Interesting North Wilkesboro article at Nascar.com

RowdyBusch

RowdyBusch

Team Owner
Joined
Jun 3, 2016
Messages
320
Points
223
*Wilkesboro I guess you can't edit thread titles

http://www.nascar.com/en_us/news-me...embering-north-wilkesboro-20-years-later.html

Jeff Gordon and Ray Evernham share the same memories of 1990s era Nascar.

Gordon: "I saw somewhere this year the last eight laps or so of the (final) race," Gordon told NASCAR.com. "That's the cool thing about it. If you look at the cars, there were no splitters, the air dams weren't on the ground, nothing was all sealed up. It was all about mechanical grip. Springs and shocks played a role. The driver played a role. Managing the tires and the brakes played a role. It was nice to be able to go there and focus on those things."

Evernham: "I just loved that place," Evernham said. "The fact that it would change throughout the day and you really had to manage your car and you really, honestly, had to worry about mechanical grip back then. The fact that it was two completely different corners. Any of the tracks that had a real history to me and were real challenging were tracks I really wanted to win at. Just because of the design and surface (at North Wilkesboro), it didn't matter if you had a good motor, none of that mattered.
 
I write about this in my NASCAR survey every week. The cars need to change. The cars need to be more like real street/stock cars and they need to be less paper machet. The cars in IMSA are more stock than NASCAR.
 
I'm not smart enough about aerodynamics to know what the splitter is there for (on current cars), in terms of keeping them on the ground at 200 mph. I think that is why it is there, but I could be wrong. But those 1996 cars did produce a lot of downforce at fast venues. The short tracks emphasize mechanical grip more than the fast tracks do, which was true in 1996 and is true in 2016.

I'd rather see the cars up off the ground a few inches, but I know that aerodynamics is a complex deal. Armchair solutions not backed up by science and engineering are not going to be effective, IMO.
 
It was a good article, I enjoyed reminiscing the past. Someone posted a link some time ago to an article that talked about how the track declined.
 
LewTheShoe said:
I'm not smart enough about aerodynamics to know what the splitter is there for (on current cars), in terms of keeping them on the ground at 200 mph. I think that is why it is there, but I could be wrong. But those 1996 cars did produce a lot of downforce at fast venues. The short tracks emphasize mechanical grip more than the fast tracks do, which was true in 1996 and is true in 2016.

I'd rather see the cars up off the ground a few inches, but I know that aerodynamics is a complex deal. Armchair solutions not backed up by science and engineering are not going to be effective, IMO.
Click to expand...

That may be still true at Martinsville but other than that, Aero comes into play at any speed over 75mph.

The front splitter seals the car to the track by preventing air from getting underneath the car. The side skirts help prevent even more air from getting underneath, which creates a suction under the car to help keep the car glued to the track.
If a car gets turned backwards, the splitter and side skirts have the reverse effect. The air gets trapped under the car which is why they have the roof flaps on the top of the car, especially the hood. The hood flaps allow the air to escape from underneath the car if it gets turned backwards.

Obviously removing the splitter and side skirts would allow air to flow under the car which would force the cars to slow down more in the turns. The front splitter also helps with downforce so by removing the front splitter (or simply raising it off the ground more) you would lower the amount of downforce on the front of the car requiring more mechanical grip.

The tricky part is when the cars interact with each other. What we don't want is more aero-push coming back, where the 2nd place car can't pass the first place car because there isn't enough downforce to pass.

I think the first thing NASCAR should test, is taking the splittler and side skirts away from the short tracks and even some of the cookie cutters. Who cares if the restricotr plate races have "aero packages", they already have special packages, so why not just keep the splitters and side skirts for those tracks. No need to have them for richmond, dover, NHMS, etc. Maybe they could find a middle ground (i.e. splitter but no side skirts) for tracks like Charlotte, Atlanta, Kansas, Kentucky, etc.

The bottomline is that the cars are still too aero dependent except for maybe at Martinsville. Maybe that's why Martinsville puts on one of the best shows of the year!
 
What if somehow North Wilkesboro had a Cup race in 2016 and sold out, even if it was only 40,000 in attendance... Seems that would be as good as Bristol with maybe 70,000 a while back. I know its about the TV market too. But still, I don't only watch Richmond races because that's my closest track, I watch the ones that put on a good show (and can be seen on the basic Dish package.) Anyway some retired driver needs to buy it, if nothing else just to use as a playground and preserve it.
 
LouieLouie said:
That may be still true at Martinsville but other than that, Aero comes into play at any speed over 75mph.

The front splitter seals the car to the track by preventing air from getting underneath the car. The side skirts help prevent even more air from getting underneath, which creates a suction under the car to help keep the car glued to the track.
If a car gets turned backwards, the splitter and side skirts have the reverse effect. The air gets trapped under the car which is why they have the roof flaps on the top of the car, especially the hood. The hood flaps allow the air to escape from underneath the car if it gets turned backwards.

Obviously removing the splitter and side skirts would allow air to flow under the car which would force the cars to slow down more in the turns. The front splitter also helps with downforce so by removing the front splitter (or simply raising it off the ground more) you would lower the amount of downforce on the front of the car requiring more mechanical grip.

The tricky part is when the cars interact with each other. What we don't want is more aero-push coming back, where the 2nd place car can't pass the first place car because there isn't enough downforce to pass.

I think the first thing NASCAR should test, is taking the splittler and side skirts away from the short tracks and even some of the cookie cutters. Who cares if the restricotr plate races have "aero packages", they already have special packages, so why not just keep the splitters and side skirts for those tracks. No need to have them for richmond, dover, NHMS, etc. Maybe they could find a middle ground (i.e. splitter but no side skirts) for tracks like Charlotte, Atlanta, Kansas, Kentucky, etc.

The bottomline is that the cars are still too aero dependent except for maybe at Martinsville. Maybe that's why Martinsville puts on one of the best shows of the year!
Click to expand...

Real drama and excitement used to come into play in the exact situation you just mentioned when mechanical grip mattered. Is the faster car going to use his bumper to get the win and face retaliation later in the year when he can't find the grip to make the pass? (Carl Edwards and Kyle Busch in the first Richmond race this year)

For years and years now the faster car is stuck behind a wall of dirty air until they drop a debris caution with ten to go.
 
Was an AWSOME track. Real character about it. If it was on the Circuit today it would be one of my 5 fav tracks easily. I'm glad that I started watching the sport in the early 90s an am able to say I got to see them race there. I agree woth the above poster that it would be great if someone would buy it and turn it into a museum or something similar.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Aero downforce results in faster speeds. I don't have a problem with losing 20 mph or more, but it will give the ranters another excuse to proclaim the end of the sport.
Click to expand...
I agree with all three points, Charlie. That is why the racing in 2016 with lower downforce has been a lot better, and why 2017 plans seem to be further downforce reductions. At Loudon last week, speed differential between the end of the straight and the corner apex was over 60 mph, which is a lot more than previously, and lower downforce is the reason.

I think Loudon's difficulty in passing is not an aero problem. I think it has more to do with the progressive banking which limits mechanical grip at corner exit in the bottom lane. But many tracks do have aero problems, and I applaud current efforts to address those issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom