This Hell-Cat intro explains it all (7:14) - just place yourself 44 years earlier and have a Daytona sitting there - and it is a done deal for me. It's all about air control. There is NO WAY in this test mule they had tire clearance in view using these air extractors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ66boFL5Qs
Dane
(http://s26.postimg.org/vtgxbasex/04natscars007.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
(http://s26.postimg.org/525aqe6ah/IMG_5383.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
(http://s26.postimg.org/851fg0vvd/vents.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
(http://s26.postimg.org/w4ydo28ux/Mile.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
(http://s26.postimg.org/rydj8q995/Prototype_Daytona123sm.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
(http://s26.postimg.org/nrxa74z15/1969test.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
Yep same thing I have always thought, gotta let that air out of the engine bay or you might as well be pulling a open parachute behind the car.
I think history suggests that it was both issues. Tire clearance started the idea and then later air extraction finished it.
They were having tire clearance problems on the 1968 "2+2" cars which were pretty far lowered in front. That started the idea of putting something on top of the fenders. Then NASCAR banned the severely lowered bodies. But the air-extracting benefit of the scoops had been proven by testing in the meantime, so the scoops stayed on.
IMO it's pretty clear that the engineers always had air-extraction in mind for those scoops. If not, the scoops would have been just "lumps" without the open hole in back. The only reason to have the bulges over the wheels end in a reverse-facing open scoop is to let air out. It's an aero disadvantage compared to a smooth lump if there is no air-extraction going on. And aside from some clay mockup shots, I have never seen any early pics of 1:1 scale cars on the track with smooth lumps over the fenders - they were always carried out as open holes.
I can't see how it could logically start with the a tire issue when the test mule (when they started testing) clearly did not have that in mind. Even the shape is a classic aerodynamic outlet (inlet). It really can't get any clearer for me. If it was a tire issue - then use a hammer like the way they solved all the other sheet metal issues :)
We have 4 factual evidences for airflow -
1. Historical documentation stating a gain in aero
2. Their historical name "extractors"
3. The test mule shape - is an aerodynamic air outlet - (that does not allow for tire clearance).
3. Present day functionality of the location and factual benefits of air extraction.
(http://s26.postimg.org/vprp8scbd/NACA_submerged_inlets.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
I think its air too.
Hence the name "air extractors" - versus some other name like, oh I don't know..... "tire clearance cutout bump cover thingies" :D
"Exhausters" = 3% drag reduction. :coolgleamA:
That's what it says on the John Pointer authored vintage documentation.
:popcrn:
Dane, Your looking into the future. Think as if you are in late 1968.. There is something missing in the original drawing.. Extractors.... Odd thing is the 3/8 scale wind tunnel car has never been fitted with "Exhausters." There is NO paperwork to my knowledge that shows a E-Series test date or test number for the extractors.
Quote from: odcics2 on August 21, 2014, 08:29:00 PM
"Exhausters" = 3% drag reduction. :coolgleamA:
That's what it says on the John Pointer authored vintage documentation.
Greg, When was that tested? Gary Romberg and George Wallace both are very adamant that was not the case.
Gary talks about it on the Aero Warriors page.
http://aerowarriors.com/aw99.html Audio only.. Bottom of page on left side.
Gary discusses the fender scoops found on the Daytona and SuperBird. (85 sec. - 1.36MB
I could not figure out a way to post the audio video for some to hear but the audio is posted on that page. I know you have heard it.
This was the car ALL wind tunnel testing was to be done on. My father had this very 3/8 scale car in our garage for years. There has never ever been any holes drilled into it over the tires for anything. Remember this car also had an electric motor with a fan to simulate air being sucked into the grill... But no extractors..
This is EXACTLY what George Wallace told me in 2004 on our way to Talladega. Off subject a tad but good read about how they came to be on the street version.. Below is a quote from the Aero Warriors site:
On a related subject, winged car guru Dave Patik recently confirmed that he had asked Chrysler engineers in the late 1970's why street Daytonas had holes cut in the fenders, while SuperBirds did not. Dave was told that Chrysler wasn't confident enough about how NASCAR might interpret its own rules when it came to racing Daytonas' scoop holes, and thus holes appeared on street Daytonas as a strict interpretation of the Homologation Rule would demand. Once Daytonas had made several race appearances during the 1969 race season, Chrysler apparently got a feel for the degree of latitude NASCAR would allow in its rules interpretation for the winged cars, and the decision was made not to cut the street SuperBird fenders. This saved time and expense on a program that was short on time and long on expense. And of course Chrysler's call on this was correct, as all NASCAR racing SuperBirds were allowed to compete with holes cut in the fenders under the scoops. Interestingly, Chrysler Technical Service Bulletin No. 70-23-6, dated January 6, 1970, instructed dealers on how to put holes under the street SuperBird scoops if the buyer requested it. Perhaps this bulletin was an attempt on Chrysler's part to hedge its bets a bit, in case NASCAR got a little more stringent with its rules for the 1970 season. With the bulletin having been published before SuperBirds were even officially deemed eligible for NASCAR competition (this happened January 14, 1970), it may have served to bolster whatever arguments Chrysler might have presented on why the racing SuperBirds should sport fender holes even though the street cars did not.
More from the Aero Warriors site:
Chrysler Perpetuates The Tire Clearance Explanation
The seed of Chrysler's tire clearance explanation was planted in the automotive press in the late 1960's and it has born a great deal of fruit. If any article about the winged cars from the last 30 years is reviewed and the scoops are discussed, it will almost certainly mirror the Chrysler tire clearance scenario. As part of the research for this article, it took the author less than one hour to locate the following excerpts from several different automotive sources:
• Winged Warrior Newsletter, August, 1976:
"...the scoops on the front fenders are not to let air out, but to allow clearance for the tires on a race car! Gary [Romberg] said that the scoops alone baffled the competition for a long time as to just exactly what they were for."
• Winged Warrior Newsletter, August, 1977:
"Probably the main question asked of John [Pointer] in the question and answer session again this year was what the purpose of the fender scoops [was]? John said it was found in the Charger 500 that in super speedway cornering the right front tire was rubbing up against the fender causing the terrible smelling smoke to enter the driver's compartment making it unpleasant to drive. So to get the extra one inch of tire clearance they needed for the right front tire they put the scoops on the car, and for no other reason."
• Winged Warrior/B-Body Review, September, 1996: (question to John Pointer)
"(Q) OK, if the Daytona racecar's fender scoop is for clearance, why doesn't the fender look as wide as the tire?
(A) Tires are not straight up and down when turning. It was only the top outer edge of the turning tilted tire that rubbed so the scoop was enough to let it clear."
• Supercars: The Story of the Dodge Charger Daytona and Plymouth SuperBird, by Frank Moriarty:
"Curiously, one aspect of the press preview seemed to cause endless fascination and speculation among the witnesses. Why did the wing car have rearward facing scoops on the fenders above the front wheels? To this day, articles and books about that era still come up with a bizarre array of explanations for the scoops, ranging from alleged aerodynamic benefits to engine heat ventilation. In reality, the purpose of the scoops is considerably less exotic.
At the NASCAR super speedways, front tire clearance in the wheel well was often a problem. The tires would be forced into contact with the fenders when the car passed through a high-banked turn at nearly 200 MPH. To solve that problem on the Daytona, Larry Rathgeb came up with an idea -- a backwards facing air scoop that would do nothing more than provide room to prevent the tire from coming in contact with the fenders.
'I worked furiously on those things to make sure they didn't do anything aerodynamically,' John Pointer says. 'They were just there to provide an extra inch or two of tire clearance'.
As Gary Romberg notes, 'There were myths around those things all the way to the racetrack for years! All during the time that the cars were on the race tracks, that was supposed to be one of the major tricks. And that was no more than tire clearance!'"
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on August 22, 2014, 02:59:30 AM
Odd thing is the 3/8 scale wind tunnel car has never been fitted with "Exhausters."
I would think it would be difficult to show airflow through a thick clay shell in a way that sheetmetal could.
Did the full scale test cars have them?
1. The entire bottom of the engine bay, fender area, and wheel well is open to relieve pressure. A small hole in the top of fender is absolutely nothing in comparison.
2. If in fact they were looking for every small gain (which racers are known to do), they would have put the relief ports at the back of the fenders or hood near the firewall where the pressure is greatest, not halfway to the front of the car where they are not nearly as effective.
It's definitely 100% about tire clearance.
Quote from: RallyeMike on August 22, 2014, 02:54:29 PM
they would have put the relief ports at the back of the fenders or hood near the firewall where the pressure is greatest, not halfway to the front of the car where they are not nearly as effective.
you'll have to tell nearly every LeMans prototype team since the 70's that they're doing it wrong.
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on August 22, 2014, 02:59:30 AM
Dane, Your looking into the future. Think as if you are in late 1968.. There is something missing in the original drawing.. Extractors.... Odd thing is the 3/8 scale wind tunnel car has never been fitted with "Exhausters." There is NO paperwork to my knowledge that shows a E-Series test date or test number for the extractors.
My only point was the Hellcat - and what was said. How would I answer your questions? Easy. At some point an aero engineer brought it up and they added it, and when they did it it was tested or we would not have the doc that talked about the added effect. Remember these aero guys that were brought in were not car guys. ANY air that you remove from going under the car, or is held captive in the car, is an advantage - these act like suction cups - not just drawing air out, but adding a draw down - for the car. Just like the Hellcat description states @ 7:14. Being in an engineer family (Not aero) ideas and additions are added anytime, if they can prove effective and are easily adaptable. What we are also leaving out, is that this is a "known" advantage to have in racing - They may have simply got this formula and numbers from known tests as well. Some of this can be done on paper with numbers (openings - air speed - extraction rates) If it was a tire issue initially we would not see such a "disregard" for that issue in the test mule, if so, someone had their head where it should not have been :)
Can anyone do a timeline?
Dane
Quote from: pettybird on August 22, 2014, 03:37:30 PM
Quote from: RallyeMike on August 22, 2014, 02:54:29 PM
they would have put the relief ports at the back of the fenders or hood near the firewall where the pressure is greatest, not halfway to the front of the car where they are not nearly as effective.
you'll have to tell nearly every LeMans prototype team since the 70's that they're doing it wrong.
Pressure can be released in many places and still be effective - air pressure equalizes (Para shoot) more than just free air flow does. PLus, picking up the air flow right off the tire before it gets trapped, will give you a scavenging effect and aid in the extraction, as in the Le Mans cars. In the middle of the fender is more aesthetic and may have proven more effective in where the air comes out - that then is carried across the rest of the car, thus the Hellcat has them in the same location - just in the hood more because they do not have a top fender per-say. (PS, I enjoy the dialoged, this is how things on both sides get exposed) Truth-facts- are their own defense. Where was John Pointer when they where building the test mule, they did not get his memo :)
Also above,
Dane
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on August 22, 2014, 03:04:05 AM
Quote from: odcics2 on August 21, 2014, 08:29:00 PM
"Exhausters" = 3% drag reduction. :coolgleamA:
That's what it says on the John Pointer authored vintage documentation.
Greg, When was that tested? Gary Romberg and George Wallace both are very adamant that was not the case.
Gary talks about it on the Aero Warriors page.
http://aerowarriors.com/aw99.html Audio only.. Bottom of page on left side.
Gary discusses the fender scoops found on the Daytona and SuperBird. (85 sec. - 1.36MB
I could not figure out a way to post the audio video for some to hear but the audio is posted on that page. I know you have heard it.
I'll dig up the original piece of paper. It was part of the recommended package for the Daytona.
Also - I have the John Pointer hand drawing of the "Daytona". It has a date on it - I'll dig that up also.
Finally, my car was in the wind tunnel - the full scale Lockheed. Fred Schrandt told me about that last year.
The lever on the dashboard controlled the 4 air shocks fitted on the car for the testing.
I also found the Romberg penned paperwork for how that was set up, where they bought the parts, etc.
Keep in mind my car rolled out of Nichels Engineering in Nov. 1968 as a Charger 500, going immediately to Daytona for it's first test session
with Baker driving. (results are on the aerowarrior.com site in the document section)
Ok, we have a timeline started...
odcics2, I snuck into your house and took a picture :)
(http://s26.postimg.org/yhuq4hj6h/johnpointer_daytona_sketch_12_10_68_sm.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
image hosting free (http://postimage.org/)
Here is a timeline I started after some research - I would like to know when the aero guys were hired to help.
(http://s26.postimg.org/pj4nrgeah/Time_line.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
Quotethey would have put the relief ports at the back of the fenders or hood near the firewall where the pressure is greatest, not halfway to the front of the car where they are not nearly as effective.
you'll have to tell nearly every LeMans prototype team since the 70's that they're doing it wrong.
The typical LeMans car for many years has had bubbled fenders tightly wrapped all around the tire that trap air. The blow over and drag issue is well known and discussed and is why these cars have fender air extractors. This is absolutely nothing like the wide-open front end of stock car, not to mention the outer aerodynamics also being totally different.
I could see that the initial idea on the Daytona may have been air, but the real world practicality was clearance.
Quote from: Daytona Guy on August 23, 2014, 12:58:34 AM
Ok, we have a timeline started...
odcics2, I snuck into your house and took a picture :)
(http://s26.postimg.org/yhuq4hj6h/johnpointer_daytona_sketch_12_10_68_sm.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
image hosting free (http://postimage.org/)
:2thumbs: saved me the digging around! :cheers:
(besides all the good stuff is in a bunker in an undisclosed location... seriously!)
As it should be, the only other suitable location is a museum and the ideal one is semi-closed. ;) I hope your bunker is fire resistant too.
Quote from: RallyeMike on August 23, 2014, 05:21:26 AM
I could see that the initial idea on the Daytona may have been air, but the real world practicality was clearance.
read through previous threads on this topic and look at the pictures of the Isaac and Stott cars and show us how the tires would fit any better in the fenders with the cutouts. the tire wouldn't fit in the hole...even part of it.
I like that we still discuss it though, I still firmly hold my opinion but my mind is open. :2thumbs:
Quote from: pettybird on August 23, 2014, 11:36:23 AM
Quote from: RallyeMike on August 23, 2014, 05:21:26 AM
I could see that the initial idea on the Daytona may have been air, but the real world practicality was clearance.
read through previous threads on this topic and look at the pictures of the Isaac and Stott cars and show us how the tires would fit any better in the fenders with the cutouts. the tire wouldn't fit in the hole...even part of it.
I have to agree. How wide are the race tires and what is the largest hole?
I can see where the tire rub issue might have been the impetus for the scoops and it may just have been incident specific. Meaning will the lowered bodies in 68 and different camber angles at different tracks there may have been times when the right front outer edge was rubbing the top of the fender in that area. Back before 2006 when we were hanging Gen 4 bodies in the Cup series tire rub on the out side right was track specific and the area that it rubbed was not always the same. Some cars would come back from some tracks like Charlotte where the tire was almost burning through the fender and at other tracks the same shape fender was plenty clear. The fact that in 69 their might not have been any more need for it just means they were fighting the last war.
But whether intended or not there would be an aero affect from them being open.
Quote from: rnjump on August 23, 2014, 12:04:10 PM
Quote from: pettybird on August 23, 2014, 11:36:23 AM
Quote from: RallyeMike on August 23, 2014, 05:21:26 AM
I could see that the initial idea on the Daytona may have been air, but the real world practicality was clearance.
read through previous threads on this topic and look at the pictures of the Isaac and Stott cars and show us how the tires would fit any better in the fenders with the cutouts. the tire wouldn't fit in the hole...even part of it.
I have to agree. How wide are the race tires and what is the largest hole?
The tires are wide, but that's not the problem. Nearly half the tire is under the hood, and there's the fender bracing that hangs down on its edge. Even if you imagined that the tires ballooned up like top fuel slicks the metal above would cut it to pieces.
Quote from: Ghoste on August 23, 2014, 11:38:52 AM
I like that we still discuss it though, I still firmly hold my opinion but my mind is open. :2thumbs:
This topic is like someone constantly asking whether horses or hawks fly faster. "Keeping an open mind" doesn't make sense.
Hey, there are people who have supplied evidence to the tire clearance side of it, if someone can provide sure proof that was the original intent then there you go.
If you want to have a closed mind to it, its all good with me. :2thumbs:
One thing is for sure, the tire can't both rub the hood and the fender because fenders inside edge sticks down. If a tire was even coming close the that edge the team would have been turning that over.
Next, one of the references to rubbing is referring to the tire when "turning" - most likely that is an outer fender issue that was solved by flaring the fenders.
In this picture, and at least with this test car, I see no way this tire will reach the top of the fender without taking out the fender.
I am also open to changing my mind as well, but the circumstantial evidence points to air flow and down force for me. If it was as some of the builders say, that it was tire clearance from start to finish, someone really was a loan ranger and got away with it, and the builders that insist on it to be such, must have been on a winter vacation at the most imported testing of their car. The test mule is about 100% air flow and ZERO tire clearance concerns.
Another statement that was made when watching that video for the aero page, if they were so careful to make the street version the same as the race version, why did they make such a little hole?
Could both views be 100% true at the same time? Many times with engineers they work on their concerns. So we may have one old concern on the one hand, then an aero concern with another set of engineers (the aero guys brought into the team - when did they come in?) on the other hand that dealt with down air flow. I specifically remember reading an article about an outside aero non-car guy stating that the biggest issue with cars is air being "chewed up" passing under car.
Dane
(http://s26.postimg.org/x43396jx5/buddy_baker.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
upload a picture (http://postimage.org/)
(http://s26.postimg.org/vtgxbasex/04natscars007.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
Guys, Think of it as you are in late 1968. George Wallace's exact comment was, When Pointer showed me (Wallace) the drawing after he got the ok to build the "ugly" car from McCurry, Wallace told Pointer to make some room above the RF tire. Wallace stated that with the 68 we hit there on the RF and could not modify the existing fender top as per Grand National Rules. Wallace then stated that with the new car "We could modify the fender top." Wallace said what Pointer did with the fender top was up to him, we didn't care. Just so we had the room. "It was his expertise" as Wallace says. Everyone involved says Pointer worked on them "feverishly" not to mess up the aero. It keeps getting brought up about the tire hitting the inner fender lip and hood. That was after the fact.
Wallace also talked about to why they didn't modify the hood but it had something to do with the production car and wheel well he said. Production line problems. Remember the race Daytona had to mimic the street version. Also the 3% note in Pointers note was after the fact. I truly believe that the fender vent was 1st discussed for clearance and made for clearance and ventelation. Even though the Daytona's didn't have a lot of air going under the hood. Big front spoiler, small grill and fenders were pulled out in front of the tires. Were talking RACE version....
C5X, Where were these concerns on the low speed test mule? If they were real concerns, and it sounds like they were at some point, the only thing we should see on this test mule is no cut outs at all, or something that looks like tire clearance was their purpose. We have neither. If my concern was about tire clearance, and I'm an engineer in charge of this, I would have never let this mule go 1 MPH till I fixed it.
I would expect to see this (below), or nothing on top of the fenders, because this was an aero low speed test (120).
(http://s26.postimg.org/nqfj8cx95/photo.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
Dane
Hello Dane, Listen to the video on the Aero Warrior's page. Gary Romberg talks about the extractors. He is an aeronautical engineer. Also, Wallace and Pointer said the exact thing over and over again. Wallace's quote, "we wanted the RF fender top pushed up and told Pointer to work on it. What ever Pointer did was up to him, that was his expertise."
We also have to remember that Talladega was not built when the Daytona program started. The original tire issue was at Daytona. Daytona is not as fast as Talladega (the track) where the 200mph run was and the #88 RF tire hit the hood. They had to build a car looking at the future and the short time they had. They could NOT re-engineer the production chassis.
I truly don't think any of the engineers from Chrysler would still be trying to cover up something after 40 years. Wallace has said on many occasions, It was really funny to watch people from NASCAR and Ford try to figure out what we were doing. I mean, it looks like an exhauster, it worked like an exhauster, we even called it an exhauster, but it was there for tire clearance. It was really that simple......
This was a Q and A from Hot Rod Magazine, June 29, 2005. Article called, From NASA to NASCAR, Chrysler Wing Car Development Interviews
Q: Gary, tell us about your background.
A: I graduated from Cal State Poly, San Luis Obisbo in 1957 and immediately took a job at Boeing where I was a wind tunnel aerodynamicist until 1962. I was a flight test engineer on the KC-135 tanker aircraft, which was essentially a converted 707 jet passenger airliner. In 1961 I was hired by Chrysler Space Division in Huntsville, AL. They farmed me out to NASA and I did aerodynamics on the Saturn 1 booster rocket, fore runner to the Saturn 5 that put us on the moon in 1969. I worked there until Chrysler won the contract to build the Saturn 1 booster in 1963 and I was reassigned to just outside of New Orleans, LA. I stayed there doing aerodynamic work on launch vehicles until 1969. The Saturn program was winding down, we hadn't landed on the moon yet, but we were getting close, and I saw an opening at Chrysler Detroit doing race car aerodynamics. So I came to Chrysler Detroit in the spring of 1969
Quote from: pettybird on August 23, 2014, 02:00:35 PM
Quote from: Ghoste on August 23, 2014, 11:38:52 AM
I like that we still discuss it though, I still firmly hold my opinion but my mind is open. :2thumbs:
This topic is like someone constantly asking whether horses or hawks fly faster. "Keeping an open mind" doesn't make sense.
So your saying Doug, that horses fly? :smilielol:
Quote from: pettybird on August 22, 2014, 11:24:40 AM
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on August 22, 2014, 02:59:30 AM
Odd thing is the 3/8 scale wind tunnel car has never been fitted with "Exhausters."
I would think it would be difficult to show airflow through a thick clay shell in a way that sheetmetal could.
Did the full scale test cars have them?
There were no full sized wind tunnel test cars prior to the build per Gary Romberg. And is would not be difficult to show airflow through the 3/8 car Doug. They could of attached a thing metal exhauster if they wanted too.
Quote from: odcics2 on August 21, 2014, 08:29:00 PM
"Exhausters" = 3% drag reduction. :coolgleamA:
That's what it says on the John Pointer authored vintage documentation.
From NASA to NASCAR, Chrysler Wing Car Development Interviews, Hot Rod Magazine, June 29, 2005
Hot Rod asking Gary Romberg about is they tested full size Daytona. I am assuming Gary's reply is prior to the car going into production.
Q: Did you guys ever make and test a full scale G-Series wing car mock up?
A: No, it only got as far as those 3/8 scale models we had in the Wichita State facility
The tire clearance issue looks implausible because it didn't happen on most cars.
They also didn't need the "bathtub" Hemi intake manifold (to lower the carb for hood clearance) on most 2nd-gen Chargers either. But for some reason in '68 they built several of them.
It was the lowered "2x2" 1968 cars. They were banned by NASCAR soon after they debuted. The wing cars that hit the tracks in finished form didn't need extra clearance.
As for the hood & fender inner edge - negative camber, remember? The body is leaning in the corners. The outer shoulder of the tire is where it would have rubbed worst/first.
There is at least one surviving pic I've see around here where the hood & fender bracing had been clearanced for the RF tire on a 2nd-gen NASCAR Charger. It was a hood-up shot from the track during a pit stop, I think.
Dented inner hood structure at the 200 mph run. (yellow arrow)
There was one bump at Talladega where it would rub.
The car ran with 5" of oil pan to track clearance. (static set up)
The hood inner is the lowest part, being almost twice as low
compared to the fender bracing next to it.
Yes, I said I listened to it. The question I would ask him, and what no one seems to have an answer for this the exhauster used on the test mule. He said their are no aero purpose for them, yet the facts go against his "statement". They says 3% - and they are aero designed with no purpose of tire clearance on the test mule.
Then, he said that he wanted to make sure the street car was the same and the fender scoops "covered up the holes that were for tire clearance". If this is true, the original holes as designed were for tire clearance on the track??????????? those little holes? I can do some calculations on surface area for that hole relative to a tire - moving left and right a degree or two and how close what would come to that hole's edge. The way he is talking it seems as if he does not know what he is talking about. I know that sounds presumptuous, but those holes, if they were for tire clearance, I would rather my tire hit a smooth surface than coming near a sharp edge. He was not talking about the hole getting bigger, but being exactly the same - race car to street car. Next, he got there in the spring of 69 he says - so there were more aero guys than him? That makes him the newbie at the time. His credentials are amazing.
If what he is saying is true (and I believe he is not covering anything up), he has at least some questions to answer that do not add up. Don't worry, I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, but did I see black helicopters in the back on the test track :)
(http://s26.postimg.org/zd48n89y1/image.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
upload an image (http://postimage.org/)
I don't think anyone is trying to argue that the street production fender holes (aside from the added scoops on top) were exactly what the NASCARS were going to have. I think they just put holes & screens in the fenders to legitimize the idea of the GN cars having holes under the fenders. The street production fender holes were probably done in whatever way was cheap & practical for that purpose.
I don't see the big mystery here. The idea got started for tire clearance, both on the existing '68 lowered cars and the unknown questions about the future. They were leaving themselves some "clearance" for unknowns with the unprecedented speeds of the Talladega track and just the car's abilities in general.
Guy #1 said, "As long as we're custom-tailoring a NASCAR body here, it wouldn't hurt to give ourselves some extra tire clearance on the RF."
Guy #2 said, "Okay. But we might as well see if there's any way to squeeze an aero gain from those things while we're at it."
All this does beg the question . . . . Why didn't they also give the Daytonas a subtle hood bulge to solve the clearance problems which had prompted the bathtub intake? There might even have been some additional horsepower to be had with a bulge for that matter.
I guess the answer is that 45 years of hindsight is a lot of time to dream up better ways to do something.
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on August 23, 2014, 10:02:04 PM
I don't think anyone is trying to argue that the street production fender holes (aside from the added scoops on top) were exactly what the NASCARS were going to have. I think they just put holes & screens in the fenders to legitimize the idea of the GN cars having holes under the fenders. The street production fender holes were probably done in whatever way was cheap & practical for that purpose.
I asked George the question to why the street versions Daytona had the holes and the Superbird's didn't. George says, they put the holes in all the street Daytona's because they thought they would have too and with a short window of time to get the cars legal for competition they didn't want to chance it. Come to find out the production car didn't have to have the holes. That is why the Superbird doesn't have them.
.
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on August 23, 2014, 10:02:04 PM
I don't see the big mystery here. The idea got started for tire clearance, both on the existing '68 lowered cars and the unknown questions about the future. They were leaving themselves some "clearance" for unknowns with the unprecedented speeds of the Talladega track and just the car's abilities in general.
Guy #1 said, "As long as we're custom-tailoring a NASCAR body here, it wouldn't hurt to give ourselves some extra tire clearance on the RF."
Guy #2 said, "Okay. But we might as well see if there's any way to squeeze an aero gain from those things while we're at it."
That is 100% the same way I understood it.
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on August 23, 2014, 10:02:04 PM
All this does beg the question . . . . Why didn't they also give the Daytona's a subtle hood bulge to solve the clearance problems which had prompted the bathtub intake? There might even have been some additional horsepower to be had with a bulge for that matter.
I guess the answer is that 45 years of hindsight is a lot of time to dream up better ways to do something.
You got it Mike, Took me 10,000 words to say what you said in 200. Probably why I am not on the internet much.. :lol: Wallace said the production hood and fender were already done for the 1970 Charger. He did elaborate on how much more costly it would of been to re-engineer the hood and inner structure of the hood so that was off limits. Then he went on how they would of loved to lay that darn flat windshield back for more aero but you have to draw the line somewhere.
Quote from: odcics2 on August 23, 2014, 08:27:42 PM
Dented inner hood structure at the 200 mph run. (yellow arrow)
There was one bump at Talladega where it would rub.
The car ran with 5" of oil pan to track clearance. (static set up)
The hood inner is the lowest part, being almost twice as low
compared to the fender bracing next to it.
For the record, this shot was 1 year after the birth of the Daytona. When the Daytona was already for production, Talladega Superspeedway was not even finished to know what "bumps" they would discover. Also, Greg, I have the rear window plug, rear window and the 4 piece rear window straps out of the #99 Glotzbach Daytona. I don't know what all you got with the car but if you need 100% original Nichels parts to copy just let me know. Also, how the plug and trim clips were installed were different than the production cars. I'm certain you know this stuff but just incase..
Quote from: Daytona Guy on August 23, 2014, 08:43:49 PM
Yes, I said I listened to it. The question I would ask him, and what no one seems to have an answer for this the exhauster used on the test mule. He said their are no aero purpose for them, yet the facts go against his "statement". They says 3% - and they are aero designed with no purpose of tire clearance on the test mule.
Then, he said that he wanted to make sure the street car was the same and the fender scoops "covered up the holes that were for tire clearance". If this is true, the original holes as designed were for tire clearance on the track??????????? those little holes? I can do some calculations on surface area for that hole relative to a tire - moving left and right a degree or two and how close what would come to that hole's edge. The way he is talking it seems as if he does not know what he is talking about. I know that sounds presumptuous, but those holes, if they were for tire clearance, I would rather my tire hit a smooth surface than coming near a sharp edge. He was not talking about the hole getting bigger, but being exactly the same - race car to street car. Next, he got there in the spring of 69 he says - so there were more aero guys than him? That makes him the newbie at the time. His credentials are amazing.
If what he is saying is true (and I believe he is not covering anything up), he has at least some questions to answer that do not add up. Don't worry, I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, but did I see black helicopters in the back on the test track :)
(http://s26.postimg.org/zd48n89y1/image.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
upload an image (http://postimage.org/)
I don't know the answer to why the slow speed mule had the exhausters. Would be a good question but it's still after how it came to be. There is no doubt it's an exhauster. I understand Gary says it for tire clearance only but George has said many times that they didn't care what Pointer did. Just so it didn't mess up the aero. So I take it as they really didn't care, just so he made room with no negative affect.
The 3% paperwork is odd. 3% is HUGE. I can't find any test date, test data or even a test number on that issue. There is absolutely nothing prior to production that I have seen. Everything else and with multiple designs but ZERO on the extractor. All the wind tunnel test were done on the 3/8 car prior to production as I understand it. The fender tops have never been modified on that 3/8s car. So I just have no idea where the 3% is coming from.
On how small the street hole is. They knew they could make the hole huge on the race car. They just didn't know if the production car had to have it. So they just made a hole. No science to why the hole is that size. Just wanted a hole to show the street car had it to avoid a problem to make the body legal to race.
When Doug S. has them come to the meets, it's lets just say...magical.... Absolutely a fantastic group of car guys. Very approachable.
interesting , debate guys , good info & pictures !! love reading this kind stuff !! thanks for sharing :cheers: :cheers:
:popcrn: :2thumbs:
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on August 23, 2014, 05:24:20 PM
Quote from: odcics2 on August 21, 2014, 08:29:00 PM
"Exhausters" = 3% drag reduction. :coolgleamA:
That's what it says on the John Pointer authored vintage documentation.
From NASA to NASCAR, Chrysler Wing Car Development Interviews, Hot Rod Magazine, June 29, 2005
Hot Rod asking Gary Romberg about is they tested full size Daytona. I am assuming Gary's reply is prior to the car going into production.
Q: Did you guys ever make and test a full scale G-Series wing car mock up?
A: No, it only got as far as those 3/8 scale models we had in the Wichita State facility
"G" Series are the 1971 cars. :Twocents:
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on August 24, 2014, 02:05:07 AM
Quote from: odcics2 on August 23, 2014, 08:27:42 PM
Dented inner hood structure at the 200 mph run. (yellow arrow)
There was one bump at Talladega where it would rub.
The car ran with 5" of oil pan to track clearance. (static set up)
The hood inner is the lowest part, being almost twice as low
compared to the fender bracing next to it.
For the record, this shot was 1 year after the birth of the Daytona. When the Daytona was already for production, Talladega Superspeedway was not even finished to know what "bumps" they would discover. Also, Greg, I have the rear window plug, rear window and the 4 piece rear window straps out of the #99 Glotzbach Daytona. I don't know what all you got with the car but if you need 100% original Nichels parts to copy just let me know. Also, how the plug and trim clips were installed were different than the production cars. I'm certain you know this stuff but just incase..
DC-93 was tested at Talladega in late August, 69. That's where they came up with the chassis set up to give to the teams.
Keep in mind that the origin of DC-93 (later known as the 88) was the Charger 500 that was loaned to Hot rod, stolen, stripped and recovered, so it was a street 500. A lot of the race 500s were updated from 68s. When the 'new' additions on DC-93 were proven out, these were incorporated into newly built 500s. Things like the 1.5 degree body to chassis tilt, the "PITA" bars underhood, the steering gear attached to the cross member...
Existing cars could be retrofitted to some degree. I'd assume the 1.5 degree tilt would not be a retrofit!! Way too much involved!
So, the Engineering car would have a different manner of rear trim attachment, IMO. I did get the original rear window from Don White. The witness marks are still on it from the tape used to wrap the straps. Check out the photo below
I'd be interested in trading pics with you so you can see how this car was assembled and I can see how the 99 was constructed! :cheers:
Most of those could have been converted to Daytonas in August 69.
Quote from: odcics2 on August 24, 2014, 09:39:28 AM
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on August 23, 2014, 05:24:20 PM
Quote from: odcics2 on August 21, 2014, 08:29:00 PM
"Exhausters" = 3% drag reduction. :coolgleamA:
That's what it says on the John Pointer authored vintage documentation.
From NASA to NASCAR, Chrysler Wing Car Development Interviews, Hot Rod Magazine, June 29, 2005
Hot Rod asking Gary Romberg about is they tested full size Daytona. I am assuming Gary's reply is prior to the car going into production.
Q: Did you guys ever make and test a full scale G-Series wing car mock up?
A: No, it only got as far as those 3/8 scale models we had in the Wichita State facility
"G" Series are the 1971 cars. :Twocents:
Egg on my face on that post.. :lol:
Quote from: odcics2 on August 24, 2014, 10:04:29 AM
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on August 24, 2014, 02:05:07 AM
Quote from: odcics2 on August 23, 2014, 08:27:42 PM
Dented inner hood structure at the 200 mph run. (yellow arrow)
There was one bump at Talladega where it would rub.
The car ran with 5" of oil pan to track clearance. (static set up)
The hood inner is the lowest part, being almost twice as low
compared to the fender bracing next to it.
For the record, this shot was 1 year after the birth of the Daytona. When the Daytona was already for production, Talladega Superspeedway was not even finished to know what "bumps" they would discover. Also, Greg, I have the rear window plug, rear window and the 4 piece rear window straps out of the #99 Glotzbach Daytona. I don't know what all you got with the car but if you need 100% original Nichels parts to copy just let me know. Also, how the plug and trim clips were installed were different than the production cars. I'm certain you know this stuff but just incase..
DC-93 was tested at Talladega in late August, 69. That's where they came up with the chassis set up to give to the teams.
Keep in mind that the origin of DC-93 (later known as the 88) was the Charger 500 that was loaned to Hot rod, stolen, stripped and recovered, so it was a street 500. A lot of the race 500s were updated from 68s. When the 'new' additions on DC-93 were proven out, these were incorporated into newly built 500s. Things like the 1.5 degree body to chassis tilt, the "PITA" bars underhood, the steering gear attached to the cross member...
Existing cars could be retrofitted to some degree. I'd assume the 1.5 degree tilt would not be a retrofit!! Way too much involved!
So, the Engineering car would have a different manner of rear trim attachment, IMO. I did get the original rear window from Don White. The witness marks are still on it from the tape used to wrap the straps. Check out the photo below
I'd be interested in trading pics with you so you can see how this car was assembled and I can see how the 99 was constructed! :cheers:
Most of those could have been converted to Daytonas in August 69.
Ah, so your plug would of also been leaded to the car. Mine is gas welded on the sides in spots then some type of body filler.
That is the same pattern on the plexi as mine in your photo. My straps are in great shape and it looks to be some type of electrical tape. The rear window trim clips are riveted and it has thick foam between the glass and the plug. I will get some shots up tonight.
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on August 24, 2014, 02:40:31 AM
Quote from: Daytona Guy on August 23, 2014, 08:43:49 PM
Yes, I said I listened to it. The question I would ask him, and what no one seems to have an answer for this the exhauster used on the test mule. He said their are no aero purpose for them, yet the facts go against his "statement". They says 3% - and they are aero designed with no purpose of tire clearance on the test mule.
Then, he said that he wanted to make sure the street car was the same and the fender scoops "covered up the holes that were for tire clearance". If this is true, the original holes as designed were for tire clearance on the track??????????? those little holes? I can do some calculations on surface area for that hole relative to a tire - moving left and right a degree or two and how close what would come to that hole's edge. The way he is talking it seems as if he does not know what he is talking about. I know that sounds presumptuous, but those holes, if they were for tire clearance, I would rather my tire hit a smooth surface than coming near a sharp edge. He was not talking about the hole getting bigger, but being exactly the same - race car to street car. Next, he got there in the spring of 69 he says - so there were more aero guys than him? That makes him the newbie at the time. His credentials are amazing.
If what he is saying is true (and I believe he is not covering anything up), he has at least some questions to answer that do not add up. Don't worry, I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, but did I see black helicopters in the back on the test track :)
(http://s26.postimg.org/zd48n89y1/image.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
upload an image (http://postimage.org/)
I don't know the answer to why the slow speed mule had the exhausters. Would be a good question but it's still after how it came to be. There is no doubt it's an exhauster. I understand Gary says it for tire clearance only but George has said many times that they didn't care what Pointer did. Just so it didn't mess up the aero. So I take it as they really didn't care, just so he made room with no negative affect.
The 3% paperwork is odd. 3% is HUGE. I can't find any test date, test data or even a test number on that issue. There is absolutely nothing prior to production that I have seen. Everything else and with multiple designs but ZERO on the extractor. All the wind tunnel test were done on the 3/8 car prior to production as I understand it. The fender tops have never been modified on that 3/8s car. So I just have no idea where the 3% is coming from.
On how small the street hole is. They knew they could make the hole huge on the race car. They just didn't know if the production car had to have it. So they just made a hole. No science to why the hole is that size. Just wanted a hole to show the street car had it to avoid a problem to make the body legal to race.
When Doug S. has them come to the meets, it's lets just say...magical.... Absolutely a fantastic group of car guys. Very approachable.
There were tests, the mule, I'm not sure why this is a mystery that is overlooked :scratchchin:- They did do testing with exhauster - that's all they did for that time with the low speed 120mph car. They apparently did these tests night and day. The 3/8 scale did not have exhausters - most likely was added after. I do not see how the 3/8 not having exhauster proves or disproves anything. There was no wholes on the top of those fenders for tire clearance either - that seemed to have been on their radar - who dropped the ball? Why test this 3/8 car when they did not have a solution for the tire clearance that seems to have been their ONLY concern for 1 full year that if they added it could not have adverse affects to aero? If they were warned not to effect that aero of the car by adding the holes and the fender scoops, why did the 3/8 test not have fender scoops to show there is no interference? IOW, why test the 3/8 car without addressing the concern that they say they had from the start????? Again, another inconsistency and a dropping of the ball. The first time we see anything is in Feb-March - 2 to 3 months after the drawing - that is moving pretty fast. Does anyone have the dates for the 3/8 scale testing?
3% is not that huge at all for what it says. I have no reason to believe that this document is not authentic. Do we have any documentation that says anything about tire clearance for this particular car? No. These numbers of the low speed test mule (120mph) by engineers that are number crunchers, are not effected by actual speeds once they establish a baseline, after that it is physics, and variable dynamics, and calculations. As I have stated, all one has to do is determine CFM - out of both exhausters at variable speeds that seemed to gain 1.5% each. Understanding that this air is not going out the bottom of the car is not difficult to ascertain or calculate the advantage or percentage. I have seen my exhauster in action - rain pours out them - and at high speeds - wanting to see the effects in the real world - is amazing the air flow. It is hard to appreciate something you can't see (AIR).
Is there a list of aero engineers for this car? I can't see their being only one, especially when Gary Romberg said he came in the spring after this Daytona project was already off the ground.
found this picture , # 7 Daytona , I had saved on disc , think I saved the pictures from here originally !!
no fender side edge ( or very little just to keep the shape maybe ) below the scoop ,
Quote from: tan top on August 25, 2014, 04:30:15 PM
found this picture , # 7 Daytona , I had saved on disc , think I saved the pictures from here originally !!
no fender side edge ( or very little just to keep the shape maybe ) below the scoop ,
No factory edge, but there is a piece of round stock tacked to the inside of the fender to hold shape and give it strength.
Now that picture would be consistent with a tire coming close.
I would imagine the spinning tire, different points of air infiltration, excessive speed, etc would necessitate the need to vent at the largest (by volume) area available on the front of the car..ie: the inner fenders. There is no way that hole was designed...and cut.. to fit even part of something as important as the tire while racing. Your doing 200mph and you're going to come even close to any bodywork?! I don't think so...Ask any racer, those vents settled down the front of the car through the venting of atmosphere.
Quote from: Patronus on August 26, 2014, 05:10:10 PM
There is no way that hole was designed...and cut.. to fit even part of something as important as the tire while racing. Your doing 200mph and you're going to come even close to any bodywork?! I don't think so
I'm starting to buy into that theory. If it's that frighten close, then you got a problem! I'm not sure whether the hole was large enough (in my totally uneducated experience) for me to become warm and fuzzy with the tire clearance idea. Removing the top of the fender, now were getting somewhere. :D I suppose it could be up to each team to cut holes any size or shape they wanted? Once again, I don't know how much wiggle room Nascar would allow on this.