Author Topic: Aerodynamic vs. vehicle stabilty  (Read 82814 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cajun Kid

  • Rajun Cajun Racing E/CGALT 5690
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3189
  • Venable Rod's & Racing #805 Studebaker, #806 Ford
Re: Aerodynamic vs. vehicle stabilty
« Reply #285 on: September 08, 2010, 10:55:11 PM »
agree
ECTA Record Holder Maxton
E/CBFALT, E/CBGALT, E/CGALT, E/CFALT, A/CGALT, C/CGALT, D/CGALT, C/CBGALT, B/CBGALT, C/CFALT
OHIO
B/CGALT, C/CGALT

LTA Record Holder and 200 Club Member
A/CBFALT, B/CBFALT, C/CBFALT, C/CFALT, C/CGALT,   E/CGALT, E/CFALT

Fastest Standing Mile at Ohio  203.343mph
Fastest Standing Mile at Maxton 196.967mph
Fastest Standing 1.5 Mile at Loring 213.624mph
Fastest Standing Mile at Loring 204.109mph

http://s261.photobucket.com/albums/ii43/cajunkid5690/

Blog    www.venablerodsandracing.com
email   venableracing@gmail.com

Offline SPARKY

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6912
Re: Aerodynamic vs. vehicle stabilty
« Reply #286 on: September 08, 2010, 11:58:10 PM »
Rob, I understand your point---but I have had 3 chute issues in 2 casually related to how the air is coming of the car

1 kited vertically and I was actually running on the frt wheels only for a short time--was not the RAT was solved by changing to longer tether  and a ribbon chute on that car.

2 the chute would flop around behind the car if I had the pilot chute deploy straight back

3 I started cocking the pilot in the tube and I was having the pilot shoot out sideways to stop the drifting in the vacuum behind the car and it momentarily kited sideways a gave me one hell of a scare. with the narrow axle and changing tubes I have not had that problem again. 

I will be going to a spring pilot chute only launcher and shooting it up and out on the new car.
Miss LIBERTY,  changing T.K.I.  to noise, dust, rust, BLUE HATS & hopefully not scrap!!

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing."   Helen Keller

We are going to explore the racing N words NITROUS & NITRO!

Offline jl222

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Aerodynamic vs. vehicle stabilty
« Reply #287 on: September 13, 2010, 08:45:26 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrJIiumxgqY
I'll just put Troy's Video of Celia here for easy viewing. It is a Simpson 12' crossform with 16' lines. Bret Kepner let us see his video through the viewfinder right after it happend and she got almost 180 degrees backwards (twice) with the chute never loosing bloom. When I spun in 07, we had a Simpson 10' with 12' lines and only got 90 degrees. Both spins were at +/- 200 mph. I do believe that a chute can save you from a 360 degree spin if you get on the lever fast enough.http://www.landracing.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=7548&fullsize=1
Now about aero, start and stop Troy's video when he is zoomed in and notice where the salt rooster starts.It doesn't start from the tires.



   Yea Brian... looks like the low pressure behind the car is vacuuming up the salt and the difference in real life traveling through
still air compared to a wind tunnel were the air is moving.

                       JL222

                           JL222

Offline F104A

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 444
    • http://www.landspeed.com
Re: Aerodynamic vs. vehicle stabilty
« Reply #288 on: September 14, 2010, 08:10:31 PM »
Like I said earlier, in my lakester, I built one pilot chute spring in the base of the parachute tube,
I also use a deployment bag with the chute pressure packed ( if it is soft packed, you loose allot
of the launching power when the soft pack compresses ) and I use a pilot chute to keep the bag
moving when the bag exits the tube. I also attach the D bag via a tether so I don't have to go
out hunting for it and hold up the meet. The pilot chute spring inside the tube is hard mounted
so it stays inside and doesn't pop out. It may not work for some of you, but it works for me!
Ed

Offline 1212FBGS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2532
    • http://www.motobody.com
Re: Aerodynamic vs. vehicle stabilty
« Reply #289 on: September 24, 2010, 09:16:33 PM »
t. Let's build em aero stable and work with the SCTA with rules to make it easy for us to do just such.
None the less, it's great stuff. LOL.

No... i think you and blue should keep your nose out of creating rules especialy when it comes to aero.... this sport has relied in aero innovation for 60 years and we don't need internet experts like Blue causing rule problems.... You just go ahead and build that car Blue has designed for ya and well see just how stable his theory is....
Kent

Offline robfrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1206
    • carbinitelsr
Re: Aerodynamic vs. vehicle stabilty
« Reply #290 on: September 24, 2010, 10:56:48 PM »
Kent,
All Blue is doing is trying to prevent anymore casualties. Things have changed a lot in 60 years. In the last 10 years, it has become possible for a simple guy like me to build 1600hp from junkyard and swap meet stuff. That could get me in trouble real quick without some good guidelines to keep me on the straight and narrow so to speak. Lets face it, we have had a couple of fatalities and near fatalities from cars leaving the salt and crashing down hard. None of my friends have died yet and I surely won't mind a few simple rules to keep it that way.
As far as all this parachute info goes, I think it is absolutely fabulous stuff, it should have it's own thread as I believe it to be off topic.
I do believe I will take your advise though and build that car that Blue designed for me. If it is not stable, feel free to laugh hardily. LOL.
496 BGS
carbinitelsr.com
carbiniteracing.com
carbinite.com

Offline racergeo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 828
Re: Aerodynamic vs. vehicle stabilty
« Reply #291 on: September 25, 2010, 12:41:39 AM »
 Rob, once you get up off the canvas, stagger to your corner and have them throw the towel in. You're up against a heavy weight and Kent could inflict serious injury. Your early in you BV career and you don't want to get disfigured. If you keep on this sight defending your self will cost you valuable built time and you'll never "getter done".

Offline basher13

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
Re: Aerodynamic vs. vehicle stabilty
« Reply #292 on: September 26, 2010, 08:28:44 PM »
Racergeo, not sure what your post has to do with. :roll: I'm new to landracing, but even I know enough to not call Kent fat, it's just not nice.
 :cheers:
Dan
118.780mph in a stock(ish) Studebaker

Offline 1212FBGS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2532
    • http://www.motobody.com
Re: Aerodynamic vs. vehicle stabilty
« Reply #293 on: September 26, 2010, 09:32:42 PM »
ya know.... that's what is nice about our sport, if you want to create something kooky, build it, and run it then cool go right ahead and do it....  kinda like Rob and his build... hey if he wants to follow the advise of some internet expert then good for him and i hope he doesn't get hurt.... but we don't need some internet kook jamming the rules committee with ideas that could stifle creativity and innovation just like Rob wants to build Blues kooky ideas... there's plenty of us who look at his design and say "been there and didn't work" but hopefully they will only waist 3 or 4 years finding out.... but he's lucky we don't have book loads of stupid restrictive rules like Blue is trying to jam us up with.... Blue if you wanna finally build something find a sucker to do it or build it yourself but keep your nose out of everyone else's business
Kent

Offline robfrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1206
    • carbinitelsr
Re: Aerodynamic vs. vehicle stabilty
« Reply #294 on: September 26, 2010, 11:51:44 PM »
Kent,
Who has built a car like ours. If it has already been tried and failed, I'd like to know about it.
BTW, I meant no disrespect. Honest.

Respectfully
Rob
496 BGS
carbinitelsr.com
carbiniteracing.com
carbinite.com

Offline racergeo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 828
Re: Aerodynamic vs. vehicle stabilty
« Reply #295 on: September 26, 2010, 11:54:41 PM »
  It's all over folks. Kent Balboa has struck the final blow and it was decisive, to the point and packing enough power to send the light weight "rumblin Rob Frey" back to the woods of western Pennsylvania where he will quietly and quickly finish his build and meet Kent and all other challengers on the white salt dyno. There he and Blue will prove they deserve another shot at the champ. Or not

healewis

  • Guest
Re: Aerodynamic vs. vehicle stabilty
« Reply #296 on: September 27, 2010, 08:18:48 AM »
Kent,
All Blue is doing is trying to prevent anymore casualties. Things have changed a lot in 60 years. In the last 10 years, it has become possible for a simple guy like me to build 1600hp from junkyard and swap meet stuff. That could get me in trouble real quick without some good guidelines to keep me on the straight and narrow so to speak. Lets face it, we have had a couple of fatalities and near fatalities from cars leaving the salt and crashing down hard. None of my friends have died yet and I surely won't mind a few simple rules to keep it that way.
As far as all this parachute info goes, I think it is absolutely fabulous stuff, it should have it's own thread as I believe it to be off topic.
I do believe I will take your advise though and build that car that Blue designed for me. If it is not stable, feel free to laugh hardily. LOL.

Here Here  :-D :-D