The rear wing of CoT will disappear in favor of a spoiler, as he is known by the old Cup cars. The return to the spoiler has seemed more reasons that I want to comment on the following list including some quotes and links, and analyze.
When they developed the CoT 2001-2006, was above all an outdated, asked enhanced security concept. For this, the cockpit has been increased, a larger initial window made possible in the vehicle, but also led to steep windscreen. The increase brought the car, of course, a fundamental change in appearance of the vehicle with him, which made a new solution in the field of aerodynamics is required. NASCAR wanted to take the car a bit of downforce or "downforce" to the pilots with the heavier trains are racing to demand more again.
[1] The wing and the splitter could have better and more efficient designs to create more downforce but that is not what NASCAR wanted. Again, they wanted to reduce the amount of downforce while keeping the cars thus making them more stable but difficult to drive.
They succeeded very well, but it went a little backfire. The engineers were suddenly faced with the problem that they had on the front of the splitter lost about 300 pounds more "down force", as the rear through the rear wing.
[2] Basically, the COT lost about 600 pounds of downforce at the front and about 300 pounds in the back of the car over the earlier model Cup car. Sun design, it's Comparatively unbalanced downforce-wise when Compared with the old.
To briefly explain the principle of splitter, rear wing and spoiler:
The splitter is basically a shelf which is mounted horizontally under the front bumper and is held in position by struts. It can be pushed forwards and backwards, whereby together with the "bump stops" (Bump), the height of the splitter set via the track. Previously they had indeed this "air-dam", the front straight, the one in the Nationwide cars can still be observed. Would be appropriate including a splitter, the output also increased. In order to prevent the CoT, there is the indentation between the bumper and splitter, which acts in opposition and boost production.
[1] The splitter is more effective than the old air dam, but it could have been much more effective if the horizontal shelf had just been added to the bottom of the old air dam. NASCAR designed the splitter with a flat horizontal shelf that can be run right down on the track surface with the shock bump stops the teams use. But then they added a cavity above it that actually creates some positive lift, Which offsets some of the downforce effectiveness of the splitter. That might seem counter productive [...]
So much for the aerodynamic front, back you had a choice between the wing and spoiler:
The rear wing is aerodynamically better than the spoilers, because he is more "down force" is generated and it provides less air resistance. Moreover, according to the spoiler produces more immediate source of "dirty air", but because the statements are compared with other articles and views of different experts and drivers:
[1] [...] is far superior to the wing the spoiler when it comes to aerodynamic performance. He said the spoiler is a somewhat crude device that is used to create downforce on the rear Increased of a race car but it also creates additional drag and it produces a lot of dirty air behind the race car. The dirty air created by a leading car will cause the front end of a trailing car to wash out [push] because the disruptive air flow will cause a loss in aerodynamic downforce. The spoiler got its name because it "spoils" the normal air flow over the deck lid and behind a race car.
Nevertheless, one has just had the rear wing of the problem that the field moved quickly partial deal and the leader of the "clean air" and it drove off into the sunset, while his pursuers in the "dirty air" behind. Here we must remember, however, that the CoT generally less "down force" produced as the old car.
[1] But we have heard drivers complain about a loss of front end downforce with the new Sprint Cup car when they are following another car into the corner. That would seem to contradict the science until you realize the new car creates less downforce Compared with the old car [...]
The rear wing could be adjusted until the spring of 2010 0-16 degrees during its use by early 2007. This here is an excerpt from the NASCAR rules:
[1] Unless otherwise specified, the rear wing angle may be adjusted within the limits of the upper and lower NASCAR approved mounting brackets. (Zero (0) degrees to 16 degrees).
But since the front, as mentioned above had lost so much "down force", it was absurd rear wing with 16 ° into the wind to make. The car had driven so because of this difference at first a tendency to take a lot of understeer through the corners. The steering into the turns proved to be a problem that had to be solved only by a wing adjustment from 0 °.
[2] [...] drivers complain that the cars will not turn. [...] Since the rear wing is mostly exaggerating the problem, many teams have learned they need to adjust it to maximum angle of attack and in effect stall the wing so it produces less downforce. With the problems they have with less front grip, the last thing they need is a wing that can add rear grip.
This was then already on the next problem, namely "snap loose". The car behaves often as normal, only to turn the light output of under-steer suddenly to go into extreme overdrive. Some drivers seem to be annoyed them most, on the other side but it had achieved what NASCAR wanted it: As mentioned above, a heavier car to drive.
[2] One driver reported that each time he entered a Certain turn, the car behaved differently. One time it pushed and then snapped loose on exit (the old tight / loose syndrome) and the next time it well and what turned loose all the way around the turn. It's this uncertainty that unnerves many drivers.
Theoretically, the CoT was the beginning of both structures come to be applied. NASCAR, but then he decided on the rear wing, after the driver had spoken to the majority. There were, however, later also some concerns about the outlook through the rearview mirror to the rear, where the wings will only be admired in all its beauty and was not about the car of the pursuer.
[3] We originally designed the car to go either way, either the Sun spot or the wing spoiler would bolt onto the exact same. We brought a couple cars to Daytona and tested both ways, and the drivers chose the wing. We said, 'OK, let's go with it, but always be able to go back if we need to, without having to redesign the car - it's just a bolt-on piece either way.'
The spoiler was, according to Kurt Busch, the property that he tore a large hole in the air as the wings, where the air can escape between the same and trunk. This should in my view, the major felt-explain "dirty air" at the piano. In addition, this larger air hole should eventually make possible better and closer racing.
[3] The air can escape underneath the wing Whereas with a spoiler, it can not. It creates a bigger hole, other cars can stay closer together [so] it creates tighter racing, bigger packs.
His former teammate Ryan Newman with an engineering degree in vehicle says a few paragraphs later, however, indicates that he sees the "side-by-side" racing problems, because the spoiler provoke in the trucks at the juxtaposition of driving over taxes and thus be counter-productive is.
[3] I think the side force - the biggest problem with the Truck Series in my opinion is when a truck gets inside another truck, it gets really loose - and I think that the wing made our side-by-side racing better.
How is the spoiler mounted on the way, 70 ° fixed, then the impact on driving performance and racing action is that we see for the first time under race conditions at Martinsville. However, one could probably only be assessed, the greatest impact on aerodynamic lines such as the 1.5-mile oval in Texas, really, at least, says Kasey Kahne:
[4] I think the wing has changed NASCAR racing a little bit, and the spoiler will change it again a little bit. That's the way it's going to be and we really will not know how much until we get 43 cars on the track and we're at Texas or something like that, or maybe Phoenix.
Another reason for the change from the wing spoiler for a long time was known as the fact that cars made in several cases with high-speed spins in the air. According to a Ford aerodynamicist but that has less to do with the wings as rather with the fact that in the case of a reverse at high speed a lot of air accumulates at the rear of the vehicle.
[5] A Ford aerodynamic expert would say later at Bristol, last weekend that lift the wing wasn'ta primary factor in the. Instead, he blamed it on the air rushing under the rear of the car.
[6] The switch from wing to spoiler next week is likely to have no measurable effect on holding cars on the ground. Wind tunnel tests and study of video tapes 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.
The correct solution would therefore be to find a way out of this air. The Ford engineer Bernie Marcus as the starting thinking about slots from which the air could at entweiche for a spin to keep the car on the ground. A third roof hatch was already tested, but lack of space is not considered further.
[6] Among the solutions, according to long-time Ford Racing engineer Bernie Marcus on aerodynamic specialist, might be slots in the rear area of the car that Sun, in an accident, air would have places to escape. [...] "We're looking at options to somehow get rid of the air that goes under the car." [...] He said a third roof flap has been tested but that there is not enough room on the roof of the cars to make that workable Possibility.
If you look at the interviews with NASCAR drivers and officials in recent days and weeks of reading, then one gets the impression that the change from wing to spoiler but takes place mainly because of the fans. In many texts (as I now can not really list them all, but it reads in the daily report.) There was talk that the spoiler actually change anything, but the visual pleasure of the "die hard" fans probably less cloudy. In the months and years before it was far more about the technical and aerodynamic reasons speculated and discussed. The times for the tests in Charlotte but reflect accurately reflects the consensus of the recent past. The fastest time in testing Jeff Burton took 28.539 sec (189.215mph). Compared to last year's pole time from Ryan Newman's 28.651 (188.475mph) and Jimmie Johnson's 28.070 (192.376mph) tells us that: It will not change ... or is it?
I can only recommend to read the source once again separately. Especially [1] is very informative and also covers the "yawing" shortly. It explains why the car go sideways on the straight and often how it is to realize technically.
Sources:
[1] "Cup car's wing has a down-force to be reckoned with" on espn.com
[2] "NASCAR CoT technical analysis" on circletrack.com
[3] "Wing spoiler transition to anticipated without dread" on nascar.com
[4] "drivers ready to wave bye-bye to wings on Cup cars" on nascar.com
[5] "Reflecting on the era of the rear wing NASCAR" on fanhouse.com
[6] "Bigger car changes might be coming" on speedtv.com
Click here for the preview to the race at Martinsville.
No related posts.
Thank you for the informative summary and many links. I personally do not believe that this will change (for the viewers) a little noticeable.
But in times of crisis, you can see the whole as a business development program. All Diecast Models & Co or merchandise from the year 2010 are almost obsolete at a stroke. The inclined hardcore fans will probably not let it take, take along a change to the spoiler. :-)