Take the spoilers and splitters off of the cars?

S

stop-n-hop

Team Owner
New Member!
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
23
Points
163
I have been a NASCAR fan since the late 60's. I don't understand why the sport is at a point that in many races no body can pass the lead car because of aerodynamics. The first car out of the pits and/or best restart wins because nobody can pass. The All Star Race at Charlotte was a great example, drivers put on softer compound tires and still couldn't pass the leader. Is NASCAR too proud to slow the cars down by taking the splitters off of the cars? Is it because of track insurance reasons? Is it because there are a couple of very popular drivers that might not be able to drive a low non downforce car? Somebody please help me out, what am I missing here?
 
I know we're only moments away from amateur aerodynamicists from telling us what would happen if we were to take those things away. Me, I don't know but I really think that if that were the simple solution, NASCAR would go that route. No way in hell NASCAR wants to continue to see the decline in fans/ratings by not taking whatever means is necessary to improve the racing.
 
basically I think that the splitter keeps air from going under the car and keeps it sucked down into the track. Shocks are basically a non factor anymore. The theory is remove the splitters and reduce the spoiler and the cars go airborne I believe.
 
DanicaFreak said:
basically I think that the splitter keeps air from going under the car and keeps it sucked down into the track. Shocks are basically a non factor anymore. The theory is remove the splitters and reduce the spoiler and the cars go airborne I believe.
Click to expand...
For some reason I forgot about the airborne thing.
 
DanicaFreak said:
basically I think that the splitter keeps air from going under the car and keeps it sucked down into the track. Shocks are basically a non factor anymore. The theory is remove the splitters and reduce the spoiler and the cars go airborne I believe.
Click to expand...
That is pretty much it.
When the cars get near 180+ the aero is too critical.
 
Science:

http://buildingspeed.org/blog/2015/06/19/does-less-downforce-mean-more-lift/

http://buildingspeed.org/blog/2013/05/10/keeping-racecars-on-the-racetrack/

http://buildingspeed.org/blog/2012/05/21/aerodynamic-downforce-a-passing-fad/

Opinion:

"Earnhardt's Hendrick team-mate Johnson reckons that in order to change the developing trend, tracks must make adjustments that provide for more high-speed side-by-side racing.

"The reason we can't pass more often is we're all virtually running the same speed," said Johnson. "You have to be a half-second faster to pass someone or three-tenths at least; and when you're a tenth or two off of the leaders, from first to 20th, you can't pass."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/99197
 
They've reduced the downforce the last 2 seasons and the teams keep finding ways to get it back. They're engineering their way out of the racing that the very own drivers want to see because that's the only way to get an advantage these days.

I think NASCAR will once again do something in the offseason to reduce downforce but it will be marginal. Until they take drastic measures nothing is likely to change. There are enough smart people in this sport to be able to figure out what would happen if we took away the splitter, side skirts, reduced the spoiler, etc. Who knows, maybe they're even working behind the scenes to build some sort of test car for it as I type this. They gotta do something though, it's a whole hell of lot cheaper than asking the racetracks to change.
 
aunty dive said:
Science:

http://buildingspeed.org/blog/2015/06/19/does-less-downforce-mean-more-lift/

http://buildingspeed.org/blog/2013/05/10/keeping-racecars-on-the-racetrack/

http://buildingspeed.org/blog/2012/05/21/aerodynamic-downforce-a-passing-fad/

Opinion:

"Earnhardt's Hendrick team-mate Johnson reckons that in order to change the developing trend, tracks must make adjustments that provide for more high-speed side-by-side racing.

"The reason we can't pass more often is we're all virtually running the same speed," said Johnson. "You have to be a half-second faster to pass someone or three-tenths at least; and when you're a tenth or two off of the leaders, from first to 20th, you can't pass."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/99197
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing the blog posts - interesting stuff.
 
aunty dive said:
"The reason we can't pass more often is we're all virtually running the same speed," said Johnson. "You have to be a half-second faster to pass someone or three-tenths at least; and when you're a tenth or two off of the leaders, from first to 20th, you can't pass."
Click to expand...

Pretty decent discussion on the Late Shift last night on NASCAR Radio with Brad Gille and Kenny Wallace. Ultimately, NASCAR's goal IMO was to take the car out of the equation with the advent of the COT. They got that, and then went the same route with the Gen 6. While the cars look great, the aero numbers are the same essentially. They keep the motors close as well. When you then factor in that these drivers are some of the best in the world and likely within a tenth or hundredths of each other, you will, in fact run the same speed.

Kenny proposed opening the box the manufacturers work in. Let them go. Personally, I would love this, but I think that the RTA would object. You let these engineers go, and they will go! However, they will not go for free. Development costs will offset gains in hotel, travel, and insurance that Rob Kauffman holds so dear. The Captain already addressed the need for cost containment. This seems contrary to that.

IMO, you either give the teams some tools to get the cars to do what they want, or you will see more skew games to gain speed. The only reason teams are screwing with that is because the box is so tight, they have no other choice given that everything else is essentially equal. I am not an engineer (duh), so I cannot even suggest what tools they teams might be given, but I do know that back in the day, taking spoiler out, etc. would give some gains at the expense of handling. IMO these are the choices that I think we must give the teams.
 
Revman said:
Pretty decent discussion on the Late Shift last night on NASCAR Radio with Brad Gille and Kenny Wallace. Ultimately, NASCAR's goal IMO was to take the car out of the equation with the advent of the COT. They got that, and then went the same route with the Gen 6. While the cars look great, the aero numbers are the same essentially. They keep the motors close as well. When you then factor in that these drivers are some of the best in the world and likely within a tenth or hundredths of each other, you will, in fact run the same speed.

Kenny proposed opening the box the manufacturers work in. Let them go. Personally, I would love this, but I think that the RTA would object. You let these engineers go, and they will go! However, they will not go for free. Development costs will offset gains in hotel, travel, and insurance that Rob Kauffman holds so dear. The Captain already addressed the need for cost containment. This seems contrary to that.

IMO, you either give the teams some tools to get the cars to do what they want, or you will see more skew games to gain speed. The only reason teams are screwing with that is because the box is so tight, they have no other choice given that everything else is essentially equal. I am not an engineer (duh), so I cannot even suggest what tools they teams might be given, but I do know that back in the day, taking spoiler out, etc. would give some gains at the expense of handling. IMO these are the choices that I think we must give the teams.
Click to expand...
Im all for letting the engineers go, but i dont want NASCAR to be F1
 
1978 qualifying speeds:

Qualifying
Grid No. Driver Manufacturer Speed[7]
1 21 David Pearson Mercury 160.551
2 11 Cale Yarborough Oldsmobile 159.736
3 2 Dave Marcis Chevrolet 159.432
4 12 Harry Gant Chevrolet 159.040
5 90 Dick Brooks Ford 158.936
6 15 Bobby Allison Ford 158.801
7 14 Sterling Marlin Chevrolet 158.548
8 48 Al Holbert Oldsmobile 158.431
9 54 Lennie Pond Oldsmobile 158.306
10 27 Buddy Baker Chevrolet 158.058

Will there be anything else?
 
aunty dive said:
1978 qualifying speeds:

Qualifying
Grid No. Driver Manufacturer Speed[7]
1 21 David Pearson Mercury 160.551
2 11 Cale Yarborough Oldsmobile 159.736
3 2 Dave Marcis Chevrolet 159.432
4 12 Harry Gant Chevrolet 159.040
5 90 Dick Brooks Ford 158.936
6 15 Bobby Allison Ford 158.801
7 14 Sterling Marlin Chevrolet 158.548
8 48 Al Holbert Oldsmobile 158.431
9 54 Lennie Pond Oldsmobile 158.306
10 27 Buddy Baker Chevrolet 158.058

Will there be anything else?
Click to expand...
What track was that at?

I wouldn't even go that far back to reference good racing. Even in just the 80's/90's the racing was better.
 
AdoubleU24 said:
What track was that at?

I wouldn't even go that far back to reference good racing. Even in just the 80's/90's the racing was better.
Click to expand...
Charlotte - 600 miler. It's a response to the posted claim that the cars of the 70's and 80's were "going this fast".

They weren't. We seem to agree that good racing did and can occur at lower race speeds. If the splitters and side skirts ever come off, current speeds will have to be reduced accordingly. At this point in our knowledge curve, basic physics concepts are well beyond argument.
 
Last year at Charlotte:

Bank of America 500 Qualifying Results

Pos. Driver Best Time Best Speed
1 Kevin Harvick 27.547 196.029
2 Alex Bowman 27.551 196.000
3 Chase Elliott 27.585 195.759
4 Kyle Busch 27.660 195.228
5 Tony Stewart 27.660 195.228
6 A.J. Allmendinger 27.680 195.087
7 Martin Truex Jr. 27.717 194.826
8 Carl Edwards 27.756 194.553
9 Denny Hamlin 27.811 194.168
10 Joey Logano 27.828 194.049
 
aunty dive said:
Charlotte - 600 miler. It's a response to the posted claim that the cars of the 70's and 80's were "going this fast".

They weren't. We seem to agree that good racing did and can occur at lower race speeds. If the splitters and side skirts ever come off, current speeds will have to be reduced accordingly. At this point in our knowledge curve, basic physics concepts are well beyond argument.
Click to expand...
You could make up some of the speed gap pretty easily with a wider tire. Don't have a clue what that would do to the racing having a wider tire..probably very little.
 
The more down force the faster you can go.
The faster you go the more down force you get.
The more down force the faster you can go.
The faster you go the more down force you get.
The more down force the faster you can go.
The faster you go the more down force you get.
The more down force the faster you can go.
The faster you go the more down force you get.
 
aunty dive said:
Last year at Charlotte:

Bank of America 500 Qualifying Results

Pos. Driver Best Time Best Speed
1 Kevin Harvick 27.547 196.029
2 Alex Bowman 27.551 196.000
3 Chase Elliott 27.585 195.759
4 Kyle Busch 27.660 195.228
5 Tony Stewart 27.660 195.228
6 A.J. Allmendinger 27.680 195.087
7 Martin Truex Jr. 27.717 194.826
8 Carl Edwards 27.756 194.553
9 Denny Hamlin 27.811 194.168
10 Joey Logano 27.828 194.049
Click to expand...
I was there for that qualifying session, they were movin'!

Wouldn't they almost have to make the engines smaller if they did hack off the splitter, side skirts, etc.? Either that or the drivers would just have to be aware that they can't flat foot it down the straights anymore and start managing their entry speeds?
 
Cut back on compression ratio.
That cuts horsepower.
 
LARRY said:
The more down force the faster you can go.
The faster you go the more down force you get.
The more down force the faster you can go.
Click to expand...
This is at the heart of the matter.

Aerodynamic forces in either direction are quadrupled if speed is doubled. 500 lbs at 100 mph is 2000 lbs at 200 mph.
 
I was watching a race from the early 2000s and the cars looked like turtles in the corners compared to today.
 
I think people can accept the fact that passing can be difficult even with a faster car but I think what people reject is a car that may be a 10th quicker checking out on the field in clean air. Probably what will happen is Nascar will gerrymander things even more by implementing 5-6-7 stages per race which essentially equate to bogus cautions with a twist.
 
bigspud said:
stock body car racing,
why is that so difficult?
Click to expand...

Nascar used to tell the manufacturers what was required of them but now if they tried to play that card the manufactures would tell them where to go.
 
Kill the cams 'n reduce valve size.

Easy to police 'n damned effective.
 
I think they'll go to 5.0L v8's eventually. Ford and Chevy already supply them for the Aussie supercars series and I think those engines are just cut down versions of their NASCAR designs anyways. They make about 650 HP which is still a lot, but top speeds would definitely come down (I'd guess to around 180 max at a 1.5 like homestead). That may still be too fast to completely kill downforce, but it would be going in the right direction.
 
F1 banned ground effects decades ago. You guys should read about it if you have a spare minute. Interesting stuff.
 
stop-n-hop said:
I have been a NASCAR fan since the late 60's. I don't understand why the sport is at a point that in many races no body can pass the lead car because of aerodynamics. The first car out of the pits and/or best restart wins because nobody can pass. The All Star Race at Charlotte was a great example....
Click to expand...
The All Star race last Saturday was the *first* time this entire year that this happened. No other race so far has seen aerodynamics prevent passing the leader. I agree the All Star deal was a severe aero problem, but so far it is just a Charlotte problem, not a Nascar problem. I expect similar in the World 600 - unless the VHT has some good effects - but I'm looking forward to other venues to see what happens.

As for the people advocating for dramatically lower horsepower... I'm not in favor of that. And I don't care whether it comes from small V-6's or low compression or restrictor plates or whatever... I vote NO on that.

Edit to add... I'd be OK with unrestricted 5.0 L V-8's, sans tapered spacers. Power similar to what we have now, I'd guess. Don't know what that would cost, however.
 
Last edited:
Great info and reference links. I agree that racing has been better this season, but it hasn't come close to reaching "THAT"...which is THAT THING we all know when we see it. If heavy downforce is negating the effects of shocks or chassis adjustments, that is a clue. During racing in the 80's & 90's, such adjustments during a race were vital to getting speed. Now we see these adjustments made with limited impact. I do think it has improved this season with the new package at all tracks, but we're not there yet.

Drafting made a huge difference in competitive racing on big tracks. It remains a magical "THAT" which we all remember but is long gone in the splitter generation. I want drafting back and splitters gone. NASCAR should be able to incorporate 10 or more flaps built into the car body that can trigger open as needed to keep the car from getting airborne.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
I know we're only moments away from amateur aerodynamicists from telling us what would happen if we were to take those things away. Me, I don't know but I really think that if that were the simple solution, NASCAR would go that route. No way in hell NASCAR wants to continue to see the decline in fans/ratings by not taking whatever means is necessary to improve the racing.
Click to expand...

The Daily Y'all Yaw....
 
ReturnTrip said:
F1 banned ground effects decades ago. You guys should read about it if you have a spare minute. Interesting stuff.
Click to expand...
They don't need it. They have plenty of downforce for single file racing and this year it got even more so plus wider tires.

How much downforce does a f1 car produce?
The aerodynamic forces of a Formula 1 car can produce as much as three times the car's weight in downforce. In fact, at a speed of just 130 km/h (81 mph), the downforce is equal in magnitude to the weight of the car. At low speeds, the car can turn at 2.0 g.
 
I think we will have a lot more to talk about besides splitters and spoilers after the 600 if they VHT the track like they are saying they will do. It worked pretty well for both races at Bristol
 
End of the straight at mid Ohio Indy cars have up 5000 of down force.
3 seconds latter at 65 mph, over hilltop turn they have so little down force, they just rely on mechanical grip.
 
I think you guys miss the point here. Not every track is going to be as it was with the different aero in today's game, the way these things maintain speed today makes them absolutely awesome on short tracks and the plate racing today is as good as it's ever been, it's just some of your more traditional 1.5-2 mile tracks have became a little too drawn out
 
LARRY said:
The more down force the faster you can go.
The faster you go the more down force you get.
The more down force the faster you can go.
The faster you go the more down force you get.
The more down force the faster you can go.
The faster you go the more down force you get.
The more down force the faster you can go.
The faster you go the more down force you get.
Click to expand...

yes and no...
 
DanicaFreak said:
Im all for letting the engineers go, but i dont want NASCAR to be F1
Click to expand...

If you cut them loose, it will become just that. F1 looks like someone forgot to tell the builders that the cars got ugly--can't imagine what NASCAR cars would look like. I would, however, like to see the box get bigger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom