Nascar: 2010

[Ron61]

Don,

Did not save, but a Ford aerodynamics engineer mentioned that contrary to common thinking, the wing had minimal impact on the cars becoming airborne.


I question that as the wing was designed to work with the car going forward and every time one of them gets turned around going backwards, if you look the rear wheels will lift off the ground. They don't always go up into the air, but that wing in my opinion does have an effect on it. And yes the other series all use wings, but I have also seen their cars go into the air if they get turned at high speed. A wing is designed to create down force when going in one direction.

Ron

[Don]

Retrieved the comment from Sports Daily, quoted by the Ford " aerodynamicist " , he must have the experience and credentials to make the observation.

If the wing was a bad idea, however, NASCAR's new racecar in its entirety was an exceptionally good one. The enhanced safety features speak for themselves, from the first real test—Michael McDowell's 2008 qualifying crash at Texas Motor Speedway—to the most recent—Brad Keselowski's airborne excursion March 7 at Atlanta, with an assist from Edwards.

In truth, the return to the spoiler has everything to do with the appearance of the car and little or nothing to do with safety. Though intuition might suggest otherwise, a car is only marginally more likely to become airborne with a wing (as Keselowski's did at Atlanta) than with a spoiler (as Matt Kenseth's Nationwide Series car did at Talladega last year).
The difference between the two is so small, says Ford aerodynamicist Bernie Marcus, that it becomes statistically insignificant.

"It's not the wing," says Marcus, who has spent countless hours observing wind tunnel tests with both wing and spoiler. "It's the air trapped beneath the car (as it spins and travels backwards) that creates liftoff."

So when NASCAR sets out to keep cars on the pavement, it's not a wing-vs.-spoiler issue. That's not to say, however, that switching to the spoiler doesn't create its own unique set of challenges.

The endplates on the rear wing gave the cars substantial sideforce and consequent stability in traffic. Since a spoiler provides no sideforce, NASCAR has compensated with rear quarter panel extensions and a 3.5-inch "shark fin" that can run the full length of the rear deck lid. Marcus says the combination of those two features will reinstate the sideforce—and stability—lost with the removal of the wing endplates.

[Don]

*** " Bristol, TV rating of 4.2 or 3.2 million households, plus 2% from last year." " The spin on the spin: Despite CBS NCAA tournament as well as news channels getting a rating bump Sunday from the health-care debate, NASCAR hangs on "

NOTE: so there is no confusion, above is not a NASCAR press release, but from USA Today, same for below

*** " No Worries. Waltrip ( Darrell ) wasn't so concerned by a smaller crowd at Bristol, which was 20,000 short of its 158,000 capacity. All these tracks are overbuilt he says. When demand was there, they kept building. And if the demand went soft, we'd see this. We're still in great shape "

[Ron61]

Originally Posted by Don

*** " Bristol, TV rating of 4.2 or 3.2 million households, plus 2% from last year." " The spin on the spin: Despite CBS NCAA tournament as well as news channels getting a rating bump Sunday from the health-care debate, NASCAR hangs on "

NOTE: so there is no confusion, above is not a NASCAR press release, but from USA Today, same for below

*** " No Worries. Waltrip ( Darrell ) wasn't so concerned by a smaller crowd at Bristol, which was 20,000 short of its 158,000 capacity. All these tracks are overbuilt he says. When demand was there, they kept building. And if the demand went soft, we'd see this. We're still in great shape "

And you would expect that paid mouth piece to say anything negative about NASCAR. He doesn't have to be concerned as he gets his pay regardless. The drivers winnings are down as they are based on the crowds and viewers. As for the wing versus spoiler, The flaps used to keep the cars pretty well on the ground. Then NASCAR started designing things and controlling every little thing and everything got worse. The car they drive now is safer but it in in no way, shape, or form a car that any manufacturer had anything to do with.

Ron

[Got the Bug]

Saw this cartoon today about the new spoiler and got a kick out of it.

http://api.ning.com/files/HD6acClQx5...poiler_eng.jpg

[Ron61]

Better get rid of the white gloves. Now they don't have to stick their hands out the window.

Ron

[Joe Wicked]

LOL that was pretty funny. Accurate too.

[Don]

Doug ,that was good, but also most appropriate. When the wing was introduced a driver complaint was not being able to see thru the back window of a car in front, as to the action in front of that car etc etc

[Ron61]

Don,

We have seen several cars get hit from behind because the car following them couldn't see the driver in front waving his hand back and forth to signal he was going into the pits. At least this spoiler will give them a little better vision. I am looking forward to next weekends race, but more so to the first 1 1/2 mile track to see just how much the spoiler may affect the speeds on the straightways. I don't think it will slow the cars down to much and I would rather see good racing at a little lower speeds than a 195 MPH circle of cars just driving around because no one can pass.

Ron

[Don]

So much for the wing being the primary reason for the airborne cars, again coming from " long-time Ford Racing engineer Bernie Marcus ", aerodynamic specialist. Bernie must be right as he has the Blue Oval next to his name. The flip up panels on the roof were designed for inside air to escape, nothing to do with under car air , believe it was Jack Roush's idea. Looks like this topic has gotten additional formal technical analysis. Almost like comparing the lack of aero design of the 50's to 70's to 80's cars prior to the manufacturer's interest in producing a more slippery shape and their modern styling, where even today's manufactured cars have similar styling. The older cars were like bricks , from an aero design viewpoint. From AutoRacing Sport:

" Ongoing tests are directed at preventing cars from becoming airborne when they turn sideways or backward. Keselowski’s flight at Atlanta caused particular concern among NASCAR officials because such problems are relatively rare at 1.5-mile tracks (although Atlanta speeds are seriously fast despite the track size). The switch next week from wing to spoiler is likely to have no measurable effect on holding cars on the ground. Wind tunnel tests and study of videotapes of airborne crashes indicate that the major cause of cars taking flight is the rush of air underneath the car, not the rear-deck wing. Among the solutions, according to long-time Ford Racing engineer Bernie Marcus, an aerodynamic specialist, might be slots in the rear area of the car so that, in an accident, air would have places to escape."

Sometime ago there was a video circulating of a sports car at a European race that was at over 200++ mph on a straight by itself, and the car slowly lifted up and then flipped. Happened a 2nd time and the Team withdrew the cars. The front of the car was designed with aero principles for cutting thru the air

Difficult to compare reasons and consequences/solutions of lift when the cars were previously traveling at 150+ mph vs today's 200 + mph. Corner exit speed, tires, aero design, suspension, obtaining higher HP from the 358 CI engine w/o the restrictor plate , banking, track surface, etc., etc., many reasons for the higher MPH. While spoiler testing has gone well from a driver's viewpoint, the real test will be in actual race conditions

Speaking of sponsors, anyone notice that Greg Biffle's #16 is officially, at least for 3 races at a cost of $1.5 million, known as the " No. 16 U.S. Census Ford Fusion ", Yes, he is required to mention the entire name of the car when being interviewed, probably part of the contract. Census estimated each 1% nationwide improvement in mailed census forms vs having someone visit the residence saves $85 million.

[Ron61]

Don,

Did you happen to see the 24 hour LeMans race years ago before they put that kink in the long straight away? One of the prototype cars doing well over 200 MPH just slowly took off like an airplane and went up above the trees which it then came down through leaving a trail of broken branches and pieces of cars. They found the driver unhurt except for scrapes and scratches he got from the breaking tree limbs and such and he was just sitting in the roll cage looking kind of stunned. That was why they put that kink in the middle of the straight away to make them slow down a little. They later decided that somehow a small puff of wind got under the car, and at that speed it was like an airplane. I believe that might be the incident that you are referring to. I just happened to be watching the race when it happened and I thought there was no way the driver was going to get out of that without serious injury. And I agree that under car air is a problem, that is why they have the front facia so low that at times it drags, which then also upsets the car. Maybe they should add something like that to the back.

Ron

[Silverback51]

Originally Posted by Ron61

Don,

Did you happen to see the 24 hour LeMans race years ago before they put that kink in the long straight away? One of the prototype cars doing well over 200 MPH just slowly took off like an airplane and went up above the trees which it then came down through leaving a trail of broken branches and pieces of cars. They found the driver unhurt except for scrapes and scratches he got from the breaking tree limbs and such and he was just sitting in the roll cage looking kind of stunned. That was why they put that kink in the middle of the straight away to make them slow down a little. They later decided that somehow a small puff of wind got under the car, and at that speed it was like an airplane. I believe that might be the incident that you are referring to. I just happened to be watching the race when it happened and I thought there was no way the driver was going to get out of that without serious injury. And I agree that under car air is a problem, that is why they have the front facia so low that at times it drags, which then also upsets the car. Maybe they should add something like that to the back.

Ron

Those were the Mercedes cars. They had an issue that if any air got under the front of the car they took off. They could come of a slight rise, or come out from behind another car and it would happen. They pulled all the cars that year, and if I remember correctly, they did not race again.

[Ron61]

John,

You are correct. I was looking for that years race and just found a place that said it was the Mercedes cars. But it was an impressive imitation of an airplane taking off and then crashing through the trees.

Ron

[Ron61]

Some interesting comments about the spoiler from some of the drivers. It seems the big change in handling that some had feared isn't happening and the drivers that talked about it all seem to like it. That is good and I hope the race this weekend is a good one. The best test I believe will be at the 1 1/2 mile tracks, but Martinsville is always a fun race.

http://www.nascar.com/video/cup/2010...poiler.nascar/

Ron

[Don]

Additional comments on the spoiler:

" After a failed 93-race experiment, NASCAR reverts to a traditional blade-like rear spoiler on its Sprint Cup Series cars this weekend at Martinsville Speedway in Virginia. But don't expect to see much of a performance difference during the next two races. "

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2010...SCAR/100329923

[Ron61]

I watched them talk to Jeff Burton who I think is one of the best drivers to interview about the change and he said he likes the spoiler but feels the real test so far as how much if any big difference won't come until they get on one of the longer and faster tracks. Every driver they talked to said they like it and that it looks better than that wing. I was looking forward to the qualifying yesterday but it was rained out. I hope the rain goes away for today's race. And I think the car looks a lot better with the spoiler. Just my opinion as I never liked the look of that wing.

Ron

[Don]

Forbes Annual Ranking (all $ = million )

Top 5 Value of Teams:

HendricK: $350
Roush: $238
Childress: $153
Gibbs: $144
Petty: $124

Highest paid drivers, note all from Hendrick, does not specifically mention what is or what is not included such as TV contracts, endorsements, commercials ,etc or just their driving contract:

Earnhardt: $30
Gordon: $27
Johnson: $23

[Ron61]

Don,

I am a little surprised to see that Earnhardt: is the highest, but then he is the most popular and probably gets a lot of money on endorsements. It certainly isn't because of what he is winning in the races. If anyone had asked I would have guessed JJ first and maybe Gordon 2nd. I wouldn't think from those figures that is just what Hendrick pays them.

Ron

[Ron61]

Well the truck race just finished and Harvick had a very good truck. Hornaday finished 2nd, which is by far his best finish of the first three races. Lots of beating and banging, but NASCAR let them race several times when I expected them to throw a caution. Sauter was unhappy at the end of the race, but he hit as many trucks as any other three put together.

Ron

[Ron61]

Don,

I just saw this article in my rotating news module so I can't post the link as it will rotate to another bunch of news in 15 minutes, but it was about the highest paid drivers so I copied this paragraph.

Our earnings estimates include salaries, endorsements and the drivers’ share of track winnings and licensing income. Earnhardt’s immense popularity translates into big dollars in each of these areas outside of track winnings. “NASCAR needs Dale Jr. to be competitive, because he is so closely associated with the success of the sport. [As] go the fortunes of Junior, so goes NASCAR,” says Ardy Arani, managing director of Atlanta-based Championship Group, a motor sports marketing consultancy.

Ron

Originally Posted by Don

Forbes Annual Ranking (all $ = million )

Top 5 Value of Teams:

HendricK: $350
Roush: $238
Childress: $153
Gibbs: $144
Petty: $124

Highest paid drivers, note all from Hendrick, does not specifically mention what is or what is not included such as TV contracts, endorsements, commercials ,etc or just their driving contract:

Earnhardt: $30
Gordon: $27
Johnson: $23