic feedback. Starting from the 1984 season, we leafed through the “homologation books” of the Federation and a compiled list of the 30 oddest chassis ever produced. Ready for the journey? Let’s start!
- 30th Top Kart JT 94
- 29th Haase Blizzard
- 28th Maranello RS 8
- 27th Swiss Hutless Delta
- 26th BRM Pool SF 97
Homologation Code 94/197
Starting from the rear, the kart is almost 70% normal. In the front, it is quite nonsensical. The bumper is “built-in” in the frame (formed by a 28 mm diameter tube) and the front looks like a hat (the crossbar which joins the C-sections is 32 mm in diameter and all the rest of the frame is 30 mm). Making an average of normality and oddities, it places itself at the thirtieth place.
Homologation Code 234/99
A front chassis with 30 mm tubes and a rear with 32 mm tubes, bolted in the steering column section. Original, but it does not climb the ranking because Haase has done better and the frame was strong. In Lonato, 1996 World Championship, Toninelli, in FA, raced with the times of the FSA. 27th on the grid, he closed the prefinal in 4th place. In the final, with a half lap advantage, the title vanished due only to the snapping of a connecting rod.
Homologation code 07/CH/14
This is quite recent stuff, we are talking about 2009. A round of applause to the courage to do something different in an era stingy when it comes to originality. Bends…there are almost none. The front is 190 mm wider than the rear. The brake is at the center of the axle. The idea is to make the chassis suitable for all types of tires and asphalt conditions. With Aaro Vainio it risked winning good races.
Homologation code 94/119
Halfway, the rear one, this too is an almost normal kart. In the front, in our opinion it could establish the record for square centimeters of a floor tray, which looks more like the shutter of pit. The tubes are an average between 30 and 32 mm, meaning they are all 31 mm. The exception is the bar marked as B6 which is 28 mm. Oversized and the total length is 1570 mm.
Homologation code 94/128
The impression is that there is an exaggerated waste of tubes. The two main longerons are very long, full of curves and even of a chicane. From the homologation form, the 13 curves on the chassis…wow! (Generally, in modern frames there are 9). A special mention goes to the crossbar under the seat, which would make the ranking all on its own.
- 25th DKR KR 01
- 24th Sodi F
- 23th Biesse Kart Sonic
- 22th Benton BKT Benton 01
- 21th Top Kart Pool Kart Bert
Homologation code 112/CH/08
We apologize to the BRM Pool (see position 26 above): even in modern times there are chassis with 13 curves. An extra position for the DKR because it wins the number of tubes: 8 against 6. Here we have a savings on welding, but there is an exaggeration with the tube bender. The internal “U” tube is remarkable. Basically a concentric chassis which embraces the philosophy of the “kart inside the kart”.
Hoologation code 104/CH/08
The feeling is that, somewhere, a piece is missing. While there was an exaggeration with curves, as BRM and DKR teach, here we went for the savings: 7. Even the total length is 1.362 mm. Perhaps, with the Sodi F 3 mm tubes, the others make 2 mediocre chassis. With the crisis, it could be a good idea. Could the “F” name be a reference to the historic Sodi Futura?
Homologation code 94/194
The concept is that of the Sodi F that precedes it in our rankings, but here we are in 1994. The crossbar which joins the “Cs” seems made of plasticine (but it is the only 32 mm tube, while all the others are 30 mm), and the Cs themselves, without the supporting bars, look slightly fickle. The rear chassis looks like the area where all the left-over tubes were haphazardly slapped together.
Homologation code 402/99
So much confusion. Perhaps even in the designer’s mind. It reminds us of the Biesse (see above) but we take the liberty to say this it is uglier, and it arrives 3 years later, very aggravating point. In the central part, the tubes are doubled, one next to the other. We do not know the weight unfortunately. Once again, we reach the 13 bends, could it be a chassis category purposely made for confusion?
Homologation code 360/99 ICA/J
Clumsy, that’s the first consideration that comes to us by looking at the chassis. It reminds us of the Haase Blizzard, while appearing even more separated in two (although the two parts are welded together and not bolted like in the Haase). The rear is a “half delta” while the front….is a Cheeseburger. We cannot find a better definition.
Don’t waste time: register now for a 24-hour free trial period. Unlimited articles.
- Constant updates
- Interactive content (360°, Video, Gallery, etc.)
- 15 sections
- Over 500 in-depth articles
- Access to the entire archive
- Available in Italian, English and Spanish
- Access from your desktop and mobile devices