2017: Clean Air Is NOT King... Speed Is King

LewTheShoe said:
Kansas... check. Speed was KING.

I watched the race again last night, and did not detect any aero influence preventing a quicker car from passing the leader. Time and again, the 78 went by leader 21 to take the point. Blaney had the best short-run speed, the best pit crew, and the #1 pit stall, so he started several runs in front. But after 15 or 20 laps, Truex gained speed and made the pass as Blaney's tires fell off.

The 2017 aero rules are working perfectly IMO, and are contributing to thrilling racing, along with good tires that have significant falloff at most tracks. And the drivers are working, really working, to maintain control at speed. Charlotte in the World 600 will be a big test, because this track seemed to epitomize the clean-air-is-king problem in 2015... a slower lead car could hold off quicker guys who had to run in dirty air. But that was 2015... so we'll see next week.

PS - The most perplexing performance in Kansas was the 18. Kyle Busch was badass fast in the first half of the race, whether at the front or back in traffic. But just the opposite in the second half... lackadaisical speed whether leading the race or in traffic. He still was a top-10 car, but not a threat to dominate as he had been earlier. But this was not an aero issue for the 18. I guess they just lost the handle.
Click to expand...
Woooaaa thrilling racing?
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
His average speed unrestricted @ Talldega was just over 216 with a top speed of 228 at the end of the backstretch. They said at the time that given a little time to tweak the package, they felt they'd hit about 235 mph. At the time, 216mph was 20-30 mph faster than the restricted car.

As far as taking flight today if they were unrestricted..... I think there's little doubt that they'd take air once they turned sideways or backwards.

There is no way in heck we are ever going to see them running unrestricted at those high speeds around those venues.
Click to expand...
If they had to lift in the corners we would
 
StandOnIt said:
Handling had something to do with Truex's win which could be part of the speed equation. Being able to run the bottom line took most of the aero out of the equation. I don't think Truex was out motoring Blaney. Blaney couldn't carry the speed thru the corner that Truex was able to after his tires warmed up. Blaney until that last restart had a huge lead in clean air over Truex who got hung up in the pack Truex was so far back he couldn't catch any draft to catch up. Clean air is always going to be an advantage. Nascar with this latest package has enabled handling to come into play, progressive banking for multigroove racing
Click to expand...
Exactly. Handling is precisely where Truex got his speed advantage.

In any given battle for the lead between two cars, a speed advantage for either car most often will come from better handling and/or better driving. Don't overlook the importance of the driver, especially with lower downforce that has "put the race back in the drivers hands." Rarely is there any significant difference in horsepower these days, IMO.

The important thing about the current aero rules is that a trailing car with a speed advantage can pass a leading car with clean air. Just two years ago, that was often not the case.
 
This is a great thread. A lot of people are interested in the mechanical aspects of racing, some of them have contributed here and there are things to learn in each of their posts.
 
Last edited:
StandOnIt said:
Handling had something to do with Truex's win which could be part of the speed equation. Being able to run the bottom line took most of the aero out of the equation. I don't think Truex was out motoring Blaney. Blaney couldn't carry the speed thru the corner that Truex was able to after his tires warmed up. Blaney until that last restart had a huge lead in clean air over Truex who got hung up in the pack Truex was so far back he couldn't catch any draft to catch up. Clean air is always going to be an advantage. Nascar with this latest package has enabled handling to come into play, progressive banking for multigroove racing
Click to expand...

Truex is interesting, he does not need the fastest car, but when his car is able to get to and hold the bottom though, he's a tough SOB to catch. FRR really must have some serious goodies hidden. Blaney might have had the faster car, but Truex out handled him and experience probably had to do with Truex winning. Truex is a scary sight when he has the middle-exit corner down, you might as well call it a wrap with him.
 
IMO they have found so much downforce that it is time to take more of it away. Whenever they get back to single file racing and whoever is the leader runs away and hides like they did all night, it's time to get out the sheetmetal shears and snip snip snip..haircut time.
 
StandOnIt said:
IMO they have found so much downforce that it is time to take more of it away. Whenever they get back to single file racing and whoever is the leader runs away and hides like they did all night, it's time to get out the sheetmetal shears and snip snip snip..haircut time.
Click to expand...
This morning, Mike Skinner was on the radio advocating for a slight increase in current downforce levels. :idunno:
 
Who knows what the crews did. No way of knowing if the crews knew the cars wouldn't go to R&D after the race.

 
SlicedBread22 said:
That All Star Race tho :confused:
Click to expand...
StandOnIt said:
IMO they have found so much downforce that it is time to take more of it away...
Click to expand...
Yep, track position and clean air was the key last night. That is the first race this year where that has been the case, and it is just one week since Kansas, which was completely different... so I wouldn't conclude just yet the reason is engineers regaining the lost downforce. For some reason, Charlotte has been the toughest track of all for trailing cars to pass in recent years. I don't know why.
 
LewTheShoe said:
Yep, track position and clean air was the key last night. That is the first race this year where that has been the case, and it is just one week since Kansas, which was completely different... so I wouldn't conclude just yet the reason is engineers regaining the lost downforce. For some reason, Charlotte has been the toughest track of all for trailing cars to pass in recent years. I don't know why.
Click to expand...
Basically one groove I would imagine, or a groove and a half, so tough to pass.
 
LewTheShoe said:
Yep, track position and clean air was the key last night. That is the first race this year where that has been the case, and it is just one week since Kansas, which was completely different... so I wouldn't conclude just yet the reason is engineers regaining the lost downforce. For some reason, Charlotte has been the toughest track of all for trailing cars to pass in recent years. I don't know why.
Click to expand...

might have been more cheated up cars too. Another thing, some of them were trying to run a different line. They might be able to run multiple lines with a longer race to work the track in. Never know.
 
LewTheShoe said:
For some reason, Charlotte has been the toughest track of all for trailing cars to pass in recent years. I don't know why.
Click to expand...

I think CLT's problem is a hyper grippy track, like say Kansas, but without any progressive banking. It's a super easy to drive track like the old Texas, but this year Texas changed the banking in 1&2 AND made a huge effort to age the track surface (added lye all over) and widen the groove (with the tire dragon and running laps high). Still, Texas was still a little bottom heavy due to the flat banking, but Bette than CLT. Since Charlotte can't add progressive banking, they need to do everything they can to age that nuclear proof asphalt and widen the groove.
 
Acs said:
I think CLT's problem is a hyper grippy track, like say Kansas, but without any progressive banking. It's a super easy to drive track like the old Texas ...
Click to expand...

I don't wish to be rude but this statement made me laugh.
 
Some of you begrudge the "cheaters", not me though.

I'm of the opinion that the best racing was back when teams were actually allowed to be outside of "the box" NASCAR mandates today. "Cheating" produced some of the best racing imo. Everything is too close nowadays but just my 2 cents though.
 
Acs said:
I think CLT's problem is a hyper grippy track, like say Kansas, but without any progressive banking. It's a super easy to drive track like the old Texas, but this year Texas changed the banking in 1&2 AND made a huge effort to age the track surface (added lye all over) and widen the groove (with the tire dragon and running laps high). Still, Texas was still a little bottom heavy due to the flat banking, but Bette than CLT. Since Charlotte can't add progressive banking, they need to do everything they can to age that nuclear proof asphalt and widen the groove.
Click to expand...

I have missed 3 out of the 4 races so I am looking forward to next Sunday but if it turns into an aero snooze fest I won't spend much time on it as it isn't worth it to me.
 
AuzGrams said:
Charlotte has some sort of asphalt problem because I'm convinced you drop a nuke and it would be fine.

I hope the 600 produces a good race but I'm convinced Charlotte is just a terrible racetrack.
Click to expand...

Yeah my fingers are crossed that it will be a good race but based on past history I ain't holding breath.
 
Why is less downforce the answer? Just because Carl Edwards and Kyle Larson advocated for it? Remember how good 2014 was when they had ultra high downforce? Less downforce means clean air is even more essential, because the air affects cars more.
 
WhiningSmoke said:
Why is less downforce the answer? Just because Carl Edwards and Kyle Larson advocated for it? Remember how good 2014 was when they had ultra high downforce? Less downforce means clean air is even more essential, because the air affects cars more.
Click to expand...
Many people equate reduced downforce with a reduction in turbulence (dirty air). That's simply not the case ... the cars retain the same basic shape, the same volume of air flows over the structure and speeds are if anything, higher.

Aircraft are generally much "cleaner" aerodynamically but never fly directly behind one another ... at any speed.
 
aunty dive said:
Many people equate reduced downforce with a reduction in turbulence (dirty air). That's simply not the case ... the cars retain the same basic shape, the same volume of air flows over the structure and speeds are if anything, higher.

Aircraft are generally much "cleaner" aerodynamically but never fly directly behind one another ... at any speed.
Click to expand...
Dirty is dirty.
Old dirty prop stuff files like geese. Jets stay away from each other.
 
WhiningSmoke said:
Why is less downforce the answer? Just because Carl Edwards and Kyle Larson advocated for it? Remember how good 2014 was when they had ultra high downforce? Less downforce means clean air is even more essential, because the air affects cars more.
Click to expand...
Do you really think this season is worse than 2014 so far? Yesterday's race was terrible but it seems like many have enjoyed most of the rest of the season thus far.

Also, they still had 850 HP back in 2014.
 
AuzGrams said:
Charlotte has some sort of asphalt problem because I'm convinced you drop a nuke and it would be fine.

I hope the 600 produces a good race but I'm convinced Charlotte is just a terrible racetrack.
Click to expand...
It has certainly asserted itself as the worst 1.5, that's for sure.

Besides post-repave Texas I've noticed that there seems to be a lot more bottom feeding at Charlotte than the other intermediates.
 
Acs said:
I think CLT's problem is a hyper grippy track, like say Kansas, but without any progressive banking... Since Charlotte can't add progressive banking, they need to do everything they can to age that nuclear proof asphalt and widen the groove.
Click to expand...
I think your point about the progressive banking may be correct. Good insight there. That fits with what we observe at Kansas and Charlotte the last two weeks... Kansas multi grooves and very racy, and Charlotte the opposite.

Kansas seems to have aged in beautifully in the last year. I wonder if the milder winters in Charlotte cause its new pavement to weather in at a slower rate??

BTW, like Aunty, I disagree with your comment about what is easy to drive. I do know that some tracks are easier than others to turn competitive, potentially race winning speeds in practice and qualifying. I've never been to Charlotte, but Texas from the grandstands is a mean grizzly bear to drive really fast. And it is always racing the other guys on track that makes things so difficult. Maybe a smooth single groove track is easier because no one can pass you... until you try to pass the guy ahead of you?
 
LewTheShoe said:
I think your point about the progressive banking may be correct. Good insight there. That fits with what we observe at Kansas and Charlotte the last two weeks... Kansas multi grooves and very racy, and Charlotte the opposite.

Kansas seems to have aged in beautifully in the last year. I wonder if the milder winters in Charlotte cause its new pavement to weather in at a slower rate??

BTW, like Aunty, I disagree with your comment about what is easy to drive. I do know that some tracks are easier than others to turn competitive, potentially race winning speeds in practice and qualifying. I've never been to Charlotte, but Texas from the grandstands is a mean grizzly bear to drive really fast. And it is always racing the other guys on track that makes things so difficult. Maybe a smooth single groove track is easier because no one can pass you... until you try to pass the guy ahead of you?
Click to expand...

Texas is extremely difficult to drive because you go so damn fast through the tri oval. If you don't enter Turn 1 properly then it's good night for you
 
FLRacingFan said:
It has certainly asserted itself as the worst 1.5, that's for sure.

Besides post-repave Texas I've noticed that there seems to be a lot more bottom feeding at Charlotte than the other intermediates.
Click to expand...
CMS had entertaining racing prior to the Gen 6. This car has produced abhorent racing on intermediates from day 1.
 
aunty dive said:
They have in the past.

I think the engines should be free of the restrictions ... as they were before the rule change. More horsepower than you can use ...
Click to expand...
Just curious - with the current restrictions, you hear about teams from time to time having an advantage under the hood. How much power are we talking (~5 HP?).
 
^ I don't know. I'd guess you're pretty close.

In the past (before the intake restriction rule was applied) NASCAR ran dyno tests on race day engines from each manufacturer and published the results. There were often 15 - 20 hp differences from one to another. If they're still doing that, they're not talking about it.
 
aunty dive said:
^ I don't know. I'd guess you're pretty close.

In the past (before the intake restriction rule was applied) NASCAR ran dyno tests on race day engines from each manufacturer and published the results. There were often 15 - 20 hp differences from one to another. If they're still doing that, they're not talking about it.
Click to expand...
Interesting - thanks. I couldn't find any specifics from any time recently but then again now that I think about it I am not sure why I thought I could.
 
I'd be curious how the cars would handle without the front splitter and side skirts, I think those features make the car suck down to the track for more stability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom