Landracing Forum
Tech Information => Technical Discussion => Topic started by: A2WindTunnel on July 07, 2010, 03:39:31 PM
-
Racers often focus only on drag when thinking about aerodynamics, but there are 2 major factors to consider in racecar aerodynamics.
#1 Drag
#2 Lift (negative -Lift = Downforce)
More than just looking at total lift though is actually breaking it down into front and rear lift to determine the overall balance of the racecar. In this picture of Gary & Pam Beneke's 1971 Daytona you can see 3 different 2010 Maxton meets and 3 different aerodynamic configurations of the racecar.
Since this is a customer’s test I will not go into specifics or post data of what changes were made since they paid the money to develop it in the wind tunnel, but I will just point out some various things in the pictures.
In the top (April) picture the car was run for the first time before it went to a wind tunnel to establish a baseline and take notes of any handling issues. Notice the how the front of the car is "lifting" upward by the fender gap. This was at 181 mph and the racecar is 4000lbs. The driver (Gary) said that the car was very unstable and steering all over the track and it was all he could do to keep it between the traps.
In the middle (May) picture the car was run for the second time following a wind tunnel test/development session. The initial baseline data did show a major lift problem on the nose of the car which was consistent with the first picture and negative lift on the rear (downforce) which yields a major aerodynamic imbalance. After 2 hours in the tunnel the lift problem was corrected. Since the wind tunnel test was 1 day before Maxton some of the modifications could not be completed because of the fabrication that would have to be done to get it in the optimum configuration. Gary ran the car a second time and said it was a night and day difference in handling. The car drove straight (190 mph) and drove much better than the first Maxton meet. You can see in the second picture that the nose was still lifting a bit as confirmed by the wind tunnel results in this configuration where there was still a little bit of lift on the nose.
In the lower (June) picture the car was modified to the optimum configuration (negative lift front and rear) for the June meet where Gary ran 193 mph. In his words “I drove the car with one hand” and his right hand went from the shifter to the parachute lever.
-
Photos courtesy of:
David Whealon
DW Photos: www.dwphotosonline.com (http://www.dwphotosonline.com)
.
-
Great example, thanks for sharing. Like the saying the picture is worth a 1000 words.
-
I remember Chrysler telling us 40 years ago that this car liked 1 1/2 degrees body rake and the spoiler at 60 degrees to the world. Looks like that is about where you ended up. Air just never changes.. LOL
-
Dave,
Thanks for the info and the pictures. I learned a lot helping in the tunnel in May.
My new 1953 Studebaker build is within 10 days of being complete.
That will not leave me any time to get it to the tunnel before I go to Maine (leaving on the 28th)
I had hoped to get a 2 hour baseline test in A2 before we go to Maine,, but looks like we have run out of time.
As soon as time permits I will get with you,,
Thanks again
Charles
-
When did double element rear wings show up on Daytonas?
-
When did double element rear wings show up on Daytonas?
To my knowledge the OEM wing was always a single air foil design with limited pitch adjustment.
Larry
-
When did double element rear wings show up on Daytonas?
I believe the double wing showed up on the Daytona about the time these guys wanted to go over 200 and could not keep it on the ground. :-D
-
When did double element rear wings show up on Daytonas?
Below in "blod font " is straight off the Gary & Pam's website: www.71wingcars.com (http://www.71wingcars.com)
"CHRYSLER'S AERODYNAMIC WIND TUNNEL TEST REPORT: Gary & Pam Beineke built their 1971(G-Series) wingcars based upon results from a secret wind tunnel test report Chrysler had conducted in early 1970 on the new 71 Dodge and Plymouth B-bodies. No full scale cars were ever built...until now.
All of Pam & Gary's creations have been featured in Mopar Collector's Guide, Mopar Action, Mopar Enthusiast, Musclecar Enthusiast, Mopar Max, Hot Rod TV, and most notably, three of their 'Phantoms" have been featured in Hot Rod Magazine.
G-SERIES DESIGNS: After building the 71 Wingcars, Pam & Gary continued the theme of creating 'what if' cars with XCON, a one of a kind, 71 GTX convertible. In 2008, Pam & Gary completed the SRT-71/SERPENT, another 'what if' concept of their vision of a new Charger. In 2009, they finished their next project, JET X, a 1971-2 GTX Plymouth Exterior Styling studio car, built using photos from 1968 & 9. JET X was debuted in the "T" bldg at Carlisle. It was featured on the cover of Mopar Action and soon to be featured in Mopar Enthusiast."
The duel element '71 wing car (G-series) was developed in a wind tunnel as a 3/8 scale model, but NASCAR made a rule against the wing cars before a full-scale version was ever built or raced. Gary & Pam obtained wind tunnel data from the testing that was conducted, and built the car to the "new" modifications that would have been built had NASCAR allowed them to continue racing in the series. An interesting note; Gary Romberg who was head of racecar aerodynamics for Chrysler (retired) was the aerodynamist on the wing cars back in the day, and now works at AeroDyn & A2. So when the car came to test in the A2 tunnel he was able to see a full-scale version that had been built from his testing/notes over 40 years earlier.
They have some really unique “what if” cars they have built on their website www.71wingcars.com and I think they plan on racing at LAFB at the end of the month as well.
.
-
Nice looking car. What class is that car legal in?
-
"The duel element '71 wing car (G-series) was developed in a wind tunnel as a 3/8 scale model, but NASCAR made a rule against the wing cars before a full-scale version was ever built or raced."
This is good to know.
DW
Chief Impound Steward
-
ECTA: 7100 6/26/10 9:30 AA/GCT Gary Beineke Gary Beineke 191.43147 205.01100 June 2010
Does the ECTA publish a list/breakout of their classes somewhere not in the rulebook ???
Mike
-
so this Gary dude spent a lot of time developing a scale model and it was outlawed even before he got a chance to build and race it.... then 40 years later someone built his car tested it, and set a record with it..... how fricken cool is that?..... gotta love our sport
Kent
-
ECTA rule book pg 5o 5.D.7 circle track.
Wings and nurf bars that give aerodynamic aid are not permitted. Interesting
-
Maybe more than interesting.
-
ECTA rule book pg 5o 5.D.7 circle track.
Wings and nurf bars that give aerodynamic aid are not permitted. Interesting
With that double wing it looks like a Time Only car. . . .
-
If it ran time only then why does it have a class designation on the car? :?
-
Must be a wantabee :evil:
-
As the builders of the car were copying the ''secret test results'' it seems the aerodynamist and not the racers were the ones that screwed up on the lift :-o
JL222
-
The testing that was done on the 3/8 model was done for months & months with a report as thick as a text book with results of different configurations that were tested. The full scale car was built and was not in the right configuration for landspeed racing (that’s all). Gary Romberg (the aerodynamicist) said right off the bat at the day of the full scale test... There will be a lot of front lift in the configuration that the car was run, and this was confirmed in the tunnel. Gary R then said that to achieve front downforce on the front ____ is the configuration the car must be in. After the configuration was changed it did just as he said and gave the car front downforce.
Keep this in mind. This car was under development by Chrysler for NASCAR racing (circle track) where there are numerous configurations for different tracks. Some tracks need maximum downforce and will comprise with a drag penalty, where tracks such as Daytona and Talladega, drag reduction is more significant. Even though Daytona and Talladega are very similar tracks, they still have different aero configurations because Daytona is a handling track where the cars need to drive better than at Talladega. There was never a configuration run on the 3/8 model that would give them the best design for Maxton...
As the builders of the car were copying the ''secret test results'' it seems the aerodynamist and not the racers were the ones that screwed up on the lift
JL222
To say the aerodynamicist screwed up and to assume that someone who is not a trained aerodynamicist could look at all that data and sort out the best configuration to build a car for Maxton (when there wasn’t one) is very ignorant. I am willing to help answer any questions that help you better understand the Topic.
-
I added an extra image of the car in April sitting Static to see the ride height of the car as it sits in order to compair the fender gaps while it is running at Maxton. Note that i had to mirror the image to reference the car in the correct direction so all of the lettering is backwards.
Listed order in pictures:
Static: April Maxton
Dynamic: April Maxton
Dynamic: May Maxton
Dynamic: June Maxton
-
Looking at the current highspeed cup cars the aerodynamist of 40 years ago were ignorant of front end lift and a lot of other aero design to suggest aerodynamist now know it all is ignorant.
Of course at the time they were all pumped up about how much they knew.
JL222
p.s. I was referring of the ''secret test'' areodynamist of 40 yrs ago if a current aerodynamist helped on the build he screwed up also. That's why LSR racers know to put air dams on their cars.
-
If it ran time only then why does it have a class designation on the car? :?
Didn't say it ran Time Only, . . . but was suggesting that maybe it should have . . . .
-
Let me see if I can clarify things, and it's as simple as this: We wanted to see what it would take to go 200 in our car...a car that we modified into a 'what if' phantom that never made it into production due to nascar rule constraints. We made sure we had plenty of power, but admittedly, didn't know what modifications would be needed to adjust for aero. Like the early Daytona/Superbird, the horizontal blade is adjustable to increase downforce. The front spoiler used in the April configuration is the original street design. We wanted to see how the 'street' configuration would react. Poorly. For May, we fabbed up a larger, more nascar style spoiler. Much better. And with what we learned at A2/Aerodyn, got the car from huge lift in April, minor lift in May, to creating downforce in June. With the car balanced aerodynamically, it drives like a bullet on rails...at Maxton!!! I was so confident with the aero handling, I turned the car over to Pam so she could start getting used to it; doing her two licensing runs of 125 and 155mph. With regard to the class designation, the race director determined that the wing gave us no advantage and placed us in the GCT class. I don't care if we're in Time Only or no class :-D ....In those immortal words: " I just want to go 200!
-
p.s. I was referring of the ''secret test'' areodynamist of 40 yrs ago if a current aerodynamist helped on the build he screwed up also.
The aerodynamicist 40 years ago (Gary Romberg) is the same aerodynamicist that currently works at AeroDyn & A2 as a technical director and was present during the full-scale test. He didn't help build the car nor did he know the car was even being built so he could offer advice along the way or asked any questions from the individual during the building process of the car. We got a call one day from Mr. Beineke saying that he had built a ’71 Daytona and wanted to test it in the wind tunnel and since Mr. Romberg works here he got to see a car he tested while working at Chrysler 40 years ago as a full scale version. At the point Romberg took his first look at the car upon arrival and then said it was in the wrong configuration to be able to make front downforce. I have permission from the customer to talk about the front air-dam and the configurations. Mr. Beineke did see in the report that they were using a larger air-dam on the racecars. Beineke also said he had put a production air-dam on because his other wing car (with more body rake) felt “planted” at around 125mph so he didn’t think the ‘71 would need the added size. He knew once he was in the wind tunnel he could see for himself if it needed the larger air-dam or not and pre-built a larger air-dam to test. Romberg said that it was not only the size, but the air-dam on the racecars were moved forward towards the nose to add more downforce. See picture for air-dam size, stock vs. racecar version.
I don’t mean ignorant with disrespect. The definition of ignorance is - the lack of knowledge in general, or in relation to a particular subject; the state of being uneducated or uninformed. I’m guessing you have not done wind tunnel work or you might understand how much data could be generated with months of testing, so I just meant you were uniformed on the subject if you think that someone without aero training could just pick up a report and build something to the best configuration for Maxton. Aerodynamics is a very complicated subject.
That's why LSR racers know to put air dams on their cars.
I will also be as bold to say that there are many landspeed racers that have NO idea what kind of lift or downforce numbers their cars make. Just adding a valiance (air dam) is NOT the answer to solving front lift. As a matter of fact, the larger air-dam on the ’71 Daytona still had a front lift problem and it was only when we moved it forward towards the nose that it made front downforce (as in June picture). I have seen a front valiance hurt a cars performance and I have seen a valiance in the wrong location hurt a cars performance. So, to just say adding an air-dam is best is not entirely correct.
You are right that aerodynamicist were ignorant back then because aero was a newer subject for racing, and that is why you see open wheel racecars evolve from what they started testing in the 70’s to the F1 cars of today. Because they started using wind tunnels and were able to develop the cars instead of guess. But you also have to remember that back in the 70’s NASCAR was still racing stock cars. If you want to put blame on someone for a production car creating lift (even cars of today) it is the styling department, not the aero department. This is from Gary Eaker (Head aerodynamicist of GM) and Gary Romberg (head aerodynamicist of Chrysler) “When you have 400 people in styling and 4 people in the aero department, you can bet that styling won almost every time.” The Super Bird and Dayton got a thumbs down from styling but was very good from an aerodynamic standpoint in that period in time and this made the aero dept smile.
-
"With regard to the class designation, the race director determined that the wing gave us no advantage and placed us in the GCT class"
It would seem that a person could save a lot of money by not going to a wind tunnel and just consulting with the race director on aero and which rules you had to conform to.
Stan
-
im ALL for what you guys are doing...!!
it seems clear that the "aero" devices on the car
after a fair amount of windtunnel tuning..aided the
cars speed and handling...:):)
Joe :)
-
"With regard to the class designation, the race director determined that the wing gave us no advantage and placed us in the GCT class"
It would seem that a person could save a lot of money by not going to a wind tunnel and just consulting with the race director on aero and which rules you had to conform to.
Stan
ya think anyone there would protest him if he got a record? :-D. Just needs another 20-25 mph more right? :cheers:
maybe the race director new he wouldn't be setting a record anyway. :mrgreen:
-
Record?
See Reply #10 on this thread.
-
Record?
See Reply #10 on this thread.
"DW
Chief Impound Steward"
???
Dan is doing Maxton now??
Mike
-
Here it goes again, the we vs them thing.
This car is running at Maxton not at ElMo or Bonneville.
-
Ya but . . .
See Reply #10.
-
I think over on BS.com it was stated that they where running at b'ville.
-
Dreamweaver,
Is it a problem that I comment on a possible impound vehicle? A run at Maxon could lead to Bonneville, has happened before. Brian brings up the comments made on bs.com which I too read.
DW
-
Here it goes again, the we vs them thing.
This car is running at Maxton not at ElMo or Bonneville.
Are the rules that much different between the two associations on rear wings and spoilers? It's not a pissing contest it's a rule interpretaion. Is it legal in your association or is it illegal? Can you run an illegal vehicle in a class as long as it doesn't break a record? Just wondering out loud... :mrgreen:
-
Circle Track is a class only run at Maxton, so in this case it should probably only matter to those that run in those ECTA events.
Pete
-
Circle Track is a class only run at Maxton, so in this case it should probably only matter to those that run in those ECTA events.
Pete
PJ is correct, also If in fact this car is to run at Bonneville, it will have to find another class or run time only as it has been pointed out SCTA/BNI does not have a circle track class.
From what I understand they just want to run 200+ and are not concerned about class or records..
just the accomplishment itself.
Charles
-
Dreamweaver,
Is it a problem that I comment on a possible impound vehicle? A run at Maxon could lead to Bonneville, has happened before. Brian brings up the comments made on bs.com which I too read.
DW
DW, not a problem and my comment wasn't directly addressed to you but rather the thread drift.
Seems he got the OK from the powers that be at Maxton to run in that class, I'm guessing that if/when he gets a record it would be up to his fellow competitors to protest the legality or not.
As to his running at a SCTA event, what class could he run besides TO? Thought Skittles were frowned on :-D
It's not a car that ever was a production model as the winged cars were only made in 69 by Dodge and in 70 by Plymouth, to the best of my recollection.
bvillercr, "Can you run an illegal vehicle in a class as long as it doesn't break a record?" Didn't some successful racer once say "It isn't illegal until you get caught"? :-D
Anyway, interesting use of the windtunnel to solve a problem.
-
I can assure you from personal experience that it doesn't take a protest to get called on a rules infraction when in impound. Right Dan? :wink:
-
True Brian. As Mike LeFevers discovered I take my knowledge from many sources I read articles in magazines such as Hot Rod, I buy books on other racing venues not just LSR, one of my favorites is a book on cheating in NASCAR. I read many different website forums. It is amazing all the info we can accumulate this way which in turn helps us out in the impound.
Dreamweaver, Yes time only is an option. It appears that this is yet another car that was built as the qwner wished, not to our class structure.
DW
-
I don't care if we're in Time Only or no class ....In those immortal words: " I just want to go 200!
If you read back to reply #23, I’m pretty sure he stated that he just wants to run 200 even if it's Time Only. I don't think he built the car to "cheat" a record...
You might want to visit www.71wingcars.com (http://www.71wingcars.com) to see why he builds these "what if" cars that never made it into production. Pretty neat stuff there.
-
A2 - I gleaned the same thing from this thread. I hope he meets his goals.
DW
-
Weren't the Daytona and Talladega stock cars and wing cars turning laps close to or over 200 mph in 1970?
If so straightaway speeds had to be well above 200 mph.
Anybody remember?
There is a winged car that runs at Bville and does real well but I can't remember the class or speed...230 or 240?
JL222
-
Just look it up on the internet :roll:
1969 Dodge Daytona, Buddy Baker at Talladega March 24 1970 200.47 mph record held for 13 yrs and broken by 1 mph
car had CD of 0.28 :-o
JL222
-
That would be the Daytona Charger of L.Sicillo hold two records in 2 classes @ 237.373 in AA/CPRO, & 237.862 in A/CPRO. It's a good looking car and always runs well on the salt. Single wing element.
-
I can assure you from personal experience that it doesn't take a protest to get called on a rules infraction when in impound. Right Dan? :wink:
Nobody cares if your legal for class until you set a record, of course I think I would get a look or two if I entered my truck as a/BFS :-) Tech is just safety, remember? When you set a record the previous record holder just became the most interested scrutineer standing behind Dan in impound, then there is the look over you get after the backup run. At Bonneville of course.
-
Many times I have seen the inspector say to the car owner " you understand that XXX is not legal for this class". Most times the owner will hot have known it or will say we are just testing or we are running for time only. Just to throw some shineola in the game. What if you run EM for points and stay just under the record with an illegal entry? Think it has been done?
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Guys, Do we need to start a cheater thread? Out of all of the response from this post about aerodynamics there is a lot of talk about cheating and not much about the core topic. I would like to talk aero on this thread and it would appear that one would think you guys are insinuating in some way that this car was intentionally built to cheat someone out of a record. This is not the case so please take the comments to another thread and let’s get back on the main focus.
:cheers:
(http://www.halloweenfantasy.com/image.php?productid=135569)
-
I surely don't think he built that nice car to cheat. I think he built it to go 200. I just found it strange that he was given a record (who would turn one down?!), and yet was told his car was not in compliance, but so what.
I believe he once entered the car for SW in T.O. because he knew it wasn't right for Production. An honest thing to do.
But, from what I learned from you, simply looking at an aero device the average person cannot predict its influence. It's just strange that a race official declared it was not an advantage (when in fact, it may have actually been a hinderance).
Back to our regularly scheduled programming . . .
Stan
-
Again....to clarify....no record captured, no hat given. I entered in TO and was told to run in CT. I don't want a hat, I don't need a hat; if I want a hat I'll have one made. I just want to run 200 and go about my business; not looking to take someones record or ruffle feathers. I build the cars I do for personal satisfaction, not as a business. I run at Maxton, Loring and Bville for the same reason. You guys have got to get that?! Remember when you guys started doing lsr? Wasn't it for fun and excitement and the adrenaline rush? :cheers:
-
:cheers:
-
G-Series,
I am a fan and I am glad to have seen and heard your car run. I also understand what you are saying.
Nice info and progress at A2, I am going there soon too...
Keep up the good work.
Are you going to Loring this Month ?
I hope to shakedown my new car there,,, it would be nice to get a Hat,, as I am so over budget on the build I can't afford a new hat,, LOL
See you at Loring or Maxton,
Charles
-
hows this one :?
-
hows this one :?
Tim,
That's a good picture,,, that big Mopar don't need no wing.... just a better Torque Converter !!!!
Are you guys going to Loring again?
Charles
-
amen to that ,, you know that all donations will be welcome.
-
Doing some front suspension changes, but should be ready for Loring. Going to spectate at BVille this year, and go next year for the 40th anniversary of the Bobby Isaac K&K Daytona record runs.
-
A2, this topic has generated a lot of controversy but it is worth it. The info you have shown about your original topic, lift and the air dams, is helping me to figure out solutions to some problems. These aero topics and posts are appreciated.
-
Please keep it up. I'm learning too.
Thanks,
Gary