Would low profile , a little wider, and 17 or 18 in wheels help the tire problems?

Not nearly as much as outlawing bump stops would. Once the cars reach the lower (ride height wise) limit of suspension travel, especially in the front, the tire acts as the only suspension they have, and have to absorb all the vertical forces and load spikes that springs and shocks are designed to in addition to the lateral forces of cornering.

Bump stops=NASCAR's answer to the J damper on the Peugeot 908, and seem to work about as well at absorbing bumps and handling in the rain(if Sprint Cup would ever race in the rain, which probably won't happen until the new tires hit the track at the earliest), which is hardly at all. God help NASCAR and the teams if more road course races ever happen to get added to the Sprint Cup sechedule, namely tracks like Sebring, Road America, Road Atlanta, and Mosport(the bumper tracks that the ALMS race on).

However, the wider tire deal would help with handling of the COT immensly. But how wide do Goodyear/NASCAR make the tires? The Audi R10 has 13in wide fronts and 14.5in wide rears, the Audi R8 that came before it had the same rear tire width, but with 13.5in wide fronts. Also, there's cicumfernce and diameter. The R8's tires had a 650mm diameter, and the R10s are 680mm. Granted, diameter has little to do with handling, but it makes the cars behave like they have a taller differential gear, and the tires wear less due to more surface area on the tread around the tire, though the same may hold somewhat true of the wider tires.

However, if the front splitter on the COT was a diffuser(a real underbody ground effect divice used on ALMS/LMS prototype cars, and Super GT GT500 cars, and to a lesser degree on ALMS/FIA GT GT1 cars), there be a practical reason to raise up the noses-diffusers can't work if they're being driven into the ground, which is why post 2004 LMP cars have a 50mm tall/1000mm wide step in the front diffuser, and even the LMP900/675 cars before them at least had rub strips on the outsides of them to maintain ground clearance(for what a diffuser is, look at these examples:

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/audir10-1.html

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/audir8-01-3.html ).

I know that wider tires would work, but wouldn't a front diffuser(as opposed to a simple spitter) make the tesms raise the front ride heights a little, and maybe help alieveiate front downforce problems?

If you take out the bump stops, they'll just go back to coil binding.

NASCAR should use a larger 17" or 18" wheel AND limit the size of the brakes (still slightly larger than what they run now). This will keep the tire beads cooler by not having brakes right up against them and keep the brakes cooler because you can let more air in around the caliper and rotor with a larger wheel. They should probably grow to a 13-14" wide tire and an 18" diameter wheel, keeping a ~28" overall tire height. This would fit the proportions of the car better, likely increase cornering grip, and do the cooling stuff as well.

I don't see why Goodyear can't add a spacer in their existing molds and spit out a wider tire. They don't need to reengineer the whole thing and at the very least it would let them test it on their equipment before throwing it on a car. Hoosier has done this (as well as Kumho I believe) for their DOT race tires. The new sizes, because it was an existing mold with a spacer in the middle, meant they didn't have to do all new DOT testing so I don't see why Goodyear can't do something similar just to appease people wanting the wider tire. If this ends up producing more grip and better wear, then they can go about designing a final mold and getting test fit tires to teams and NASCAR so changes to the chassis and rear ends can be made for an upcoming season.

I don't like the idea of just mandating a minimum front spring size. Perhaps NASCAR needs to change the way they measure the cars. When the heights are being inspected, add 250 pounds of weight to the frame directly over each tire. That'll simulate the effect of downforce on the suspension. Now you can mandate how low the cars are at speed instead of just standing still.

The thought seems to be that the teams will do something to get that splitter down on the track no matter what. Mandating a high rate spring and NO WEAR on the bottom of the splitter is the only way I know of, to keep them from doing that. At least with the coil bind, the shock still had some rebound left in it. With the bump stops, as WW said you're left with the sidewall of the tire PERIOD. If as the OP suggested they then went to a LOWER profile tire it would just get worse, not better. The car needs balance front to back AT SPEED. Either make the rear wing LESS efficient of add front DF, BUT GIVE THE TEAMS SOMETHING TO ACHIEVE IT. AA JMHO

Bill

I would think the coil bind would be harder on tires, because when coil bound, the tires are the suspension. At least with a bump stop, teams use rubber/polyurethane 'snubbers' or shock packers that absorb some of the loading-not much, but some...

I wondered that myself why NASCAR didn't utilize a larger wheel with the introduction of the CoT. Of course, I have wondered lots of things why NASCAR did this or didn't do that with the new car. Pretty much my take is, all NASCAR did was design a car to make their inspector's jobs easier.

mustang6172 - 03 September 2008 12:11 AM

If you take out the bump stops, they'll just go back to coil binding.

That can be legislated out as well.

hobbymanbill - 03 September 2008 08:59 AM

The thought seems to be that the teams will do something to get that splitter down on the track no matter what. Mandating a high rate spring and NO WEAR on the bottom of the splitter is the only way I know of, to keep them from doing that. At least with the coil bind, the shock still had some rebound left in it. With the bump stops, as WW said you're left with the sidewall of the tire PERIOD. If as the OP suggested they then went to a LOWER profile tire it would just get worse, not better. The car needs balance front to back AT SPEED. Either make the rear wing LESS efficient of add front DF, BUT GIVE THE TEAMS SOMETHING TO ACHIEVE IT. AA JMHO

Bill

I think it would be simple to just lengthen the air dam length so that it hits the track before bottoming the suspension and leave the spring rate rules where they are.

hobbymanbill - 06 September 2008 03:25 AM

speedsense - 05 September 2008 05:42 AM

hobbymanbill - 03 September 2008 08:59 AM

The thought seems to be that the teams will do something to get that splitter down on the track no matter what. Mandating a high rate spring and NO WEAR on the bottom of the splitter is the only way I know of, to keep them from doing that. At least with the coil bind, the shock still had some rebound left in it. With the bump stops, as WW said you're left with the sidewall of the tire PERIOD. If as the OP suggested they then went to a LOWER profile tire it would just get worse, not better. The car needs balance front to back AT SPEED. Either make the rear wing LESS efficient of add front DF, BUT GIVE THE TEAMS SOMETHING TO ACHIEVE IT. AA JMHO

Bill

I think it would be simple to just lengthen the air dam length so that it hits the track before bottoming the suspension and leave the spring rate rules where they are.

Well, that seems to be a problem for them SS, easy solutions like yours don't appear to be on their horizon. They seem completely unwilling to even admit THERE IS A PROBLEM. I was just trying to get a solution based on NO changes to the car itself. Yours works better, but requires a change to the existing body. AA JMHO

Bill

Another possibility might be to allow a greater at rest splitter height.....isn't it something like 4 1/2 inches or so? If it started out higher, they could run stiffer front springs and still get the at speed height they want.