Why are the cars tight down on the ground?

[LewTheShoe]

As downforce has been reduced, the splitter on the ground and the side skirts have remained. Why? A few *possible* reasons come to mind. What are your thoughts?

1. The look & the image. The current cars look low and sleek compared to the Detroit land yachts raced in prior eras. They look look like modern, sophisticated racing cars (which they are, despite their stone age architecture). Perhaps this is desirable to the sport, particularly to the OEM manufacturers. We all love the look of the historical artifacts raced in prior decades, but keep 'em in the museums and car shows. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but to me, the current cars certainly do look beautiful.

2. Front downforce for balance. Even with sharply reduced downforce of the 2016 and 2017 cars, there is still expected to be ~1500 pounds of total downforce in 2017, less than half the 2014 amount. For balance, some of this needs to be on the front. The sealed-to-the-ground splitter works together with the side skirts to produce this, and the amount is easily changed and regulated by splitter dimensions. This design avoids the need to totally re-engineer the cars ($$$$$) for the new, lower downforce era.

3. Preventing lift off. Limiting air flow under the car may be an important part of keeping the cars on the ground when there is a spin or a collision. Unquestionably, flying cars are "no bueno." Is this a factor?

4. Are there other reasons? What are your thoughts about the factors above, or other possible factors I have not listed.

 

[aunty dive]

Number three. Not may be ... is a huge factor.

Liability insurance is expensive ... assuming you can buy it.

 

[hidesert cowboy]

check out that bill elliott car's spoiler I freakin love that. that has got to be a super speedway car! the old timers talk about banging the spoiler down themselves when they were ready to let rip around dega or daytona. heck I think they even adjusted it as an adjustment during the race. also notice the exhaust running out the left side. They actually used to make the exhaust really heavy because it was the lowest part of the car. I know people talk about the good ole days but the leader winning by 2 laps or 3 cars the lead lap would really get people complaining. that is what you would get if you really started to open things up like they did back in the day.

 

[Acs]

Yeah I gotta agree with Aunty here, the cars would get airborne far more if they weren't sealed off even at non-plate tracks. The speeds we're talking about at intermediates are just as high as at the plate tracks and we've seen how NASCAR has tried and tried to keep the plate cars on the ground (and keeps failing at it) via sealing the cars off more and more. The look has nothing to do with it. The splitter and radiator pan is now virtually non-existent and yet the cars still produce enough front downforce to more than balance out a relatively tiny 2.5 inch spoiler (side note, even with the "low-low" downforce package tested this year the cars were still too front-downforce heavy. That's why in the final 2017 package they widened the spoiler). We may very well be at the limit of improving the racing through reducing downforce in the normal means.

Doesn't mean I have to like the situation though. I'd love for some smart people to figure out how to get the cars back off the ground so we could go lower on downforce without risking more airborne crashes.

 

[RacerrecaR]

I'd love for some smart people to figure out how to get the cars back off the ground so we could go lower on downforce without risking more airborne crashes.

Lowering the top speeds to less than 185mph is probably the easiest way, but I would hate that to happen.

 

[Rick]

The cars suck to the track and turbulence is reduced. This helps performance and safety.

 

[aunty dive]

Yeah I gotta agree with Aunty here, the cars would get airborne far more if they weren't sealed off even at non-plate tracks. The speeds we're talking about at intermediates are just as high as at the plate tracks and we've seen how NASCAR has tried and tried to keep the plate cars on the ground (and keeps failing at it) via sealing the cars off more and more. The look has nothing to do with it. The splitter and radiator pan
is now virtually non-existent and yet the cars still produce enough front downforce to more than balance out a relatively tiny 2.5 inch spoiler (side note, even with the "low-low" downforce package tested this year the cars were still too front-downforce heavy. That's why in the final 2017 package they widened the spoiler). We may very well be at the limit of improving the racing through reducing downforce in the normal means.

Doesn't mean I have to like the situation though. I'd love for some smart people to figure out how to get the cars back off the ground so we could go lower on downforce without risking more airborne crashes.

Lowering the top speeds to less than 185mph is probably the easiest way, but I would hate that to happen.

Race speeds are a huge issue.

Velocity is the most important element of every formula used to calculate lift and downforce because it is always squared. Doubled velocity equals 4 times more force in either direction.

 

[RacerrecaR]

The other thing NASCAR could do is keep the cars sealed to the ground at the superspeedways, but have them off the ground at intermediate tracks, short tracks, and road courses. It won't help to cut costs, but it would undoubtedly improve the racing without sacrificing safety.

 

[4tires17gals]

The cot was not that low to the ground

 

[Acs]

The other thing NASCAR could do is keep the cars sealed to the ground at the superspeedways, but have them off the ground at intermediate tracks, short tracks, and road courses. It won't help to cut costs, but it would undoubtedly improve the racing without sacrificing safety.

Don't think that would work for the intermediates. Like I said above, the speeds at intermediates have crept up to where they are entering the corners faster than they are at the plate tracks. They were entering the corners at Michigan at nearly 210 and if anything taking away downforce by raising the cars would only lessen drag and make that number go up. A car getting sideways at that speed with air under it would be something we'd never want to see.

Again though, maybe there is another way. Lots of smart people out there.

 

[Mispeedway15]

Don't think that would work for the intermediates. Like I said above, the speeds at intermediates have crept up to where they are entering the corners faster than they are at the plate tracks. They were entering the corners at Michigan at nearly 210 and if anything taking away downforce by raising the cars would only lessen drag and make that number go up. A car getting sideways at that speed with air under it would be something we'd never want to see.

Again though, maybe there is another way. Lots of smart people out there.

I don't know if you can call Michigan an intermediate with its 2 mile length. I'm all for making two more restrictor plate races at that track, it would definitely boost attendance

 

[Revman]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but to me, the current cars certainly do look beautiful.

I could not agree more.

 

[Team Penske]

Yeah I gotta agree with Aunty here, the cars would get airborne far more if they weren't sealed off even at non-plate tracks. The speeds we're talking about at intermediates are just as high as at the plate tracks and we've seen how NASCAR has tried and tried to keep the plate cars on the ground (and keeps failing at it) via sealing the cars off more and more. The look has nothing to do with it. The splitter and radiator pan is now virtually non-existent and yet the cars still produce enough front downforce to more than balance out a relatively tiny 2.5 inch spoiler (side note, even with the "low-low" downforce package tested this year the cars were still too front-downforce heavy. That's why in the final 2017 package they widened the spoiler). We may very well be at the limit of improving the racing through reducing downforce in the normal means.

Doesn't mean I have to like the situation though. I'd love for some smart people to figure out how to get the cars back off the ground so we could go lower on downforce without risking more airborne crashes.

Carl Edwards team had it figured out, they left the trap door off so the air could spill out quicker.

 

[LouieLouie]

Don't think that would work for the intermediates. Like I said above, the speeds at intermediates have crept up to where they are entering the corners faster than they are at the plate tracks. They were entering the corners at Michigan at nearly 210 and if anything taking away downforce by raising the cars would only lessen drag and make that number go up. A car getting sideways at that speed with air under it would be something we'd never want to see.

Again though, maybe there is another way. Lots of smart people out there.

But the question then becomes would the cars make the turn at 210mph if they didn't have the downforce? I don't think they would make the turn so they would need to brake earlier which would keep speeds down naturally. I think Michagan would still require the splitter and side skirts but you get my point.

I think there is room for an "aero package" for NASCAR. It could be used on every track over 1.5 miles. For any track under 1.5 miles the "aero package" could be removed. The 1.5 mile cookie cutters would be at NASCAR's discretion. I would assume most of the tracks would require it, but maybe Vegas or Kentucky or Kansas wouldn't need it.

 

[LewTheShoe]

But the question then becomes would the cars make the turn at 210mph if they didn't have the downforce? I don't think they would make the turn so they would need to brake earlier which would keep speeds down naturally.

That is what is happening now. At Michigan this year, cars reached ~215 on the straight, and braked to ~165-170 at the mid-corner, then back on the gas to accelerate for the next straight. It is called racing. With 2016 rules and 2017 rules, there has been a sharp increase in the delta between speed on the straight versus at mid-corner.

 

[Skoalbandit33]

Lowering the top speeds to less than 185mph is probably the easiest way, but I would hate that to happen.

I would love to see lower speeds as the racing would be much better, IMO. I would much rather see a competitive race on super speedways at speeds hitting 175 instead of the snoozefests where they hit 200.

 

[Skoalbandit33]

As downforce has been reduced, the splitter on the ground and the side skirts have remained. Why? A few *possible* reasons come to mind. What are your thoughts?

1. The look & the image. The current cars look low and sleek compared to the Detroit land yachts raced in prior eras. They look look like modern, sophisticated racing cars (which they are, despite their stone age architecture). Perhaps this is desirable to the sport, particularly to the OEM manufacturers. We all love the look of the historical artifacts raced in prior decades, but keep 'em in the museums and car shows. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but to me, the current cars certainly do look beautiful.

2. Front downforce for balance. Even with sharply reduced downforce of the 2016 and 2017 cars, there is still expected to be ~1500 pounds of total downforce in 2017, less than half the 2014 amount. For balance, some of this needs to be on the front. The sealed-to-the-ground splitter works together with the side skirts to produce this, and the amount is easily changed and regulated by splitter dimensions. This design avoids the need to totally re-engineer the cars ($$$$$) for the new, lower downforce era.

3. Preventing lift off. Limiting air flow under the car may be an important part of keeping the cars on the ground when there is a spin or a collision. Unquestionably, flying cars are "no bueno." Is this a factor?

4. Are there other reasons? What are your thoughts about the factors above, or other possible factors I have not listed.

View attachment 21573 View attachment 21574

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but to me, the current cars certainly do look beautiful."

I agree 100% that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I see these spec cars as Fred G Sanford views Aunt Esther. When I look at the monstrosities they race today I see angular, slab sided, decal festooned spec cars with no soul or any resemblance to their showroom brethren. You could look at Bill Elliott's car in silhouette and know it was a T-Bird and a good looking Bird at that.

 

[Zerkfitting]

I think it is a stability issue. The cars are designed to take the suspension out of the picture to get the cars low. The driver's bodies have to absorb the bumps and with the attention to concussions I wonder how the lack of a suspension affects the drivers physically (they should test what forces the drivers endure). I'd like to see them do a test to get the cars off the ground and how stable the cars are. (Even if NASCAR raises the cars the teams will find a way design them to run low at speed).

 

[Zerkfitting]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

There is no such thing as a pretty race car (except for the Ford GT40 of course). Race cars are designed for function over form. Wings, spoilers, and other aerodynamic control surfaces belong on a plane (but they are necessary due to the speeds of the racing these days).

 

[LouieLouie]

That is what is happening now. At Michigan this year, cars reached ~215 on the straight, and braked to ~165-170 at the mid-corner, then back on the gas to accelerate for the next straight. It is called racing. With 2016 rules and 2017 rules, there has been a sharp increase in the delta between speed on the straight versus at mid-corner.

Maybe we are agreeing on the same thing. The added downforce that occurs with the splitter and side skirts in place allow the cars to corner at higher speeds. Without the splitter and side skirts the cars would need to slow down more in the corners since there would be less downforce to help them turn.

I like racing! haha I think lower downforce is the key to better racing. The 2016 and 2017 rules are certainly a step in the right direction. IMO they should take the splitter and skirts off too but I understand there are safety concerns.

 

[dpkimmel2001]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but to me, the current cars certainly do look beautiful."

I agree 100% that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I see these spec cars as Fred G Sanford views Aunt Esther. When I look at the monstrosities they race today I see angular, slab sided, decal festooned spec cars with no soul or any resemblance to their showroom brethren. You could look at Bill Elliott's car in silhouette and know it was a T-Bird and a good looking Bird at that.

Then again, you see a stock car traveling down the highway that basically looks the same as all others. There's little imagination left in this world. All the makes pretty much stamp out the same product. Originality went by the wayside long ago.

 

[Team Penske]

50's and early 60's were the last of originality. I still like car shows where there is a big reward for the oldest driven the farthest award. Best I seen was in southern Ontario Canada where 2 old fellas drove a Phantom from southern Texas.

 

[ReturnTrip]

Dunno, but it sure makes for a garbage product on the track.

 

[Skoalbandit33]

Then again, you see a stock car traveling down the highway that basically looks the same as all others. There's little imagination left in this world. All the makes pretty much stamp out the same product. Originality went by the wayside long ago.

Very true as as it is not the easiest thing to distinguish between manufacturers and models. The Sonata looks different to me and they are great cars at great prices.

 

[LewTheShoe]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but to me, the current cars certainly do look beautiful."

I agree 100% that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I see these spec cars as Fred G Sanford views Aunt Esther. When I look at the monstrosities they race today I see angular, slab sided, decal festooned spec cars with no soul or any resemblance to their showroom brethren. You could look at Bill Elliott's car in silhouette and know it was a T-Bird and a good looking Bird at that.

Yours is a common sentiment among the "garage fantasy" set, who idealize the car, and like to reminisce about the cars that Awesome Bill drove and how his car was similar to one they might have owned... "Yeah, my T-Bird was fast and drove real good. That car had soul, and the chicks loved it too."

Except Nascar hasn't raced production cars since the mid-1960's and Elliott's T-Bird was purpose-built for racing in Dawsonville, GA just the same as his son's Chevrolet is purpose-built in 2016 in Concord, NC.

Meanwhile, all the Racers I have known over the last 45 years have a different sentiment... that the race vehicle is just a tool to get a job done, not a lust object to be worshiped. (I am specifically referring to Racers, not poseurs who dabble at track days or do things like the BMW Performance Driving School - complete with photos and gourmet lunch.) A car or bike is just a tool to get around a race track faster than those other sumb!tches can get around it. The soul it has comes not from how it looks in silhouette. Its soul is the soul of the Racers who built it and raced it.

Yes, I think current Sprint Cup cars are beautiful, and I'm pretty sure that Bill Elliott would as well, if he were a younger man getting ready to strap one on and show the guys how it's done.

 

[gone]

Teams build the cars low to the ground to gain speed. Air turbulence under the car creates drag and reduces downforce - which in turn hinders handling / reduces momentum carried through the turns.

Racers don't care much about how the car looks, but NASCAR executives do so they go along with the lowered stance. The execs realize that looks help sell tickets and attract sponsors.

The lowered stance doesn't help much to prevent liftoff if the car spins or wrecks. The act of spinning or wrecking usually causes a car to lift up, and then air can get underneath it yielding liftoff. The only ways to avoid liftoff is to spoil airflow over the car (hence roof flaps etc.) or slow the cars to below liftoff speed (somewhere around 200 mph). The car's shape creates a natural lifting surface (like an airplane wing) but to fix that you'd need the top to be flatter and the bottom to have a downward bulge in the middle; the former would make it even harder for drivers to see out, and the latter plays havoc with suspension movements.

 

[Skoalbandit33]

Yours is a common sentiment among the "garage fantasy" set, who idealize the car, and like to reminisce about the cars that Awesome Bill drove and how his car was similar to one they might have owned... "Yeah, my T-Bird was fast and drove real good. That car had soul, and the chicks loved it too."

Except Nascar hasn't raced production cars since the mid-1960's and Elliott's T-Bird was purpose-built for racing in Dawsonville, GA just the same as his son's Chevrolet is purpose-built in 2016 in Concord, NC.

Meanwhile, all the Racers I have known over the last 45 years have a different sentiment... that the race vehicle is just a tool to get a job done, not a lust object to be worshiped. (I am specifically referring to Racers, not poseurs who dabble at track days or do things like the BMW Performance Driving School - complete with photos and gourmet lunch.) A car or bike is just a tool to get around a race track faster than those other sumb!tches can get around it. The soul it has comes not from how it looks in silhouette. Its soul is the soul of the Racers who built it and raced it.

Yes, I think current Sprint Cup cars are beautiful, and I'm pretty sure that Bill Elliott would as well, if he were a younger man getting ready to strap one on and show the guys how it's done.

IDK what the garage fantasy set is or why you are denigrating how some blue collar fans related to the series way back when but no matter as it is all superfluous. I like the look of the cars that Nascar raced years ago compared to the decal clad, template hugging, boring looking beasts they race now. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that is it.

Some of the people you were running down were great Nascar fans for many years and in fact the backbone of the series. They may have not been the most educated or sophisticated but they were resourceful people and loyal to a fault. Brian France and Mike Helton decided that good old boys were no longer needed and even said as much but it turned out to be to their detriment.

 

[aunty dive]

When lift overcomes downforce: