Additional restrictor plate racing changes announced

dpkimmel2001

dpkimmel2001

Team Owner
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
36,192
Points
1,033
Location
Western PA
From Jayski.....

Smaller radiator - Maximum of 2 gallon capacity
Smaller overflow tank - Maximum capacity of ½ gallon
Radiator inlet is moved up closer into the front center bumper area
Rate reduction in the springs softer springs
Smaller rear spoiler
Base line restrictor plate of 29/32 inch (1/64 inch larger than plate size for the 2011 Daytona 500)

I hope all of you tandem haters out there get what you want out of these upcoming changes.
 
Rate reduction in the springs softer springs
Smaller rear spoiler

There's 2 I've been screaming for the past 4 years.
 
FenderBumper said:
Rate reduction in the springs softer springs
Smaller rear spoiler

There's 2 I've been screaming for the past 4 years.
Click to expand...

The smaller spoiler will be for less downforce in the rear of the car from what I can understand. Are there any other things Im missing here?
 
MOEJOE said:
The smaller spoiler will be for less downforce in the rear of the car from what I can understand. Are there any other things Im missing here?
Click to expand...

Rate reduction means the springs can be softer and recoil slower. The smaller spoiler will push the back down more, even though it will generate a lower force. The odd thing is, as the rear of the car drops, the spoiler catches less air. This should mean greater straight away speed, but less grip in the turns. The softer spring will add grip, especially coming off the turn with a softer rebound.

I'm waiting to see what they mean by 'smaller spoiler'. Will it be shorter or not stick out as far on the rear of the car. Maybe both. I hope the spring rate applies to all 4 corners, because doing it for just the rear springs could make a lot of setup notes useless.

IMO, guys will have to really drive their turns.
 
FenderBumper said:
Rate reduction means the springs can be softer and recoil slower. The smaller spoiler will push the back down more, even though it will generate a lower force. The odd thing is, as the rear of the car drops, the spoiler catches less air. This should mean greater straight away speed, but less grip in the turns. The softer spring will add grip, especially coming off the turn with a softer rebound.

I'm waiting to see what they mean by 'smaller spoiler'. Will it be shorter or not stick out as far on the rear of the car. Maybe both. I hope the spring rate applies to all 4 corners, because doing it for just the rear springs could make a lot of setup notes useless.

IMO, guys will have to really drive their turns.
Click to expand...


I thought they only mandated the rear springs? Or is that the shocks?
 
MOEJOE said:
I thought they only mandated the rear springs? Or is that the shocks?
Click to expand...

Rebound is mandated on front and rear springs and front shocks. I'm not 100% sure about rear shocks, but I'm sure they are.

The softer spring rate is surely about the front springs and probably rear springs too.
 
Softer spring rate is the rear only the fronts are already so soft the cars are on the stops at SS's.
I'm hearing that the rear spoiler height/width may not be fully set untill pre- qualifying tech???
 
kkfan91 said:
They won't, they will just complain about whatever this causes.
Click to expand...

If NASCAR is trying I will give them the benefit of the doubt. But doing away with the restrictors alltogether is the only way to bring RACING back to the Super Speedways, IMO.

I want to see the drivers having to lift off of the throttle when entering the turns and having to re-apply acceleration when exiting the turns. THAT will break up the packs and/or the pods faster than anything!

And Flash is right about the fronts. The bump stops in the front limit front-end travel. However, the recoil (if any) may be affected, although that is probably more about shocks than spring rates.
 
Problem is Robbeee there'll always be a few how wont Lift and we'll have a big wad of cars in the wall on the first lap :( their racecar drivers nobdy said they we're real bright.

NASCAR hands out mandated rear shocks and springs at restrictor plate races.
The compression and rebound of the springs/suspension is controlled by the valving/piston size/oil/pressure of the shocks thats why they have become SO Important over the years.
 
robbybee said:
If NASCAR is trying I will give them the benefit of the doubt. But doing away with the restrictors alltogether is the only way to bring RACING back to the Super Speedways, IMO.

I want to see the drivers having to lift off of the throttle when entering the turns and having to re-apply acceleration when exiting the turns. THAT will break up the packs and/or the pods faster than anything!

And Flash is right about the fronts. The bump stops in the front limit front-end travel. However, the recoil (if any) may be affected, although that is probably more about shocks than spring rates.
Click to expand...

Bump stops are used to control the affects of the splitter, but they aren't mandatory. I see only 1 way to give you and me what we want robby. Get rid of the splitter, which is what allows them to go full throttle thru the turns. This is why teams always say handeling isn't important at RP races. Then they could get rid of the RP and top speeds would stay about the same because of the slowing in the turns, and grip and handeling in and out of the turns would break up the pack.
 
FlFlash said:
Can I use this for the 2012 Bold Prediction Thread??? :D
Click to expand...


Yes you may. I'll give you even more, if the two car draft goes away not only do I give you my word that I won't complain.............I'll use a Kyle Busch avatar on here if I go back on my word.
 
Stewart Fan said:
Yes you may. I'll give you even more, if the two car draft goes away not only do I give you my word that I won't complain.............I'll use a Kyle Busch avatar on here if I go back on my word.
Click to expand...

OMG! Take it back...
 
Stewart Fan said:
Yes you may. I'll give you even more, if the two car draft goes away not only do I give you my word that I won't complain.............I'll use a Kyle Busch avatar on here if I go back on my word.
Click to expand...

Naaah I could'nt expect that from anyone! However have a look at my sig line and watch how that works out next season :D
 
FenderBumper said:
Bump stops are used to control the affects of the splitter, but they aren't mandatory. I see only 1 way to give you and me what we want robby. Get rid of the splitter, which is what allows them to go full throttle thru the turns. This is why teams always say handeling isn't important at RP races. Then they could get rid of the RP and top speeds would stay about the same because of the slowing in the turns, and grip and handeling in and out of the turns would break up the pack.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure the splitter is the only thing that allows them to go wide open. They have been doing that forever. The "Car Of Tomorrow" came out in 2007. Remember Rusty Wallace did a test with no restrictor plate at Talladega in 2004 in the "old" car and had a top speed of 228mph!!! with an average speed of 221mph!!!
 
KingGlamis said:
I'm not so sure the splitter is the only thing that allows them to go wide open. They have been doing that forever. The "Car Of Tomorrow" came out in 2007. Remember Rusty Wallace did a test with no restrictor plate at Talladega in 2004 in the "old" car and had a top speed of 228mph!!! with an average speed of 221mph!!!
Click to expand...

In a car that was 600 lbs lighter. That's why nascar added the splitter to the CoT. It is much heavier, but the tire contact patch is about the same. If you don't have enough mechanical grip, which these cars don't, you need aero downforce to push the tires into the track for more grip.

People don't realize how much the CoT has changed the racing from speed wins to position wins. I like what Carl Edwards said. 'take the aero off and make these cars hard to drive', but NASCAR doesn't want to see speeds drop.

So, guys stopped banging because little dents ruin the aero package. Guys stopped door slamming because the splitter is a tire spear. The CoT is tough as hell, but you can't bang and bump without ruining someones race completely.
 
The Cup cars have weighed 3400 lbs W/O driver for several years now, they used to be 3800 lbs.
 
FenderBumper said:
I like what Carl Edwards said. 'take the aero off and make these cars hard to drive', but NASCAR doesn't want to see speeds drop.
Click to expand...

Average speeds would not drop that much. Straight speeds might increase, cornering speeds would go down. I like the idea of reducing the aero. Make them "drive" the cars. And as a long-time fan you can't really tell the difference between 170mph or 195mph in person or on TV, not with your eyes. With a stopwatch, yes. I would love a scenario where drivers actually had to hit the brakes in the corners at Daytona and Talladega.
 
KingGlamis said:
Average speeds would not drop that much. Straight speeds might increase, cornering speeds would go down. I like the idea of reducing the aero. Make them "drive" the cars. And as a long-time fan you can't really tell the difference between 170mph or 195mph in person or on TV, not with your eyes. With a stopwatch, yes. I would love a scenario where drivers actually had to hit the brakes in the corners at Daytona and Talladega.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And all those 1.5 mile tracks would get some good racing with actual passing again, because the big aero downforce advantage of being out front would be gone.
 
So if the car below, with hardly any aero, could qualify for the Daytona 500 at 194mph in 1970, then they could run the same or higher speeds today with no/little aero.

StockCar70s_8-468x311.jpg
 
KingGlamis said:
So if the car below, with hardly any aero, could qualify for the Daytona 500 at 194mph in 1970, then they could run the same or higher speeds today with no/little aero.

StockCar70s_8-468x311.jpg
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the Torino weighed, but it sure is sleeker than the CoT. Qualifying speeds are higher than race speeds, even back then. But like we've said, better racing is worth a few MPH. I wish we could get nascar to agree.

Do you realize that before the NW cars went to the heavier CoT frame, they were faster through the turns on most tracks than the Cup CoT?
 
FenderBumper said:
I have no idea what the Torino weighed, but it sure is sleeker than the CoT. Qualifying speeds are higher than race speeds, even back then. But like we've said, better racing is worth a few MPH. I wish we could get nascar to agree.

Do you realize that before the NW cars went to the heavier CoT frame, they were faster through the turns on most tracks than the Cup CoT?
Click to expand...

Yeah, and ARCA cars have turned faster laps than Cup cars at many tracks. I don't care about all that. I want to see competitive racing. That's all.

However... that car in my pic is NOT sleeker than a current Cup car. You must be on crack if you think that.
 
FlFlash said:
Problem is Robbeee there'll always be a few how wont Lift and we'll have a big wad of cars in the wall on the first lap :( their racecar drivers nobdy said they we're real bright.
Click to expand...

True Dat! But drivers know that they have to lift at other tracks - and they do! Once they realize that the car won't stick, they will lift.

And we always see a big wad of wrecked cars at these races anyway. Why NOT have it happen on the first lap and get that sh!t over with?! :D
 
KingGlamis said:
However... that car in my pic is NOT sleeker than a current Cup car. You must be on crack if you think that.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious. The front end of the CoT is like a brick wall, with a splitter trapping air for front downforce. The sloped rear window on the Torino put lots of air on the rear end, creating downforce. Even the wheel wells are smaller. Have you been sleeping while all the TV dudes mention over and over what a big hole the cot punches in the air?

The aero advantages of the Torino are what helped bring on the Charger Daytona with the nose extention. This was back when aero was more about drag than downforce.
 
FenderBumper said:
You can't be serious. The front end of the CoT is like a brick wall, with a splitter trapping air for front downforce. The sloped rear window on the Torino put lots of air on the rear end, creating downforce. Even the wheel wells are smaller. Have you been sleeping while all the TV dudes mention over and over what a big hole the cot punches in the air?
Click to expand...

I'm off to work. Your mission for today is to find the drag coefficient of the 1970s NASCARs and the CoT.
 
KingGlamis said:
I'm off to work. Your mission for today is to find the drag coefficient of the 1970s NASCARs and the CoT.
Click to expand...

lol I tried. You'll have to settle for this from Wiki

The fastback roofline of the 1968-69 Ford Torinos provided a wind-cheating design that dominated NASCAR superspeedway racing. In 1969 Dodge responded with the Dodge Charger 500. This car was built with specific modifications to improve the aerodynamics of the car on the NASCAR track. In turn Ford added a special high-performance vehicle to its intermediate line-up, the Torino Talladega. This limited edition car was made specifically with NASCAR racing in mind and all of its modifications were to improve the aerodynamics of the Torino.


Dick Trickle's 1968 Torino NASCAR with the aerodynamic "Sportsroof" body
The Torino Talladega was equipped with unique front fascia that extended the length of the car by approximately 5 inches (127 mm). This front-end extension allowed Ford engineers to taper the front-end to reduce drag. The grille, which was normally recessed was made to be flush fitting, and the smoother rear bumper was reworked to fit the front. The rocker panels were rolled, which allow NASCAR teams to lower their race Talladegas by 5 inches (127 mm) legally.

The Talladega came only in the SportsRoof body style and in three colours: Wimbledon White, Royal Maroon, and Presidential blue. All had a flat black hood and a unique beltline pin stripe. The Talladega came standard with a 428 CJ (non-Ram Air), C-6 Cruise-O-Matic, staggered rear shocks (normally reserved for 4-speed cars) and 3.25:1 open differential. Talladegas were equipped with a cloth and vinyl bench seat, and interestingly enough used the Fairlane 500 body code like the 1969 Cobra. These cars could not be ordered with additional options, and only 743 Talladega's were produced.[9]

The Talladega further improved Ford's success rate on the NASCAR track. Dodge and Plymouth responded with the even more radical 1969 Dodge Charger Daytona and the 1970 Plymouth Superbird which used pointed nose cones and "goalpost" tail wings. Meanwhile for those racing teams using Fords in 1970, some kept their 1969 Torinos when the new curvaceous 1970 models proved to be slower on the NASCAR track due to its less aerodynamic design.[10]


As far as the CoT having higher drag, it's a no brainer. It has a lot more HP and barely beats the old Torino, which was 200lbs lighter. To avoid confusion, cars in the 90's had gotten down to 2,800 and less. I didn't expect to go Waaaay back when comparing cars. Lets keep this to CoT and the car it replaced.
 
KingGlamis said:
I'm off to work. Your mission for today is to find the drag coefficient of the 1970s NASCARs and the CoT.
Click to expand...

I can tell you that the drag coefficient of a 1970 Plymouth Superbird was 0.28 and it was much slicker than the car pictured which is not a Ford Torino the car pictured is a 1969 Mercury Cyclone Spoiler. Both Ford and Mercury ran their 69 models in 69 and 70, they had built a new car for 1970 but found it was'nt as good as the 69's aerodynamicly.
The Superbird had the lowest drag of any NASCAR Cup car untill the twisted sister cars of the early 00's which where a bit slicker AND had more downforce. The COT cars are very close drag wise to the early 2000's cars but have substantialy less downforce.
They also weigh 3400lbs versus the 3800lbs of the earlier cars. There's never been any such thing as a 2800lb Cup car....not a legal one anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom