Rate the Race: Pocono I

6.5 for me. I love the difficulty and challenge of Pocono, and the strategy options too. But today was a clean air/track position race, one groove and near impossible to pass at the front. I don't believe passing should be easy, but this went too far, IMO.
I never get this argument . ( Lack of passing) . By who ? The leaders had no trouble . Stats show that . They came from back in the field and moved to the front . Some recovered from penalties , bad pit stops , etc . The slower cars always have trouble passing , because they are slower (I think) . If my favorite driver moves thru the field and stalls out at tenth , it doesn't occur to me that it's an aero problem .I don't get it , sorry ?
 
I never get this argument . ( Lack of passing) . By who ? The leaders had no trouble . Stats show that . They came from back in the field and moved to the front . Some recovered from penalties , bad pit stops , etc . The slower cars always have trouble passing , because they are slower (I think) . If my favorite driver moves thru the field and stalls out at tenth , it doesn't occur to me that it's an aero problem .I don't get it , sorry ?

It did sound like there was some aero push going on at the very front, but you're right there was passing in the field. Clean air was still king though.
 
At high race speeds, clean air will always be king.
 
6.5 for me. I love the difficulty and challenge of Pocono, and the strategy options too. But today was a clean air/track position race, one groove and near impossible to pass at the front. I don't believe passing should be easy, but this went too far, IMO.
I agree 110% and I was there.
 
I know I'm going to get flack for this, but I think a re-worked high-drag aero package would work wonders at Pocono and Indy.
 
I know I'm going to get flack for this, but I think a re-worked high-drag aero package would work wonders at Pocono and Indy.
At the risk of joining you in the doghouse , I think that is true of every track . Just think about it . The speeds go up at every track , every year . Cars are entering he corners at speeds the racetacks were never designed for . There has to be a speed that just isn't safe to drive at , let alone race at . We expect drag race speeds and cornering , and passing . If fans are genuinely concerned about a lack of passing , then slow the dragrace down .
 

The layout of the track really lends itself to the type of racing the high drag package was trying to create. Long-ass straights, slow corners. Long straights (that are actually straight) lend themselves to slingshot passes while slow corners help minimize the importance of aero grip through the corners. That lack of aero grip when following another car through corners is what causes "aero push", which is why they went with low-downforce for the package this year since at the vast majority of tracks this was a bigger issue.

However, that low downforce package (and the lowered drag as a result) makes it more difficult to slipstream a car down the long straights and pass there (where the grandstands are). Where the high drag package from last year failed was that it also increased the front splitter and added much more downforce to the cars at a track (indy) where the cars take the corners much faster than Pocono (to say nothing of Michigan). If the smart guys at NASCAR could come up with a solution to make the cars punch a bigger hole in the air at speed while still allowing a trailing car to follow through the corners, IE high drag but low downforce/aero dependency, it would really change the was the Rovals are raced.
 
The layout of the track really lends itself to the type of racing the high drag package was trying to create. Long-ass straights, slow corners. Long straights (that are actually straight) lend themselves to slingshot passes while slow corners help minimize the importance of aero grip through the corners. That lack of aero grip when following another car through corners is what causes "aero push", which is why they went with low-downforce for the package this year since at the vast majority of tracks this was a bigger issue.

However, that low downforce package (and the lowered drag as a result) makes it more difficult to slipstream a car down the long straights and pass there (where the grandstands are). Where the high drag package from last year failed was that it also increased the front splitter and added much more downforce to the cars at a track (indy) where the cars take the corners much faster than Pocono (to say nothing of Michigan). If the smart guys at NASCAR could come up with a solution to make the cars punch a bigger hole in the air at speed while still allowing a trailing car to follow through the corners, IE high drag but low downforce/aero dependency, it would really change the was the Rovals are raced.
I don't agree that the turns at either track can be classified as slow for the purposes of evaluating kinematics or aerodynamics.

Loss of front downforce (aero push) is not a cause but rather the result of the volume of turbulent (dirty) air tumbling off the back of a leading car. The failed high drag package had a larger front splitter because it is necessary to balance downforce front to rear. You can't put a 7" spoiler on the car without adding splitter. If you did, the car would understeer much more dramatically than it ever has due to turbulence.

You'd have to be more than smart to punch a larger hole in the air without increasing turbulence. You'd have to be able to defeat the laws of physics. Downforce and drag effects on modern racecars are inexorably linked together ... you could increase drag without increasing downforce but the cars would look a lot different than they do now and nothing even remotely resembling anything Ford, Chevrolet or Toyota would be willing to put out there.
 
I don't agree that the turns at either track can be classified as slow for the purposes of evaluating kinematics or aerodynamics.

Loss of front downforce (aero push) is not a cause but rather the result of the volume of turbulent (dirty) air tumbling off the back of a leading car. The failed high drag package had a larger front splitter because it is necessary to balance downforce front to rear. You can't put a 7" spoiler on the car without adding splitter. If you did, the car would understeer much more dramatically than it ever has due to turbulence.

You'd have to be more than smart to punch a larger hole in the air without increasing turbulence. You'd have to be able to defeat the laws of physics. Downforce and drag effects on modern racecars are inexorably linked together ... you could increase drag without increasing downforce but the cars would look a lot different than they do now and nothing even remotely resembling anything Ford, Chevrolet or Toyota would be willing to put out there.

I'm not saying it would be easy to do. In fact, I'm pretty sure it will never happen due to NASCAR politics. RE Turbulence; I wasn't suggesting that they could somehow increase drag without increasing turbulence. That turbulence is what allows drafting and slingshot passes down the straights, which dominate tracks like Pocono and Indy. My suggestion was to increase drag/turbulence but also minimize the effect dirty air has on cornering performance by making the cars less aero dependent, IE like what they did with the current package. Can that be done? Maybe, I'm not an auto engineer, but I'm hopeful. I think they were on the right track with the wickerbill to somewhat negate the large spoiler, but if they could take it further to negate more of the higher rear downforce and thus they wouldn't need such a large splitter.

And frankly, I don't give a **** what the manufacturers think. NASCAR exists to provide competitive sport, not sell cars.
 
I never get this argument . ( Lack of passing) . By who ? The leaders had no trouble . Stats show that . They came from back in the field and moved to the front . Some recovered from penalties , bad pit stops , etc . The slower cars always have trouble passing , because they are slower (I think) . If my favorite driver moves thru the field and stalls out at tenth , it doesn't occur to me that it's an aero problem .I don't get it , sorry ?

The stats may show it but the racing didn't.

I was at the race also and enjoyed it tremendously but there was no passing for the lead once the restarts sorted themselves out. (guessing less than 4 laps into a run) Follow the leader up front!
There was some passing from 5th or 6th on back but that was minimal as well after the first 8 or so laps into a run.

Clean air was definately king!
 
^^ There's a lot of factual scientific information regarding racecar aerodynamics available on the net. Dry reading but helpful for those wishing to engage in a discussion of this kind.
 
^^ There's a lot of factual scientific information regarding racecar aerodynamics available on the net. Dry reading but helpful for those wishing to engage in a discussion of this kind.

It would have been helpful if some of the brass took the time to read it 8 or 9 years ago. Although it was really nice to sprawl out in my 20' X 20' section of the stands!
 
It would have been helpful if some of the brass took the time to read it 8 or 9 years ago. Although it was really nice to sprawl out in my 20' X 20' section of the stands!
I like to separate science from politics and economics. :D
 
This has been a very interesting discussion.

The stated objective for the high drag/high downforce package that was tested at Indy and Michigan in 2015 was to create pack racing and slingshot passing. I believe this package was inspired by the truck series, which makes every intermediate track race pretty much like Talladega. Bleh, bleh, barf. I believe Nascar races should be contests of skill that reward the best drivers and team excellence in set-up and race execution. Talladega style racing does just the opposite, making the outcome more random (like a roulette wheel) and less based on merit.

@Acs is proposing high drag with low downforce, which reminds me of motorcycle racing on a track with a very long straight. Motorcycles have very high coefficient of drag, and very low downforce. Slipstreaming on the straight gets 'em bunched up, and let's see who can outbrake who at the corner. I agree, better than the option above.

I prefer low drag/low downforce, as it creates more differential between straightline speed and corner speed, thus more braking and more off-throttle time. This is the way (IMO) to reward driver skill and have the race be a contest of skill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Acs
Back
Top Bottom