Author Topic: Is it as simple as this?  (Read 26592 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

John Romero

  • Guest
Re: Is it as simple as this?
« Reply #60 on: July 06, 2008, 01:47:28 PM »
Nope, no front wings of any kind. Must be stock bodywork with the exception of an air dam that can drop straight down from the bumper or angle back, nothing forward of the forward most part of the stock bumper. No splitters either. Not all that much possible for increasing frontal down force (aero) allowed at all. Pretty much all you can do is shift the weight bias forward or/and load on the ballast.

One nice thing is that despite all the wheelspin the car has no tendency to spin. It does hunt all over the course as each wheel finds a bit of traction but thats about it. btw, I have run an open front dif, an LSD and a spool. I have settled on the spool as the car "hunts" considerably less. This is a unique benefit of a FWD as I hear that a RWD car with lots of wheelspin hate spools but thats secondhand info, YMMV.

John Romero

  • Guest
Re: Is it as simple as this?
« Reply #61 on: July 06, 2008, 02:04:19 PM »
If not a front wing then how about a splitter?

The section describing the modified class (5D) defines legal air dams as not being able to extend forward of the leading edge of the front bumper and they must follow the contour of the bumper so any effective splitter design is essentially foiled.

However, I don't see anything in the language governing altereds that prohibits the installation of a true wing forward of the bumper so that it's attached to the frame not the body.
...
I also don't see any language that prohibits canard wings like those Lew Arrington used....although in the case of the canard wings the drag penalty may outweigh the increase in traction (or, to be more accurate, the increase in forward thrust).

Section 5.D.2 "Fuel Altered Coupe" says "no streamlining as described in section 4.CC is allowed unless specified." and section 4.CC.9 describes wings as "A special case of streamlining allowed only on streamliners, lakesters, modified roadsters and production bodies which had the wing as an option." Section 5.D.2 does explicitly allow streamlining, basically an air dam, blocking grill and headlight opening, rear spoiler etc... but wings, belly pans, roof mounted spoilers and more are explicitly off the table.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2008, 02:06:45 PM by John Romero »

Ratliff

  • Guest
Re: Is it as simple as this?
« Reply #62 on: July 06, 2008, 03:15:20 PM »
If not a front wing then how about a splitter?

The section describing the modified class (5D) defines legal air dams as not being able to extend forward of the leading edge of the front bumper and they must follow the contour of the bumper so any effective splitter design is essentially foiled.

However, I don't see anything in the language governing altereds that prohibits the installation of a true wing forward of the bumper so that it's attached to the frame not the body.
...
I also don't see any language that prohibits canard wings like those Lew Arrington used....although in the case of the canard wings the drag penalty may outweigh the increase in traction (or, to be more accurate, the increase in forward thrust).

Section 5.D.2 "Fuel Altered Coupe" says "no streamlining as described in section 4.CC is allowed unless specified." and section 4.CC.9 describes wings as "A special case of streamlining allowed only on streamliners, lakesters, modified roadsters and production bodies which had the wing as an option." Section 5.D.2 does explicitly allow streamlining, basically an air dam, blocking grill and headlight opening, rear spoiler etc... but wings, belly pans, roof mounted spoilers and more are explicitly off the table.

"streamlining
(′strēm′līn·iŋ)
(design engineering) The contouring of a body to reduce its resistance to motion through a fluid."

"streamline Definition stream·line (-līn′)

noun

the path, or a section of the path, of a fluid moving past a solid object
a contour with reference to its resistance, as to air
transitive verb -·lined′, -·lin′·ing

to make streamlined

adjective
streamlined"


Wings increase the resistance to motion through a fluid and therefore do not meet the definition of streamlining. Wings also interrupt the flow of a streamline.

Any rule which does not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of generally accepted definitions in science or physcis is thus subject to either rewriting or change.

In 1975, the Gates, Ward, and Wolfe lakester was classed as a C/Streamliner because its Top Fuel style rear wing  was wider than the car's rear tread.

That same year, the first lakester to go 300 mph, the Les Leggitt car, was classed as a lakester because its Top Fuel style rear wing was narrower than the cars rear tread.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2008, 03:36:14 PM by Ratliff »

MCR

  • Guest
Re: Is it as simple as this?
« Reply #63 on: July 06, 2008, 04:08:57 PM »
Seems that for most production car designs, FWD would be superior?

More weight on the drive axle, less structure wasted binding front and rear axles, and something nose heavy naturally goes straight when upset or damaged.

I'm a RWD dyed in the wool guy, but for special apps, FWD or AWD make sense.

Offline sheribuchta

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
Re: Is it as simple as this?
« Reply #64 on: July 06, 2008, 04:12:14 PM »
whats wrong with OWD   willie buchta

MCR

  • Guest
Re: Is it as simple as this?
« Reply #65 on: July 06, 2008, 04:14:43 PM »
Too much metal parts in my limbs to go OWD racing anymore.  :D

I guess OWD certainly saves money on Posi units...

Offline sheribuchta

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
Re: Is it as simple as this?
« Reply #66 on: July 06, 2008, 04:20:13 PM »
the nice thing if you have rwd-fwd-awd or owd  the salt and dirt is a lot easier on parts than asphalt and VHT    willie buchta

John Romero

  • Guest
Re: Is it as simple as this?
« Reply #67 on: July 06, 2008, 06:48:51 PM »
"streamlining
(′strēm′līn·iŋ)

I'm sorry. I was referring the the rule book that dictates a legal car for SCTA racing. I didn't realize we were discussing the "Merriam-Webster Speed-o-rama".
« Last Edit: July 06, 2008, 07:08:53 PM by John Romero »

John Romero

  • Guest
Re: Is it as simple as this?
« Reply #68 on: July 06, 2008, 07:01:39 PM »
Seems that for most production car designs, FWD would be superior?

More weight on the drive axle, less structure wasted binding front and rear axles, and something nose heavy naturally goes straight when upset or damaged.

I'm a RWD dyed in the wool guy, but for special apps, FWD or AWD make sense.

Definitely two of the nicest things with a FWD is that the car is already significantly heavier over the drive wheels and adding ballast over the drive wheels moves the CG forward rather than aft.

Offline Sumner

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4079
  • Blanding, Ut..a small dot in the middle of nowhere
    • http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/sumnerindex.html
Re: Is it as simple as this?
« Reply #69 on: July 06, 2008, 07:08:56 PM »
Definitely two of the nicest things with a FWD is that the car is already significantly heavier over the drive wheels and adding ballast over the drive wheels moves the CG forward rather than aft.

yep, yep and wish I would have thought about front wheel drive for the lakester..............



................ Johnson did and I think it is paying off big time for him.  Makes getting the aero right easier also.

c ya,

Sum

canadianrocky

  • Guest
Re: Is it as simple as this?
« Reply #70 on: July 06, 2008, 07:15:22 PM »
"streamlining
(′strēm′līn·iŋ)

I'm sorry. I was referring the the rule book that dictates a legal car for SCTA racing. I didn't realize we were discussing the "Merriam-Webster Speed-o-rama".

Has Ms. Merriam Webster gotten into the 200 mph club? I cant find the record anywhere. Speed-o-rama is a funny name for a car though. To the point of the thread though, what kind of tires was Merriam running?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2008, 07:17:51 PM by canadianrocky »

dwarner

  • Guest
Re: Is it as simple as this?
« Reply #71 on: July 07, 2008, 09:56:20 PM »
Franklin,

Your posting of the definitions of wings, etc. from the dictionary have some value, however the rulebook in written in the language of the common man as is known in the sport.

It is our rulebook and our definition. If you disagree with a rule you are free to submit a change via the SCTA-BNI website.

Oh, sorry you must be a participating member first. My bad.

DW

Ratliff

  • Guest
Re: Is it as simple as this?
« Reply #72 on: July 08, 2008, 10:19:24 AM »
Franklin,

Your posting of the definitions of wings, etc. from the dictionary have some value, however the rulebook in written in the language of the common man as is known in the sport.

It is our rulebook and our definition. If you disagree with a rule you are free to submit a change via the SCTA-BNI website.

Oh, sorry you must be a participating member first. My bad.

DW

Real racers look at rules the same way Homer Simpson looks at roads. They're just a suggestion.

Offline bvillercr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2292
Re: Is it as simple as this?
« Reply #73 on: July 08, 2008, 10:24:40 AM »
Franklin,

Your posting of the definitions of wings, etc. from the dictionary have some value, however the rulebook in written in the language of the common man as is known in the sport.

It is our rulebook and our definition. If you disagree with a rule you are free to submit a change via the SCTA-BNI website.

Oh, sorry you must be a participating member first. My bad.

DW

Real racers look at rules the same way Homer Simpson looks at roads. They're just a suggestion.

Does that make you Homer Simson of this site?

Offline thundersalt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
    • www.americanrvservicecenter.com
Re: Is it as simple as this?
« Reply #74 on: July 08, 2008, 10:29:31 AM »
Franklin,

Your posting of the definitions of wings, etc. from the dictionary have some value, however the rulebook in written in the language of the common man as is known in the sport.

It is our rulebook and our definition. If you disagree with a rule you are free to submit a change via the SCTA-BNI website.

Oh, sorry you must be a participating member first. My bad.

DW

Real racers look at rules the same way Homer Simpson looks at roads. They're just a suggestion.
What the f*** does that mean. Are you saying that if I show up at speed week without helmet supports that tech will let me run if I tell them I took the rule book as a suggestion?
916 REMR
2017 AA/FRMR Bonneville Record holder 234.663
2018 AA/GRMR El Mirage Record holder 223.108
2020 AA/BGRMR Bonneville Record holder 252.438
2021 AA/BGRMR Bonneville Record holder 262.685
El Mirage 200 MPH Club
Drivers/Owners: Brian & Celia Dean