aorton27 - 19 May 2008 10:24 PM

AMP2003 - 19 May 2008 10:15 PM

Just to help them turn and have the stability to run side by side.

Thanks for the response. But do you think having a reliance on air for performance(ie. downforce/sideforce) would make the car's handling go awry when that airflow is disturbed? If the car didn't depend on air for performance what would happen if the airflow is disturbed? Imo, with the current car to make it so they can run side by side, door to door through a corner at 170mph with no effect they would have to run so much downforce that they would be hammer down all the time.




Btw, with zero downforce they can go just as fast. Use wider tires and/or increase engine displacment with out ill effects of aero.

All this is fine and dandy at low speeds. Passenger cars are designed to create downforce. Without it, racing as we know it would not exist. Aerodynamics must be managed at racing speeds simply because it exists. Physics ... can't be ignored.

gray area - 19 May 2008 11:28 PM

aorton27 - 19 May 2008 10:24 PM

AMP2003 - 19 May 2008 10:15 PM

Just to help them turn and have the stability to run side by side.

Thanks for the response. But do you think having a reliance on air for performance(ie. downforce/sideforce) would make the car's handling go awry when that airflow is disturbed? If the car didn't depend on air for performance what would happen if the airflow is disturbed? Imo, with the current car to make it so they can run side by side, door to door through a corner at 170mph with no effect they would have to run so much downforce that they would be hammer down all the time.




Btw, with zero downforce they can go just as fast. Use wider tires and/or increase engine displacment with out ill effects of aero.

All this is fine and dandy at low speeds. Passenger cars are designed to create downforce. Without it, racing as we know it would not exist. Aerodynamics must be managed at racing speeds simply because it exists. Physics ... can't be ignored.

How about your weight shift, and raise the wing a foot and decrease it's angle. Any springs and shocks as long as they AREN'T on the stops or in coil bind. In other words, let the suspension actually WORK. I like the car, but with the weight bias off left to right & front to rear, and all the turbulence with the wing sitting on the deck and pretending to be a spoiler, the car is hard to run close and get anywhere. You know how much I dislike aero, but I know you're right about physics. AA JMHO

Bill

hobbymanbill - 19 May 2008 11:40 PM

gray area - 19 May 2008 11:28 PM

aorton27 - 19 May 2008 10:24 PM

AMP2003 - 19 May 2008 10:15 PM

Just to help them turn and have the stability to run side by side.

Thanks for the response. But do you think having a reliance on air for performance(ie. downforce/sideforce) would make the car's handling go awry when that airflow is disturbed? If the car didn't depend on air for performance what would happen if the airflow is disturbed? Imo, with the current car to make it so they can run side by side, door to door through a corner at 170mph with no effect they would have to run so much downforce that they would be hammer down all the time.




Btw, with zero downforce they can go just as fast. Use wider tires and/or increase engine displacment with out ill effects of aero.

All this is fine and dandy at low speeds. Passenger cars are designed to create downforce. Without it, racing as we know it would not exist. Aerodynamics must be managed at racing speeds simply because it exists. Physics ... can't be ignored.

How about your weight shift, and raise the wing a foot and decrease it's angle. Any springs and shocks as long as they AREN'T on the stops or in coil bind. In other words, let the suspension actually WORK. I like the car, but with the weight bias off left to right & front to rear, and all the turbulence with the wing sitting on the deck and pretending to be a spoiler, the car is hard to run close and get anywhere. You know how much I dislike aero, but I know you're right about physics. AA JMHO

Bill

I think the location of the wing's definitely an issue, it's too low to the deck lid to fully function right now.

BTW, I'd like to argue the claim that physics can't be ignored. I usually slept through it in high school!

Mearn - 19 May 2008 11:46 PM

BTW, I'd like to argue the claim that physics can't be ignored. I usually slept through it in high school!

Fortunately, gravity and all the other physical forces in the time/space continuum continued to function normally while you were asleep. Because ... if they hadn't, you'd have been flung into the vacuum at 17,400 mph. No aero to worry about out there. Aorta's race cars would work well.

aorton27 - 19 May 2008 09:59 PM

It would be the engine that makes the difference and the driver just turns a wheel.

...How about removing ALL the downforce? Design the car with zero downforce and maybe even a tiny bit of lift which would give the trailing car, in dirty air the advantage. You won't have an aero push with a car that doesn't depend on the air to glue the nose to the track, it will be all mechanical.

Interesting idea.

BTW, I think we're already seeing the engine making the difference.

hobbymanbill - 19 May 2008 11:40 PM

gray area - 19 May 2008 11:28 PM

aorton27 - 19 May 2008 10:24 PM

AMP2003 - 19 May 2008 10:15 PM

Just to help them turn and have the stability to run side by side.

Thanks for the response. But do you think having a reliance on air for performance(ie. downforce/sideforce) would make the car's handling go awry when that airflow is disturbed? If the car didn't depend on air for performance what would happen if the airflow is disturbed? Imo, with the current car to make it so they can run side by side, door to door through a corner at 170mph with no effect they would have to run so much downforce that they would be hammer down all the time.




Btw, with zero downforce they can go just as fast. Use wider tires and/or increase engine displacment with out ill effects of aero.

All this is fine and dandy at low speeds. Passenger cars are designed to create downforce. Without it, racing as we know it would not exist. Aerodynamics must be managed at racing speeds simply because it exists. Physics ... can't be ignored.

How about your weight shift, and raise the wing a foot and decrease it's angle. Any springs and shocks as long as they AREN'T on the stops or in coil bind. In other words, let the suspension actually WORK. I like the car, but with the weight bias off left to right & front to rear, and all the turbulence with the wing sitting on the deck and pretending to be a spoiler, the car is hard to run close and get anywhere. You know how much I dislike aero, but I know you're right about physics. AA JMHO

Bill

Ray Evernham suggested a few weeks ago on ESPN's NASCAR show, that maybe a wider right side tire would help. Since NASCAR aren't fans of physics or evidently of right side tires, maybe to aid with the current punishment those right tires are taking with too much right side weight, too high of a center of gravity, and no aero bias to the left side; instead of a harder tire, like what's currently used, a wider softer tire would be something to explore. Might look kind of strange, but what's more goofy than a CoT yawed out on the straight aways? Hornish's car looked crazy(among others), it was kind of cool but still, it didn't look natural.

I wonder if NASCAR still allows the same degree of skewyness of the current skewed rear ends by the time Cup reaches Indy or Pocono, with those LONG straight aways, if those set ups would be fast there? The skewed car would have to create significantly more drag than one set up with the rear axle square in the chassis. What the skewed car would gain in the turns may lose on straights because they are pushing so much more air. Most of the 1.5-2.0 mile tracks are 75% turning, where the skewed rear ends are effective-that is if the driver can hang on. sorry just thinking out loud...

gray area -

All this is fine and dandy at low speeds. Passenger cars are designed to create downforce. Without it, racing as we know it would not exist. Aerodynamics must be managed at racing speeds simply because it exists. Physics ... can't be ignored.

A passenger car will generate lift if it doesn't have a spoiler or wing as the natural shape of a typical car tends to develope lift. For an example of lift in a racecar..They had to redesign the Silvercrown sprint car to run on 1.5 mile tracks because at higher speeds the car was generating too much lift and caused a safety concern. It is very very possible to design and develop a car that is aerodynamically neutral and that should be the target if creating good racing is the goal.

red376 -

I wonder if NASCAR still allows the same degree of skewyness of the current skewed rear ends by the time Cup reaches Indy or Pocono, with those LONG straight aways, if those set ups would be fast there? The skewed car would have to create significantly more drag than one set up with the rear axle square in the chassis. What the skewed car would gain in the turns may lose on straights because they are pushing so much more air. Most of the 1.5-2.0 mile tracks are 75% turning, where the skewed rear ends are effective-that is if the driver can hang on. sorry just thinking out loud...

I highly doubt it would work well at Pocono because, as you said, of the long straights and short duration of the turns. With the sidewinder car it generates a huge amount of drag by running sideways just as an airplane in slip does(ie. right rudder while banked to the left). I doubt the added benefit of running a little quicker through the turns would overcome the increased drag on the straight, even if you can exit the turn quicker.

aorton27 - 20 May 2008 06:35 AM

gray area -

All this is fine and dandy at low speeds. Passenger cars are designed to create downforce. Without it, racing as we know it would not exist. Aerodynamics must be managed at racing speeds simply because it exists. Physics ... can't be ignored.

A passenger car will generate lift if it doesn't have a spoiler or wing as the natural shape of a typical car tends to develope lift. For an example of lift in a racecar..They had to redesign the Silvercrown sprint car to run on 1.5 mile tracks because at higher speeds the car was generating too much lift and caused a safety concern. It is very very possible to design and develop a car that is aerodynamically neutral and that should be the target if creating good racing is the goal.

Passenger cars require stability at speed and generate downforce, by design, to accomplish that. A 3450 lb. cigar is highly unstable at 200 mph. The Silver Crown cars you reference had plenty of downforce designed into them. That's what the side pods were there for.

Try some research into this idea of yours, racing is dynamic and a statically aero neutral car does not remain so. Races are not run in wind tunnels.

jcmark611 - 19 May 2008 11:01 PM

The car wasn't meant the be a great driving car, it was meant to be a challenge for the drivers to even out the talent level.

Huh?

Even out the talent level?

And how does having a sucky race car improve the racing?