Where does NASCAR Radio get them?
Don Del Grande
only listen about 45 minutes a day) have come up with the solution to
the "Talladega problem":
Instead of restrictor plates, make them race V6s.
(Say - what DID happen when they tried this, apparently with the early
Busch/Nationwide cars?)
-- Don
deadguy3
they made the most horrendous noise. like a swarm of bees.
the solution to plate racing, is run stock v8 sedans.
Chuck Steak
It proves two things.
Those people are morons.
And,
They never saw a V6 stock car race.
Dan
****************************************
What's the difference between roast beef and pea soup?
Anyone can roast beef.
Ray O'Hara
"Don Del Grande" <del_gra...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7i84f51h8dpj75k24...@4ax.com...
at least knock the engine size down to under 300 CI
TS02_05champ
And take away a lot of downforce - make the cars hard to drive, if thats
possible at Dega.
Chuck Steak
>>> Instead of restrictor plates, make them race V6s.
>> at least knock the engine size down to under 300 CI
>And take away a lot of downforce - make the cars hard to drive, if thats
>possible at Dega.
Or take 50,000 seats over to Montgomery.....
deadguy3
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> [16 quoted lines suppressed]
>
> And take away a lot of downforce - make the cars hard to drive, if thats
> possible at Dega.
a real stock car has less downforce than cot
Mike Marlow
"Ray O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hctbrc$g8i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Why?
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
Mike Marlow
"deadguy3" <m...@sakha.net> wrote in message
news:013ad6c5$0$14956$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
A real stock car does not make 800 HP either. What's your point?
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
deadguy3
> "deadguy3" <m...@sakha.net> wrote in message
> news:013ad6c5$0$14956$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> [9 quoted lines suppressed]
>
> A real stock car does not make 800 HP either. What's your point?
a real stock v8 4dr sedan is the solution to crappy plate razin.
they would be lucky to hit 140mph in the draft.
armpit
"Mike Marlow" <mmarlo...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:40674$4af260e1$6215ac3b$86...@ALLTEL.NET...
I'd rather see them take the plates off, then reduce the mechanical grip so
that corner speeds dropped to around 160-170 mph. Hell, they could run truck
bodies on them if need be. TOT instead of COT.
John McCoy
news:013ad6c5$0$14956$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
A real stock car doesn't have any downforce at all...an Impala
or Camry will generate lift equal to it's own weight around 165mph
or so.
John
John McCoy
news:9Y2dnQW-Toh4NG_X...@giganews.com:
> I'd rather see them take the plates off, then reduce the mechanical
> grip so that corner speeds dropped to around 160-170 mph.
How ya gonna do that? Remember, the amount of mechanical grip you
need decreases as the banking angle increases, and you have to have
a large enough tire to carry the weight of the car, including the
dynamic loading in the turns. I don't think you could make tire
small enough to decrease mechanical grip enough with Dega's banking,
without ending up with something that would make the Indy tire
from a year ago look durable.
John
Mike Marlow
Yup - that would be exciting. Mom's Mini Van series, running around the
track at 90 mph. Hang on to your seats folks...
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
deadguy3
> "deadguy3" <m...@sakha.net> wrote in message
> news:013af1b3$0$14938$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> [10 quoted lines suppressed]
>
> Yup - that would be exciting. Mom's Mini Van series, running around the
> track at 90 mph. Hang on to your seats folks...
140mph v8 4dr sedans would be much better than 90mph v6 minivans, which
would be much better than plate razin.
armpit
"John McCoy" <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBA7EA58C0...@216.168.3.30...
They used to race 4000 lb. big-block behemoths ay Daytona & 'Dega on tires
narrower than what they use now. The tires *can* be narrower and harder as
well. If they took off the wing & splitter too, then they'd be a lot closer
to being able to run without plates.
They could put limits on carbs, valves, cams, etc. Hell, they could make 'em
mount a 4x8 sheet of lexan on the front of the car. There's a bunch of ways
to make race cars slower. Restrictor plates is just about the worst way to
do it.
Nascar likes the pack racing, and the big crashes that it brings. It puts
them on every sports highlight show all across the country.
John McCoy
news:e-6dnfwMJbD4_W7X...@giganews.com:
>
> "John McCoy" <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CBA7EA58C0...@216.168.3.30...
>> "armpit" <armarm...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:9Y2dnQW-Toh4NG_X...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> I'd rather see them take the plates off, then reduce the mechanical
>>> grip so that corner speeds dropped to around 160-170 mph.
>>
>> How ya gonna do that? Remember, the amount of mechanical grip you
>> need decreases as the banking angle increases, and you have to have
>> a large enough tire to carry the weight of the car, including the
>> dynamic loading in the turns. I don't think you could make tire
>> small enough to decrease mechanical grip enough with Dega's banking,
>> without ending up with something that would make the Indy tire
>> from a year ago look durable.
>>
>> John
>
> They used to race 4000 lb. big-block behemoths ay Daytona & 'Dega on
> tires narrower than what they use now. The tires *can* be narrower and
> harder as well. If they took off the wing & splitter too, then they'd
> be a lot closer to being able to run without plates.
Well, I was specifically referring to the mechanical grip part of
it. Definately you have a lot of options if you start looking at
aero grip (altho that's a tricky area, you have to keep enough
downforce that the overall force on the car is positive, and enough
so for the car to be stable in a straight line. No wing and
splitter at all, and the cars would lift the rear wheels off the
ground long before they hit 190 in a straight line).
Anyway, an answer did occur to me, but I was curious to see what
other folks would come up with. To reduce mechanical grip all we
need is some shallow rumblestrips, maybe 1", in turns 1 and 3.
John
Chad
Do you mean a stock road car shape would flip like Newman if it turned
backward at that speed?
Surely it would need to be producing some downforce from the shape or that
reversal of direction wouldn't automatically lift the rear would it?
--
Chad
deadguy3
> John McCoy wrote:
>> [18 quoted lines suppressed]
>
> Do you mean a stock road car shape would flip like Newman if it turned
> backward at that speed?
>
> Surely it would need to be producing some downforce from the shape or that
> reversal of direction wouldn't automatically lift the rear would it?
it would only max out at 140mph, and weighing 4000lbs, a flip is unlikely.
John McCoy
> John McCoy wrote:
>> A real stock car doesn't have any downforce at all...an Impala
>> or Camry will generate lift equal to it's own weight around 165mph
>> or so.
>>
>> John
>
> Do you mean a stock road car shape would flip like Newman if it turned
> backward at that speed?
No, I mean a real stock car generates enough aero lift going
_forwards_ to lift the rear tires off the ground at that speed.
That, of course, puts a limit on how fast you can go, but the
controlability of the car also tends to suffer when the tires
aren't really touching the ground.
That's based on a wind tunnel test of a Taurus a few years back,
but I suspect all the cars in that general class are about the
same, as they have similar outlines. Obviously it's not an issue
for a stock Taurus (Camry or whatever), because they can't go that
fast anyway.
Obviously sports and performance cars which are intended to be
capable of higher speeds have more attention paid to developing
downforce - but even there you can get surprised. Car & Driver
rolled a Camaro at Bonneville at ~200mph a couple of years ago,
when they discovered that modifying the engine alone wasn't a
wise plan for a land speed record attempt.
John
Chad
> "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote in news:4af3...@news.x-privat.org:
>
>> John McCoy wrote:
>
>>> A real stock car doesn't have any downforce at all...an Impala
>>> or Camry will generate lift equal to it's own weight around 165mph
>>> or so.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> Do you mean a stock road car shape would flip like Newman if it
>> turned backward at that speed?
>
> No, I mean a real stock car generates enough aero lift going
> _forwards_ to lift the rear tires off the ground at that speed.
>
Sheesh, you're full of interesting tidbits. Never heard that before.
> That, of course, puts a limit on how fast you can go, but the
> controlability of the car also tends to suffer when the tires
> aren't really touching the ground.
>
> That's based on a wind tunnel test of a Taurus a few years back,
> but I suspect all the cars in that general class are about the
> same, as they have similar outlines. Obviously it's not an issue
> for a stock Taurus (Camry or whatever), because they can't go that
> fast anyway.
>
> Obviously sports and performance cars which are intended to be
> capable of higher speeds have more attention paid to developing
> downforce - but even there you can get surprised. Car & Driver
> rolled a Camaro at Bonneville at ~200mph a couple of years ago,
> when they discovered that modifying the engine alone wasn't a
> wise plan for a land speed record attempt.
>
> John
--
Chad
armpit
Interesting that Cup cars (then Grand National) were running nearly 200
without spoilers in the early 70's.
I find it hard to believe that a car body could generate nearly 2000 lbs. of
lift at the rear.
John McCoy
news:ZJGdnWfIYc8Bs2nX...@giganews.com:
> Interesting that Cup cars (then Grand National) were running nearly
> 200 without spoilers in the early 70's.
Not really. Those cars had a very different body shape, and big
draggy rectangular boxes tend to generate much less aerodynamic
force (in any direction) than aerodynamically clean shapes.
It's interesting that that you pick 1970, too, since that was the
year of the winged Mopars, and the time when 2" decklid spoilers
and under bumper "chin" spoilers first started to appear.
> I find it hard to believe that a car body could generate nearly 2000
> lbs. of lift at the rear.
I'm guessing you have problems with the idea of a 747 generating
800000lbs of lift at 180mph too. Yet that also happens
John
armpit
Yeah. That Bernoulli guy was an idiot, wan't he?
I'd just like to see some data on it. 2000 lbs. net lift on surfaces that
weren't designed for it just seems like a lot to me.
John McCoy
news:QMCdnRBuaqKB_mnX...@giganews.com:
> I'd just like to see some data on it. 2000 lbs. net lift on surfaces
> that weren't designed for it just seems like a lot to me.
Try "The Isaac Newton School of Driving" by Parker. I'm not sure
what car model he used (or if his results are a composite of more
than one) but he gives:
60 mph - 165 lbs lift
90 mph - 372 lbs
120 mph - 662 lbs
150 mph - 1035 lbs
Note that with a car going forward the lift is primarily acting
on the after portion of the car - lift at the very front tends
to be cancelled out by net downforce on the hood and windshield.
(note also that 2000lbs of lift on surfaces not designed for it
would probably break something - but the cars in question can't
go fast enough to generate that lift, so it doesn't matter).
I will see if I can scare up some numbers specific to a Camry
or Taurus or similar.
John
Wayne Mann
A few years ago when they used V6's in Busch cars, they were
slightly faster than the V8's. The only way to practically reduce
speed is to use a RPM limiter or reduce the engine size to about 190
Cubic inches.
Chuck Steak
> A few years ago when they used V6's in Busch cars, they were
>slightly faster than the V8's.
I think you are mixing up two different time frames, Wayne.
The V6's have been gone for a quarter century.
I think what you are remembering, is when they reduced the compression
ratio on the cup cars, and made aero changes weekly, there were a few races
where the Busch cars were a tick faster. They were lighter, shorter, and
had better power even though they were in the 9:1CR range.
armpit
Never mind, John. All I have to do is look at video of cars getting sideways
at Daytona or "Dega from the pre-roof-flap era to know that the cars do
indeed produce enough lift to leave the ground. Once they turn sideways and
lose the downforce from the spoiler, up they'd go.
I think it would be really interesting to put a Cup car in a wind tunnel and
rotate it to various angles and see what kind of downforce/lift was
generated, and then try some different methods/devices to see how those
numbers changed.
John McCoy
news:ZZWdnX6FhpV_82jX...@giganews.com:
> I think it would be really interesting to put a Cup car in a wind
> tunnel and rotate it to various angles and see what kind of
> downforce/lift was generated, and then try some different
> methods/devices to see how those numbers changed.
(you think like I do)
The problem with that is you need a really big wind tunnel to
do it in, wide enough that you can put the car crosswise and
still have enough space at either side that the walls of the
tunnel don't affect the flow. I think the only tunnel that's
big enough to do that (that's available to Cup teams) is the
Lockheed tunnel, which is expensive, inconvenient, and not well
instrumented for race car testing.
Teams do do testing at small angles of yaw (which fit in a
"normal" wind tunnel), but that's more to optimize downforce
& minimize drag in the corners than to address the issue of
preventing lift in a spin.
John
TS02_05champ
Then how did they test the roof flaps?
YooperBoyka
> >
> I think it would be really interesting to put a Cup car in a wind
> tunnel and rotate it to various angles and see what kind of
> downforce/lift was generated, and then try some different
> methods/devices to see how those numbers changed.
I thought they did exactly that when developing the roof flaps.
I seem to remember seeing footage on TV during a race or
one of the racing news programs.
John McCoy
$4967$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
> John McCoy wrote:
>> The problem with that is you need a really big wind tunnel to
>> do it in, wide enough that you can put the car crosswise and
>> still have enough space at either side that the walls of the
>> tunnel don't affect the flow. I think the only tunnel that's
>> big enough to do that (that's available to Cup teams) is the
>> Lockheed tunnel, which is expensive, inconvenient, and not well
>> instrumented for race car testing.
>>
>> Teams do do testing at small angles of yaw (which fit in a
>> "normal" wind tunnel), but that's more to optimize downforce
>> & minimize drag in the corners than to address the issue of
>> preventing lift in a spin.
> Then how did they test the roof flaps?
Well, initially they parked the car behind Childress's Lear Jet.
That was rather imprecise, but it told them they were on the
right track.
I would assume the final testing was done in the Lockheed tunnel.
John
Wayne Mann
<tonystewar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Then how did they test the roof flaps?
They did it outdoors behind a Jet plane.
JerryD(upstateNY)
> They did it outdoors behind a Jet plane.
Yea, sure they do.
Ever heard of a wind tunnel ??
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
John McCoy
@news.eternal-september.org:
> Wayne Mann wrote:..... Then how did they test the roof flaps?
>
>> They did it outdoors behind a Jet plane.
> Yea, sure they do.
> Ever heard of a wind tunnel ??
>
No, Wayne's right. When the roof flaps were first invented,
Childress and Roush fabbed up a prototype and put them on a car,
and took it over to the airport and tested how it worked behind
Childress's Learjet.
Since then, of course, they've used wind tunnels. I see,
incidently, that NASCAR has quietly scheduled some wind tunnel
time to test the COT in plate-track configuration (which, it
seems, they had not previously done with sufficient rigor).
Expect some sort of changes before Daytona to prevent another
Newman-style flight.
John
Wayne Mann
<m...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>Wayne Mann wrote:..... Then how did they test the roof flaps?
>
>> They did it outdoors behind a Jet plane.
>Yea, sure they do.
>Ever heard of a wind tunnel ??
-=
At that time the wind tunnels did not have enough air speed to
test them, so they put the car behind the jet. Whichever network at
that time showed them testing.
Oh and yes, I have heard of a wind tunnel, have you heard of
talking without knowing what you're trying to talk about?
John McCoy
news:ulroi59ktfjhc5876...@4ax.com:
> At that time the wind tunnels did not have enough air speed to
> test them, so they put the car behind the jet.
That's not so. Wind tunnels are designed to test aircraft, using
them for race cars is just an afterthought. Wind tunnels capable
of air speeds way over 200mph have existed since the 60's.
John
Chad
Well they certainly used a jet, for whatever reason. (not many references to
it from Google though)
HOW A JET, A TRUCK AND STEEL CHAIN BROUGHT NASCAR DOWN TO EARTH
1 of 1 articles found.
Published: June 12, 1994 in SPORTS section, page C6
Length: 1035 words
Source: BOB ZELLER, STAFF WRITER
Story excerpt: POCONO, PA. - Last August, on a vacant runway at Darlington
County Airport in South Carolina, Winston Cup director Gary Nelson glumly
contemplated what to do next after one of the most spectacular failures in
the history of NASCAR safety experiments.
The goal was to develop a device that would help keep Winston Cup stock cars
from flipping out of control after high-speed spinouts. But after this
unusual August test, which involved the NASCAR jet, a flat-bed truck and a
couple of stock cars, all Nelson ...
(it costs to read more)
--
Chad
John McCoy
> John McCoy wrote:
>> Wayne Mann <tp...@charter.net> wrote in
>> news:ulroi59ktfjhc5876...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> At that time the wind tunnels did not have enough air speed to
>>> test them, so they put the car behind the jet.
>>
>> That's not so. Wind tunnels are designed to test aircraft, using
>> them for race cars is just an afterthought. Wind tunnels capable
>> of air speeds way over 200mph have existed since the 60's.
>>
>> John
>
> Well they certainly used a jet, for whatever reason. (not many
> references to it from Google though)
Yes, I said that, several weeks ago (Wayne is a little late
getting caught up on the thread).
The reason was simple - the jet was half a mile away from the garage,
and easy to get to; the most suitable wind tunnel (Lockheed's, in
Marietta Georgia) was 250 miles away and had to be reserved many
days in advance. For a quick "proof of concept" the jet served
admirably. Once they knew the basic idea was sound, it was refined
in the wind tunnel.
John
Chad
That does sound like it was handled a bit more professionally than folklore
suggests.
--
Chad
John McCoy
> That does sound like it was handled a bit more professionally than
> folklore suggests.
While still preserving the "good ole boy building a race car
under the shade tree behind the barn" mythology that NASCAR
folk love.
John
Fish
> "armpit" <armarmpit...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:QMCdnRBuaqKB_mnX...@giganews.com:
wouldn't it be the opposite of what people are saying, you don't take
away downforce. if we want to get rid of the plates, we need to add
downforce. first of all more downforce would make the lift speed of
the cars much higher, and it would also make the cars easier to drive
for the drivers which would probably prevent a few accidents each
race.
John McCoy
news:5a49c61c-f044-438b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> wouldn't it be the opposite of what people are saying, you don't take
> away downforce. if we want to get rid of the plates, we need to add
> downforce. first of all more downforce would make the lift speed of
> the cars much higher, and it would also make the cars easier to drive
> for the drivers which would probably prevent a few accidents each
> race.
In principle, yes, that's right, and in fact that's a big part
of the idea behind minimum spoiler angles, mandated rear shocks,
and the "taxi cab" strip on the roof that the Nationwide cars
use (and the Cup did, for a couple of races).
There's a couple of problems with it, tho. One is that things
you do to increase downforce going one way tend to hurt going
the other way, as we've just seen with the wing on the CoT.
The big issue, tho, is that the downforce/drag solution is just
a solution to the plates. What's really needed is a solution to
both the plates and the pack racing which causes the huge and
dangerous wrecks. And unfortunately increasing downforce and
drag makes the cars more prone to run all in a big pack, which
is why the taxi cab roof strip was dropped from Cup.
John
Tom Duwe
<snip>
> The big issue, tho, is that the downforce/drag solution is just
> a solution to the plates. What's really needed is a solution to
> both the plates and the pack racing which causes the huge and
> dangerous wrecks.
NASCAR oughtta dig into their own deep pockets and fix the two plate
tracks...period.
Then they should give the teams back the 'right' to work on the front
suspensions and to choose rear gear ratios...to fix the racing.
--
Tom in Bristol
SG
> "John McCoy" <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CE75A78FC4...@216.168.3.30...
>
> <snip>
>
>> The big issue, tho, is that the downforce/drag solution is just
>> a solution to the plates. What's really needed is a solution to
>> both the plates and the pack racing which causes the huge and
>> dangerous wrecks.
>
> NASCAR oughtta dig into their own deep pockets and fix the two plate
> tracks...period.
>
well, they are redoing the grandstands at 'Dega, doesn't say whether
they're moving them back though, seems they are just redoing them, which
doesn't make any sense if they're not moving them back or higher
http://www.talladegasuperspeedway.com/Articles/2009/11/Construction-Update-Nov-13.aspx