cummins cowboy - 20 May 2008 05:57 PM

I just got to thinking the trucks in the truck series don't seem to have near as many aero issues as the COT does, but they still have a somewhat similar nose shape with the spliter and the fast bumpouts of the valance where they are infront of the tires. I wonder why the trucks are racing so much better?? are the trucks allowed better weight distribution?? whats the deal, I also agree with GA, an aero neutral car is not an option, for the reasons he stated, and do you really think the teams wouldn't figure out some way to get around that. I say allow the teams a no maximum height rule like they did with the old car and switch it to a minimum height rule again like the old cars, additional height is a disadvantage on the track, so allow them to travel what ever they want in the front, then hand out nascar mandated bump stops that will not let the front end splitter go so very low to the track, get the car up about 2" off the track. then let them do the 55-45 left side weight to help with mechanical grip, these would be the rules on 1.5 tracks, short tracks the existing rules would apply, with some air going under the car making a little lift, then when they get behind a car they get a little less lift to help get close and pass. but what do I know I am not an engineer.

The trucks have bad aero issues as well. Each week the trucks are being tweak and wind tunneled in order to keep up to the competiton. The drivers are complaining more and more about the aero in the truck series.

aorton27 - 20 May 2008 07:16 PM

gray area - 20 May 2008 03:59 PM

aorton27 - 20 May 2008 03:04 PM

Rear steering like we saw at Lowes wasn't innovation, it was a hack. It is not new technology. Its just people never had to do that with an ashpalt car before because normally the car was designed well enough that it wasn't necessary to get the car to work. The cars are handling so bad they have to resort to such hacks and unconventional methods to get it workable.

That setup was used at Phoenix and other west coast asphalt tracks in the 70's. Your declarative statements always sound so factual. Why is that?

They were not doing it to the same extent we saw at Lowes. Normally a car has enough front grip that you don't have to turn the rear housing to help it turn. If they did do it to that extent then the car designer should be fired.

Another opinion stated as a fact. I was there - at PIR, in one of the cars with that setup under it. I have setup sheets and photographs from that track and others. In a strange twist of fate, the car designer was Gary Nelson. He didn't work for me, so I couldn't fire him.

As for your latest aero reply, 1967 F1 cars did not race at 200 mph and today's modern Formula Ford doesn't either. It isn't a question of agreeing or disagreeing - we're not talking about opinions. Rather, we're talking about established principles. If you like, send me a pm and I'll point you to some reference material that you will find interesting and informative. Other than that, I think it's time for me to bow out of this conversation gracefully. I'm not very good at that, but this is a good time to practice. Have a nice evening.

gray area - 20 May 2008 07:03 PM

kenfan176 - 20 May 2008 06:51 PM

gray area - 20 May 2008 06:42 PM

kenfan176 - 20 May 2008 06:30 PM

J. - 20 May 2008 06:01 PM

I never heard that it was meant to "even out the talent level." I don't even know what that means. I did hear that it was meant to put more emphasis on the driver. I think it does the exact opposite - how well you do has everything to do with how good the car is and not much to do with the talent level of the driver.

I don't believe for a second that this is what NASCAR had in mind when they designed this car.

Agreed. All the CoT does is seperate the have's and have not's even more than the old car. One team figures out something about it and dominates the rest of the season. I for one don't want to see a single team dominant every year from now on like we have since the CoT entered. 2007-HMS, 2008-JGR

Last year, HMS dominated with both car types. Dominance in NASCAR would seem to be all about people, communication, teamwork and resources, not cars.

Yes but no where near as bad. HMS won 9 out of 16 events including the first 6 or so. The CoT was supposed to stop all of that remember? NASCAR has failed in everything they attempted to fix with the CoT except for safety.

I'm not having any trouble remembering anything. This season, in 11 races, Toyota has 4 wins, Ford and Chevrolet each have 3 and Dodge won the D500. Where do you see one team figuring something out and dominating for the rest of the season? The winning teams so far this year are Gibbs, Roush, Childress, HMS and Penske.

Factually, it would appear that there is more parity now than there was in '07. There's still a long way to go, I'll give you that ... and that's all I'll give you.

All those facts are going to confuse people.

gray area - 20 May 2008 07:31 PM

aorton27 - 20 May 2008 07:16 PM

gray area - 20 May 2008 03:59 PM

aorton27 - 20 May 2008 03:04 PM

Rear steering like we saw at Lowes wasn't innovation, it was a hack. It is not new technology. Its just people never had to do that with an ashpalt car before because normally the car was designed well enough that it wasn't necessary to get the car to work. The cars are handling so bad they have to resort to such hacks and unconventional methods to get it workable.

That setup was used at Phoenix and other west coast asphalt tracks in the 70's. Your declarative statements always sound so factual. Why is that?

They were not doing it to the same extent we saw at Lowes. Normally a car has enough front grip that you don't have to turn the rear housing to help it turn. If they did do it to that extent then the car designer should be fired.

Another opinion stated as a fact. I was there - at PIR, in one of the cars with that setup under it. I have setup sheets and photographs from that track and others. In a strange twist of fate, the car designer was Gary Nelson. He didn't work for me, so I couldn't fire him.

As for your latest aero reply, 1967 F1 cars did not race at 200 mph and today's modern Formula Ford doesn't either. It isn't a question of agreeing or disagreeing - we're not talking about opinions. Rather, we're talking about established principles. If you like, send me a pm and I'll point you to some reference material that you will find interesting and informative. Other than that, I think it's time for me to bow out of this conversation gracefully. I'm not very good at that, but this is a good time to practice. Have a nice evening.

Believe it or not but the 1967 F1 car did reach 200 mph. Todays Formula ford doesn't, I agree. They only have 120hp.