Traction Compound

aunty dive said:
Excellent.

Please explain how to get rid of the aero.
Click to expand...
Get rid of the splitter, side skirts, and rear spoiler. Go back to the minimum ground clearance rule and front air damn only between the front frame rails, rear spoiler max of 3" @ 45 degrees, side panels conform to stock street configuration except allowance for tire clearance. Body may be widened to accommodate track width by adding width along centerline of body front to back while maintaining original slope and shape.
 
OldTimer said:
Get rid of the splitter, side skirts, and rear spoiler. Go back to the minimum ground clearance rule and front air damn only between the front frame rails, rear spoiler max of 3" @ 45 degrees, side panels conform to stock street configuration except allowance for tire clearance. Body may be widened to accommodate track width by adding width along centerline of body front to back while maintaining original slope and shape.
Click to expand...
How much downforce do you think that configuration would produce at 185 MPH?
 
OldTimer said:
Get rid of the splitter, side skirts, and rear spoiler. Go back to the minimum ground clearance rule(so they engineer the car to squat like they used to) and front air damn only between the front frame rails, rear spoiler max of 3" @ 45 degrees, side panels conform to stock (stock what brand?)street configuration except allowance for tire clearance. Body may be widened to accommodate track width by adding width along centerline of body front to back while maintaining original slope and shape.( so force OEM's to make and sell Nascar-esk bodies like they did back in the day) Almost all of this stuff has been tried and failed.
Click to expand...
 
never thought Pearl Jam would get so much endorsement from racing surfaces in the last couple years like they have :laugh:
 
All brands, side panels stock for each designated brand and model. Allowance for tire clearance.

Did it really fail? Believe the rise of NASCAR popularity occurred in the '70's, '80's, and '90's(before the twisted sister configuration), not since.
 
OldTimer said:
Hopefully just enough to still keep that egg between your foot and the pedal from breaking.
Click to expand...
At 200 per, better be enough to keep the tire contact patches on the ground.

A new Honda Civic generates about 350 pounds of downforce at 80. As with all aerodynamic formulae, downforce increases by a factor of 4 with increases in velocity.
 
OldTimer said:
All brands, side panels stock for each designated brand and model. Allowance for tire clearance.

Did it really fail? Believe the rise of NASCAR popularity occurred in the '70's, '80's, and '90's(before the twisted sister configuration), not since.
Click to expand...

I have to agree that many of those old configurations did NOT fail, but as far as I'm concerned, NASCAR's last attempt at low downforce was a HUGE failure. This is one of those areas where maybe you CAN'T go home again. I am a HUGE fan of what Indy car racing was in the 1970's, with team built cars and multiple off the wall engine combinations and such, but as much as I loved it, you just can't put that genie back into the bottle. That era is gone forever. You can't have Grant King types laying out Gurney Eagle copies in chalk on his shop floor, building them and qualifying for the Indy 500. That just can never happen again. We can't un-know what we know now, and there is no way to prevent people from putting that knowledge to work, regardless of the rules. AS for NASCAR, maybe a different low downforce approach WOULD work, but if it fails too, you've just wasted a ton of other people's money.
 
wi_racefan said:
Until your favorite driver blows a RF and ends his day. Then "We must do something about these tires!!!"
Click to expand...

that's when they learn to save tires
what did Harry Hogg say ..."his way, my way, I was 6 seconds faster"
 
Formerjackman said:
I have to agree that many of those old configurations did NOT fail, but as far as I'm concerned, NASCAR's last attempt at low downforce was a HUGE failure. This is one of those areas where maybe you CAN'T go home again. I am a HUGE fan of what Indy car racing was in the 1970's, with team built cars and multiple off the wall engine combinations and such, but as much as I loved it, you just can't put that genie back into the bottle. That era is gone forever. You can't have Grant King types laying out Gurney Eagle copies in chalk on his shop floor, building them and qualifying for the Indy 500. That just can never happen again. We can't un-know what we know now, and there is no way to prevent people from putting that knowledge to work, regardless of the rules. AS for NASCAR, maybe a different low downforce approach WOULD work, but if it fails too, you've just wasted a ton of other people's money.
Click to expand...
NASCAR is going to the plastic RC type bodies next year... make them fit a stock template dimensional, similar to what ARCA does. Only divest them of the side skirt and splitter.
 
You can do that, but some teams will find ways to make their cars aerodynamically superior anyway. Aero will ALWAYS triumph. The gains may get smaller, but that just means the "Have" teams will spend that much more money chasing those gains, just like they do with restrictor plate horsepower. They will spend MONTHS looking for two HP. The other side of the issue is that I'm not convinced that taking any of the that stuff off the cars will actually make the racing product better, which would be the ONLY reason to do it. Before a couple of years ago, I was sure that WAS the way to go. Now, not so sure. As I said, what I saw from the last attempt at low downforce was VERY discouraging. I don't think you can learn much unless you are willing to have 25-30 teams build cars to your proposed spec, take them to multiple tracks and run then for full fuel runs. Who pays for all of that?
 
OldTimer said:
NASCAR is going to the plastic RC type bodies next year... make them fit a stock template dimensional, similar to what ARCA does. Only divest them of the side skirt and splitter.
Click to expand...
Don't know how many times it is going to be said. Nascar doesn't want cars flying around in the air. You just witnessed with everything Nascar has done to keep them on the ground Ryan Newman coming within a hair of a serious injury or death.
 
StandOnIt said:
Don't know how many times it is going to be said. Nascar doesn't want cars flying around in the air. You just witnessed with everything Nascar has done to keep them on the ground Ryan Newman coming within a hair of a serious injury or death.
Click to expand...

I think Newman's wreck also illustrates that no matter what NASCAR tries, there will be circumstances that put cars into the air, and those wrecks tend to be the most violent ones anyway. Sometimes I think they have spent too much time chasing an unattainable goal, perhaps sometimes at the expense of a good product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom