Probably been posted before but it amused me.
Another sad thing is how time dulls the memories...
On dodgecharger.com, there was a thread about the fender scoops on the Daytonas. There was actual documentation presented in John Pointers own handwriting that the scoops (known as "exhausters") were good for a 3% drag reduction. We all know the tire clearance story that has been out there for years.
The funny part is that they took a poll of who believed in tire clearance versus drag reduction...
Even with FACTORY DOCUMENTATION, some folks STILL voted for tire clearance!!! Unbelievable!
Furthermore, it has been proven that the tire would hit the inner hood structure FIRST, before ever getting NEAR the fender.
Cool, I figured for a long time it was to evacuate trapped air under the hood, I never believed the tire rubbing schpeal.
Have you read the entire thread?
I have to find my photo of the K&K with tire rubber deposited from both scoop openings to the cowl.
Yes - the inner hood on the race car hits first, by at least an inch.
The illegal "2x2" cars built in mid 68 had tire rub issues because............drum roll...........they were illegal! And the t-bars were too soft...
I have an early test of DC-93 where Glotzbach ran over a good bump in the track and stated, "A puff of tire smoke came out of the scoop". (not in, as some claim that weren't there)
Pointer's document is the smoking gun. Period. :2thumbs:
Folks can believe what they want!! Facts are facts.
What was the point of putting the holes in the tops of the fenders? Obviously the holes are too small for tires to fit for the sake of clearance but why are they there at all?
There are two threads about this topic. You talk about documents. Here is my take.. Pointers first drawing. NO SCOOPS...... :o
Here is the hand written test you write about. Problem #1 is... No date or test #. :o :o The 3/8 wind tunnel test car is alive and well. Guess what???? Problem #2.. No holes in the fender tops or repairs to the fender tops on the little car. How could this test be possible if there was no test on the 3/8 car. There was only one 3/8 wind tunnel car.
Quote from: bull on January 22, 2013, 04:43:19 PM
What was the point of putting the holes in the tops of the fenders? Obviously the holes are too small for tires to fit for the sake of clearance but why are they there at all?
Wallace said they thought they had to be there on the street car. They later found out they were not required to be there on the street car. That is why the bird doesn't have them.
Quote from: DrHemi on January 21, 2013, 08:51:04 PM
Probably been posted before but it amused me.
Another sad thing is how time dulls the memories...
On dodgecharger.com, there was a thread about the fender scoops on the Daytonas. There was actual documentation presented in John Pointers own handwriting that the scoops (known as "exhausters") were good for a 3% drag reduction. We all know the tire clearance story that has been out there for years.
The funny part is that they took a poll of who believed in tire clearance versus drag reduction...
Even with FACTORY DOCUMENTATION, some folks STILL voted for tire clearance!!! Unbelievable!
Furthermore, it has been proven that the tire would hit the inner hood structure FIRST, before ever getting NEAR the fender.
Unless I missed something.. What FACTORY DOCUMENTATION do you have or saw?
Read the two other threads. Great stuff posted on both sides. This is what George Wallace said about the topic. We 'engineers' wanted a little room on top of the right front fender. We didn't care what Pointer did to it. That was his expertise.... This is why I quote what I do. No matter how stupid you think it is.. Clearance first as per the engineers seeing Pointer's drawing. Then aero 2nd per John Pointer revisions. There is no hint of extractors till after the engineers saw the drawing. And don't go looking at a street car guys. The 'reason' has nothing to do with street cars or even Superbirds. They wanted it on the High Speed Test Mule #88. What happened after the first test doesn't matter. It's after the fact. This is about how the EXTRACTORS came to be. ALSO. Race Daytona's didn't have air pressure issue under the hood. Those 2 small holes in the nose and that big spoiler fixed that. Here is a picture of George Wallace at the Spring Fling in Van Nuys California with the 3/8 scale wind tunnel test car.
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 23, 2013, 12:46:04 AM
There are two threads about this topic. You talk about documents. Here is my take.. Pointers first drawing. NO SCOOPS...... :o
Yes - I own that drawing. They also called it a 1970 Daytona - and that's not correct either.
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 23, 2013, 01:00:11 AM
Here is the hand written test you write about. Problem #1 is... No date or test #. :o :o The 3/8 wind tunnel test car is alive and well. Guess what???? Problem #2.. No holes in the fender tops or repairs to the fender tops on the little car. How could this test be possible if there was no test on the 3/8 car. There was only one 3/8 wind tunnel car.
John told me they tested it all at Chelsea. You did notice the wing is not mentioned - it was not a 'recommended feature' at that time, since this is prior to that being part of the package. The prototype wing was tested at the Huntsville Airport on DC-93. A lot can be done without a 3/8 model car!!
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 23, 2013, 01:04:52 AM
Quote from: DrHemi on January 21, 2013, 08:51:04 PM
Probably been posted before but it amused me.
Another sad thing is how time dulls the memories...
On dodgecharger.com, there was a thread about the fender scoops on the Daytonas. There was actual documentation presented in John Pointers own handwriting that the scoops (known as "exhausters") were good for a 3% drag reduction. We all know the tire clearance story that has been out there for years.
The funny part is that they took a poll of who believed in tire clearance versus drag reduction...
Even with FACTORY DOCUMENTATION, some folks STILL voted for tire clearance!!! Unbelievable!
Furthermore, it has been proven that the tire would hit the inner hood structure FIRST, before ever getting NEAR the fender.
Unless I missed something.. What FACTORY DOCUMENTATION do you have or saw?
I'm gathering that the majority of the original post was a quote from someone else (emphasis added based on my guess on the quoted text), although the source wasn't identified - and that's the person to whom your questions should be directed.
:Twocents:
So where were the comments about the dc.com fender scoop discussion posted? I assume it was on another board?
Quote from: Aero426 on January 23, 2013, 10:06:39 AM
So where were the comments about the dc.com fender scoop discussion posted? I assume it was on another board?
http://www.randyayersmodeling.com/modelingforum/viewtopic.php?p=555270&sid=f561f16458c5d392dff1d5da20c09d0b (http://www.randyayersmodeling.com/modelingforum/viewtopic.php?p=555270&sid=f561f16458c5d392dff1d5da20c09d0b)
Earlier thread...
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,85143.0.html (http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,85143.0.html)
Here we go again... Ha ha
My 2cents -
Coming from a family of engineers, just becuase an involved engineer talks years down the road may add little to reallity, even if that was their personal view at the time. I have seen, in the course of a project, engineers say they believed some strange things that the rest of the engineeers rolled their eyes at. You just don't know. If it is not written down and documented it never happened. Besides, all this could be settled by simple geometry. This myth, either way, can be proven. Someone, by controlling the variables to match the race car, can test this by leaving the torsion bar out, and see if any of this is possible.
My inspection of the race cars I have seen (K&K...), can not see how the tire can possibly hit the fender. As for the benefit of air flow out the extractors is documented. Any time you can get air from not flowing under the car is benifitial. I bet if you test the vacume (draw) the Bird scoop creates is a tad greater then the Daytona's. Prelim drawings - to me - is not evidence either way. Please - someone test this :)
Dane
I am pretty sure everything being said here has already been said in the most recent DC.com thread. Also, the randyayersmodeling.com site is a wonderful place to learn about old stock cars and do some rivet counting if you care to.
Before we go too far down the road, I will ask, "Do we really need another fender scoop thread?" I don't think there is any new information being offered for or against.
Quote from: Aero426 on January 23, 2013, 12:31:18 PM
I am pretty sure everything being said here has already been said in the most recent thread. Before we go too far down the road, I will ask, "Do we really need another fender scoop thread?" I don't think there is any new information being offered for or against.
We don't :). But if these kind of things drive us to prove it, then I'm all for it.
Dane
I still say let Mythbusters settle it once and for all.
Anyone care to donate their race Daytona ? :D
Quote from: odcics2 on January 23, 2013, 05:43:19 AM
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 23, 2013, 01:00:11 AM
Here is the hand written test you write about. Problem #1 is... No date or test #. :o :o The 3/8 wind tunnel test car is alive and well. Guess what???? Problem #2.. No holes in the fender tops or repairs to the fender tops on the little car. How could this test be possible if there was no test on the 3/8 car. There was only one 3/8 wind tunnel car.
John told me they tested it all at Chelsea. You did notice the wing is not mentioned - it was not a 'recommended feature' at that time, since this is prior to that being part of the package. The prototype wing was tested at the Huntsville Airport on DC-93. A lot can be done without a 3/8 model car!!
John is correct. They did test at Chelsea. Full size car on track, NO WINDTUNNEL. This is a topic on how the scoops came to be. The original thought of why they are there. Nothing more. Your bouncing all over the place. It's not about the wing or anything else. The E-Series Test was only the 3/8 scale car. NOT THE FULL SIZE CAR. No need to look anywhere else but where they were right BEFORE the Daytona was thought of. The hand written note with the 3% on the scoop has no test to back it up. The other items on the note were tested and the photos are available. You might have too. Which is awesome that you have the originals. Priceless. There is no proof of a test on the vent. But yet everything else was tested. Now if they really got 3%. Don't you think there would be one picture or anything dated?
Quote from: odcics2 on January 23, 2013, 05:39:39 AM
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 23, 2013, 12:46:04 AM
There are two threads about this topic. You talk about documents. Here is my take.. Pointers first drawing. NO SCOOPS...... :o
Yes - I own that drawing. They also called it a 1970 Daytona - and that's not correct either.
The drawing is called The 1970 Charger 500... The Daytona verbiage was later. But explains the point that he was not thinking about Exhausters till after engineering saw this drawing... Like Wallace has explained
Lets see the vintage Chrysler document that says the scoops were for clearance. :shruggy:
We have one that says 3% drag reduction... :Twocents:
If you can produce that, well, I'll change my mind! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Here is an email I just received...
Point out to him that our hero Richard Petty says (and probably believes) that the restored #40 is the #40. Even though we know it is really the 43.
Hugh Hawthorne believes he has a real Petty Superbird. Because Richard told him so.
George believes the fender scoops are for tire clearance. Because they told him so.
Quote from: odcics2 on January 23, 2013, 04:29:13 PM
Lets see the vintage Chrysler document that says the scoops were for clearance. :shruggy:
We have one that says 3% drag reduction... :Twocents:
If you can produce that, well, I'll change my mind! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
We have all the engineers saying they wanted some insurance on clearance. ONLY ON THE RF. Time after time. Then Pointer made exhauseters. Like Wallace said. We told Pointer to make room on the RF top of fender. What he did with it was his expertise. What more do you want?? From the mouth of Wallace. Engineers don't always pass notes. They do see a problem arriving before a test. Like they did with the drawing. You are trying to disprove their word? The paper is just a note that is not dated on real test that did not take place.. The little car is not a myth. It is still alive. In storage at the moment. And there is no holes on the fender tops, or repairs to the fender tops... Pointer's note says 3% on an E-Series test. Don't you get it? It was never done. :Twocents:
Quote from: odcics2 on January 23, 2013, 04:36:12 PM
Here is an email I just received...
Point out to him that our hero Richard Petty says (and probably believes) that the restored #40 is the #40. Even though we know it is really the 43.
Hugh Hawthorne believes he has a real Petty Superbird. Because Richard told him so.
George believes the fender scoops are for tire clearance. Because they told him so.
Here you go again. Talking about other stuff than the topic. But, Hershal had the original #40 Bird.. And not just George. But all the engineers say the same thing. Since Day ONE. George didn't just make this up. This has been ALL the engineers comment from day one. Clearance. Tell your email friend that Pointer 35 years after the fact and says 3%..wink wink.. Your email buddy left that one out. :nana: Some believe exhuasters with 3% with no test. :eyes: I proved the 3% hand written note to not be fact. The E-Series car was not tested with extractors like the note implies. I proved my point. :2guns:
Quote from: Daytona Guy on January 23, 2013, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Aero426 on January 23, 2013, 12:31:18 PM
I am pretty sure everything being said here has already been said in the most recent thread. Before we go too far down the road, I will ask, "Do we really need another fender scoop thread?" I don't think there is any new information being offered for or against.
We don't :). But if these kind of things drive us to prove it, then I'm all for it.
Dane
I know I have better things to do than debate all this. But then again.. Maybe I don't :yesnod:
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 23, 2013, 04:51:25 PM
I know I have better things to do than debate all this. But then again.. Maybe I don't :yesnod:
Don't you have a blue and white Ford to work on, or something? :smilielol:
:lol: If Erin hears you call her Dan Gurney Merc a Ford..... You in a heap of trouble.. Just about done. Not ideal weather today to lay on the final coat. Going to work on this jalopy today.
The Chrysler document you question says FEATURES TESTED, does it not?
That would mean the listed items were indeed tested... Including exhausters.
The document is REAL and John Pointer verified it, in person, to me.
It BASELINES the changes AGAINST the E series race car.
So, listed are ALL the changes/improvements OVER the Charger 500 race car, to make up the Daytona package.
Again - Please just show us the original Chrysler document that states the fender scoops were for clearance and this thread can be put to rest.
If you can't, just accept what has already been proven with original Chrysler documentation. :cheers:
The written note Features Test about the scoop is BOGUS. Not the entire memo. Just the scoop 3%. The E-Series car doesn't have holes in the fenders. There was only ONE E-Series 500. That means the test was never done. Do you get it?? Even if it was tested.....It doesn't matter. It's about the order of how things happen. The engineers TOLD Pointer to work on the top of the right fender from day 2. Day 1 being the drawing with no exhausters. There was no MEMO of the event. Imagine that? Someone asked to do something with no memo. IT HAPPENS. All the engineers say the same thing TO THIS DAY. The funny part Wallace points out is that Ford and Grand National (NASCAR) called them exhuasters. Wallace says so did we. That was what was so funny to Wallace. He chuckles about it. Pointer worked on them to make sure they had ZERO affect. Not visa versa. The engineers didn't give a care what Pointer did to the fender top. Just so they had a little room. That is it. It is that simple. The trick was not letting Ford and the Grand National people know what was really going on.
The memo does state there was a test. Here is the kicker. I have had the ONLY E-Series car in storage in my garage. There is NO HOLES or repairs in the fender tops. It's in a very good friends hands now. If that memo is 100% legit. THE FENDER WOULD HAVE A HOLE or repair done to it... E-Series car debunks the memo about the E-Series car.. That the memo was written after the E-Series test which did happen but the Exhauster was not tested. It is a suggested package memo. All those test are documented but not the Exhauster test and it still doesn't matter, The original intention was for the clearance cushion. Pointer designed a bitchen extractor.
Here is the "E" Series race car the work was done on at Chelsea by John Pointer. It's now resting under blue paint, known as the "Fake 88". This is what you had tucked away? :shruggy:
Spin away again spin doctor. But correct...sort of. That is the low speed test mule run at Chelsea like you say. But, Not the wind tunnel car. Come on now. Bob McCurry did have the body panels swapped out to clone it into the #88 car that is in Talladega Museum where it has been sitting for many years. I was a personal friend of McCurry's. I know exactly how it went down. But the E-Series test car your 3% memo is talking about is from the 3/8 scale car for the wind tunnel test. Do you really think they would mock up a full scale car when the 3/8 car showed identical numbers? Now come on. I know now you are just throwing punches. Below... This IS the actual wind tunnel E and F series car I talk about. I thought I was clear. There was only one car. Now stop playing games.....wait....this is the internet... :brickwall:
:nana: :nana:
I hope this is the last time I have to say this............... Here is how it went down. As per all the engineers. ALL OF THEM. Even Pointer. (so don't shoot the messenger) Pointer draws Daytona. No extractors. Shows McCurry. McCurry says, my god that's ugly. But will it win races? Pointer says, yes it will. McCurry says, build it and if anyone gets in your way. Tell them to come see me. Pointer shows engineering the drawing. Wallace said, (and I don't know who else) make room on top of the right fender as we are close already and with all the added down force it will make, we will hit again. (Wallace telles me personally that since they could modify the fender on the new car...Why not...) Pointer works on fenders (feverically) designing extractors. Now, test showed that on the Daytona bubbleing (sides) the fenders caused drag on the Daytona (I think it was test 16) and was too be kept to a minimum just enough for tire clearance. The extractor was NEVER tested in wind tunnel. Notes show in the December 1969 (way after the car was built) that extractors could be added and have NO areodinamic impact. So someone is BSing. 3% or 0? But it doesn't matter if the extractor gave the car 10%. The original idea came from the clearance issue on the right front ONLY. To add to why not just install bigger bars.. There was not much time to get car ready and do suspension mods and have car ready for Talladega. This was a rush job. Now to why Pointer gives this wink wink 35 years later is beyond me and yes it does throw a wrench into it for most. But not when you think about the order in which this all took place. He then pourpusly lied in a published book? Is that whay you are saying? I hope not. I really liked Pointer but don't you think that goes againt any moral judgement? Pointer is quoted to saying (I got 3% with those things.) It still was after he was told to fix the fender. PERIOD. I personally don't think Pointer lied. Romberg was just asked here again a few months ago what the original purpose of the scoops were. He said Clearance. What more do you want. A NOTERY? Another fact is this too.. When Ford and NASCAR saw the car. Chrysler said Extractors and that is what they Ford and NASCAR thought. Chrysler laughed as they had just tricked them. They didn't want Ford to know the car was going to get that low. The Extractor story went on for years. The Engineers came clean around 74-75 on the story. That was the joke. Not some 35 years later.
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 24, 2013, 02:52:03 PM
That is the low speed test mule run at Chelsea like you say. But, Not the wind tunnel car. Come on now. Bob McCurry did have the body panels swapped out to clone it into the #88 car that is in Talladega Museum where it has been sitting for many years.
The low speed mule got a production style nose and wing while at the PG. This was long before any consideration was given to a museum donation. It's shown in one of the magazines. Might have been CARS? It's a black and white photo. I am not looking at it, but I think it had the long test boom on the front.
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 24, 2013, 04:46:02 PM
Now to why Pointer gives this wink wink 35 years later is beyond me and yes it does throw a wrench into it for most.
He was confronted on it. His story up to that moment had always been in lock step with all the others.
How do you know that the "Features Tested" memo only pertains to the 3/8 scale model?
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 24, 2013, 02:52:03 PM
Spin away again spin doctor. But correct...sort of. That is the low speed test mule run at Chelsea like you say. But, Not the wind tunnel car. Come on now. Bob McCurry did have the body panels swapped out to clone it into the #88 car that is in Talladega Museum where it has been sitting for many years. I was a personal friend of McCurry's. I know exactly how it went down. But the E-Series test car your 3% memo is talking about is from the 3/8 scale car for the wind tunnel test. Do you really think they would mock up a full scale car when the 3/8 car showed identical numbers? Now come on. I know now you are just throwing punches. Below... This IS the actual wind tunnel E and F series car I talk about. I thought I was clear. There was only one car. Now stop playing games.....wait....this is the internet... :brickwall:
:nana: :nana:
Sean... after starting out discussing this issue in a respectful way in my original thread, your posts have gradually become more confrontational and disrespectful... phrases like "Don't you get it?", "Spin away again spin doctor", and "Now stop playing games..... Wait..... This is the Internet... :brickwall: " serve no function in this discussion. In my original thread, I spent a great deal of time trying to focus the discussion on the technical merits of the two arguments. Almost without exception, the technical merits were ignored, and the discussion more and more centered on the fact that the engineers had said the fender scoops work for tire clearance only.
Once again, I ask for a respectful discussion on the technical merits of the two sides... I am prepared to go first with a discussion subject, or you or anyone else interested in participating can start the ball rolling... I'm not prepared to endure personal attacks and innuendos without responding. Throughout this discussion I have remained respectful, and some cases helpful to the opposing viewpoint... Even creating sketches to show how small increments of added tire clearance might have been achieved. Also, I committed to a donation of $100 towards a fund to have Doug's car tested in the wind tunnel, as did Greg K...
Right now, I really don't have time to fully participate in this discussion... But will somehow make time, as long as it is fact centered... Not discounting what the engineers said, but not relying on it as the only possible source of the truth on the true origin of the fender scoops.
Quote from: Aero426 on January 24, 2013, 05:02:02 PM
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 24, 2013, 02:52:03 PM
That is the low speed test mule run at Chelsea like you say. But, Not the wind tunnel car. Come on now. Bob McCurry did have the body panels swapped out to clone it into the #88 car that is in Talladega Museum where it has been sitting for many years.
The low speed mule got a production style nose and wing while at the PG. This was long before any consideration was given to a museum donation. It's shown in one of the magazines. Might have been CARS? It's a black and white photo. I am not looking at it, but I think it had the long test boom on the front.
As you probably know, those two are internal shots. The one I am talking about with the production style parts is actually in one of the magazines. Left front 3/4 view.
Quote from: Aero426 on January 24, 2013, 05:02:02 PM
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 24, 2013, 02:52:03 PM
That is the low speed test mule run at Chelsea like you say. But, Not the wind tunnel car. Come on now. Bob McCurry did have the body panels swapped out to clone it into the #88 car that is in Talladega Museum where it has been sitting for many years.
The low speed mule got a production style nose and wing while at the PG. This was long before any consideration was given to a museum donation. It's shown in one of the magazines. Might have been CARS? It's a black and white photo. I am not looking at it, but I think it had the long test boom on the front.
I showed McCury this photo and he said, This picture was taken when we got an award for being the first stock bodied car doing a closed course lap of 200mph. I was the one who commissioned the car to be painted up like the #88 for this award. He said this car was the#71 Test Car. After all was said and done to be used for promotional purpose and to be in a museum........ Doug, The parts swap on the #71 mule was sometime in the early-mid 70s as you know. To whom did the work I don't know. In house at Chrysler I would assume. Bob also stated he still had the award. I know he had 2 big boxes of pictures and his personal stuff from his days at Chrysler. He was going to bring them back to me as a gift he said. Unfortunately he passed after losing his battle with cancer and didn't make it back to his winter home in Rancho Mirage CA.......
Quote from: Aero426 on January 24, 2013, 06:03:57 PM
As you probably know, those two are internal shots. The one I am talking about with the production style parts is actually in one of the magazines. Left front 3/4 view.
Those are the only B&W shots I have with the long probe mounted in place. There's a couple more photos (some with Buddy Baker) from Chelsea with a stock/production nose in place, but no probe. I'm probably lost and not even in the same zip code as what you were thinking, Doug...
Quote from: Aero426 on January 24, 2013, 05:04:06 PM
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 24, 2013, 04:46:02 PM
Now to why Pointer gives this wink wink 35 years later is beyond me and yes it does throw a wrench into it for most.
He was confronted on it. His story up to that moment had always been in lock step with all the others.
How do you know that the "Features Tested" memo only pertains to the 3/8 scale model?
The Features Tested Memo showes some of the test done to 3/8 car. How was Chrysler to get that data on the proving grounds is why I state that. Chrysler didn't have a wind tunnel at Chelsea. Only the 3/8 car was wind tunnel tested. I think the wink wink was the joke. Just like when the car was showed to NASCAR. When Pointer said. Check that out. I got 3%. Wink wink. That is the joke.
Odcics2, Alan and DC.COM , All due respect. If I offended anyone (odcics2) sorry. Not my intention. But odicics2 repyling that I have a trick up my sleeve... I took it wrong on my end. Like I said. The internet :icon_smile_big: Alan, test a Superbird extractor? No. The Daytona wind tunnel test were all done with the 3/8s car. Use that. We (Winged Warriors) still own it. And if you look at the car. It was never tested for extractors. That is my point. Like I said. Even if it gave a 10% aero advantage. It doesn't matter. Pointer was told move up the fender and Pointer made an extractor. That is how it happened. I have always been... Clearance first as per the engineers, then aero as per Pointer working on it as the Daytona didn't like bubbling the fenders like the base 500 did. The extractor had a duel purpose. But it started with clearance. Sorry for the harsh words guys. Alan, please realize that he was basically calling me an idiot on another site as posted in the first post form DrHemi quoting Odcics2. Alan, You have posted in the past some great art work and with your knowledge of the subject. But what is missing from your post is the initial meeting of the engineers. The engineers telling Pointer to fix the fender top. And Pointer designing an extractor. A little more Clearance then Aero. The engineers all say. We didn't care what John did with it. We just wanted the room. That is how it happened. Not John making an extractor first and then showing the engineers. It really was the other way around. Don't look at the finished product people. Please. Look at it from the beginning. Hope this sounds better. No disrespect. Not my motive in life.
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 24, 2013, 07:10:43 PM
Odcics2, Alan and DC.COM , All due respect. If I offended anyone (odcics2) sorry. Not my intention. But odicics2 repling that I have a trick up my sleeve... I took it wrong on my end. Like I said. The internet :icon_smile_big: Alan, test a Superbird extractor? No. The Daytona wind tunnel test were all done with the 3/8s car. Use that. We (Winged Warriors) still own it. And if you look at the car. It was never tested. That is my point. Like I said. Even if it gave a 10% aero advantage. It doesn't matter. Pointer was told move up the fender and Pointer made an extractor. That is how it happened. I have always been... Clearance first as per the engineers, then aero as per Pointer working on it as the Daytona didn't like bubbling the fenders like the base 500 did. The extractor had a duel purpose. But it started with clearance. Sorry for the harsh words guys. Alan, please realize that he was basicilly calling me an idiot on another site as posted in the first post form
Thanks Sean... I believe your response will help cool things down... And also I realize that there were things said on both sides of the issue that helped escalate the conflict. I will start a series of posts that will help explain what I consider evidence and my reasoning behind believing it supports the aerodynamics improvement explanation for the origin of the fender scoops.
Anyone may chime in to either support or refute my evidence and reasoning, as long as it is done respectful of the beliefs of other discussion participants. Anyone may pose their own subject matter for discussion on this issue, as long as it is pertinent to the thread subject... The original purpose of the fender scoops on winged cars.
:slap: :nana: Alan. The E-Series and F-Series Extractor test was not done. If it was. It was after the fact. The 3/8 car has zero holes in the fenders. I was the ONLY wind tunnel car. They even write it in their notes when they tested a full size Charger 500 and the little 3/8 car. They said the numbers were identical so lets just work on the 3/8 car. We can get all scientific but it just didn't happen in the order you think. No disrespect Alan. It really was in this order. A drawing with no extractor. Then told to work on it by the engineers. Engineers had one idea in mind. Pointer had 2. My point is that Pointer was told to do it from the engineers. That is why and all the engineers laugh and say. It was actually clearance first. Pointer being the brilliant man saw that he could take it a step further than the engineers wanted.
Forgive me because I'm sure it's mentioned already in these threads but at what point in the timeline were they cognizant of the fender bubbling problem versus the decree for tire clearance?
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 24, 2013, 07:10:43 PM
Odcics2, Alan and DC.COM , All due respect. If I offended anyone (odcics2) sorry. Not my intention. But odicics2 repyling that I have a trick up my sleeve... I took it wrong on my end. Like I said. The internet :icon_smile_big: Alan, test a Superbird extractor? No. The Daytona wind tunnel test were all done with the 3/8s car. Use that. We (Winged Warriors) still own it. And if you look at the car. It was never tested. That is my point. Like I said. Even if it gave a 10% aero advantage. It doesn't matter. Pointer was told move up the fender and Pointer made an extractor. That is how it happened. I have always been... Clearance first as per the engineers, then aero as per Pointer working on it as the Daytona didn't like bubbling the fenders like the base 500 did. The extractor had a duel purpose. But it started with clearance. Sorry for the harsh words guys. Alan, please realize that he was basically calling me an idiot on another site as posted in the first post form DrHemi quoting Odcics2. Alan, You have posted in the past some great art work and with your knowledge of the subject. But what is missing from your post is the initial meeting of the engineers. The engineers telling Pointer to fix the fender top. And Pointer designing an extractor. A little more Clearance then Aero. The engineers all say. We didn't care what John did with it. We just wanted the room. That is how it happened. Not John making an extractor first and then showing the engineers. It really was the other way around. Don't look at the finished product people. Please. Look at it from the beginning. Hope this sounds better. No disrespect. Not my motive in life.
Sean - I was slowly typing my reply during your last edit. I fully appreciate the importance of the first meeting, but also realize that memories can go through subtle revisions as time passes, making a huge difference at times in the retelling of the event. A case in point from my past: A friend that I'd worked with on thrust reverser design told me a few years ago that he remembered we had to re-size the thrust reverser doors for the Cessna Citation X after testing showed that they did not meet the spec... what actually happened was that Cessna ordered us to re-size them because they do not believe our analysis was conservative enough. Testing of the Citation X thrust reverser later revealed that the increased sizing was creating an exceptionally high loading of the engine mount, requiring us to use hydraulic restrictors to slow the opening rate of the doors. Seemingly slight differences in memory created a vastly different picture of the event... and yes, I have written proof of my recollection.
Quote from: Ghoste on January 24, 2013, 07:59:45 PM
Forgive me because I'm sure it's mentioned already in these threads but at what point in the timeline were they cognizant of the fender bubbling problem versus the decree for tire clearance?
Quote from: Ghoste on January 24, 2013, 07:59:45 PM
Forgive me because I'm sure it's mentioned already in these threads but at what point in the timeline were they cognizant of the fender bubbling problem versus the decree for tire clearance?
Bulged fenders were tested on the 68 1/2 Charger race car (aka the 2x2 cars, one of which became the #71 mule)
The genesis of the tire clearance issues can be found in the following two memos penned by GMW. Note that he acknowledges that stiffer springs and t-bars were being developed to combat the wheel tracel problem. Part of this I would attribute to the special build of the 2 x 2 cars and the way they were laid out.
http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_060568.html (http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_060568.html)
http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_062768.html (http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_062768.html)
I have to learn this copy and past stuff. Sure would be a time saver. The Daytona was also tested for bubbled fenders. Figure #15 on the Daytona (3/8) wind tunnel test. The Daytona (3/8) did not like it. It worked better on the 500. But since the Daytona had smooth air flow it disrupted the air.
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 24, 2013, 08:25:09 PM
I have to learn this copy and past stuff. Sure would be a time saver. The Daytona(3/8 was also tested for bubbled fenders. Figure #15 on the Daytona (3/8) wind tunnel test. The Daytona (3/8) did not like it. It worked better on the 500. But since the Daytona had smooth air flow it disrupted the air.
Quote from: Aero426 on January 24, 2013, 08:12:59 PM
Quote from: Ghoste on January 24, 2013, 07:59:45 PM
Forgive me because I'm sure it's mentioned already in these threads but at what point in the timeline were they cognizant of the fender bubbling problem versus the decree for tire clearance?
Quote from: Ghoste on January 24, 2013, 07:59:45 PM
Forgive me because I'm sure it's mentioned already in these threads but at what point in the timeline were they cognizant of the fender bubbling problem versus the decree for tire clearance?
Bulged fenders were tested on the 68 1/2 Charger race car (aka the 2x2 cars, one of which became the #71 mule)
The genesis of the tire clearance issues can be found in the following two memos penned by GMW. Note that he acknowledges that stiffer springs and t-bars were being developed to combat the wheel tracel problem. Part of this I would attribute to the special build of the 2 x 2 cars and the way they were laid out.
http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_060568.html (http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_060568.html)
http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_062768.html (http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_062768.html)
And because of this test is why WMB wanted the Daytona fender pushed up. There was not enough time to get the car approved, on track and do more R-n-D.
Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on January 24, 2013, 08:08:27 PM
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 24, 2013, 07:10:43 PM
Odcics2, Alan and DC.COM , All due respect. If I offended anyone (odcics2) sorry. Not my intention. But odicics2 repyling that I have a trick up my sleeve... I took it wrong on my end. Like I said. The internet :icon_smile_big: Alan, test a Superbird extractor? No. The Daytona wind tunnel test were all done with the 3/8s car. Use that. We (Winged Warriors) still own it. And if you look at the car. It was never tested. That is my point. Like I said. Even if it gave a 10% aero advantage. It doesn't matter. Pointer was told move up the fender and Pointer made an extractor. That is how it happened. I have always been... Clearance first as per the engineers, then aero as per Pointer working on it as the Daytona didn't like bubbling the fenders like the base 500 did. The extractor had a duel purpose. But it started with clearance. Sorry for the harsh words guys. Alan, please realize that he was basically calling me an idiot on another site as posted in the first post form DrHemi quoting Odcics2. Alan, You have posted in the past some great art work and with your knowledge of the subject. But what is missing from your post is the initial meeting of the engineers. The engineers telling Pointer to fix the fender top. And Pointer designing an extractor. A little more Clearance then Aero. The engineers all say. We didn't care what John did with it. We just wanted the room. That is how it happened. Not John making an extractor first and then showing the engineers. It really was the other way around. Don't look at the finished product people. Please. Look at it from the beginning. Hope this sounds better. No disrespect. Not my motive in life.
Sean - I was slowly typing my reply during your last edit. I fully appreciate the importance of the first meeting, but also realize that memories can go through subtle revisions as time passes, making a huge difference at times in the retelling of the event. A case in point from my past: A friend that I'd worked with on thrust reverser design told me a few years ago that he remembered we had to re-size the thrust reverser doors for the Cessna Citation X after testing showed that they did not meet the spec... what actually happened was that Cessna ordered us to re-size them because they do not believe our analysis was conservative enough. Testing of the Citation X thrust reverser later revealed that the increased sizing was creating an exceptionally high loading of the engine mount, requiring us to use hydraulic restrictors to slow the opening rate of the doors. Seemingly slight differences in memory created a vastly different picture of the event... and yes, I have written proof of my recollection.
Agree. But the engineers just didn't just change their mind. They all say the exact same thing. Since day one. 35 years later Pointer does the Wink Wink. Did he forget? Like your thrust story. That is my point exactly. I agree 100% with you. Storys change with time. But what you have to realize is Chrysler didn't want Ford and NASACR to kow what they were doing. After the car was banned. The truth came out. They engineers all say that. It has been documented since the very first wing car meet over 35 years ago.
Alan, Odcics2, Doug and anyone else. The extractor worked better as what it was called. An extractor. That is not the debate. It worked awesome. The debate is how it got there in the first place. In the order that it happened. A test on a car now is besides the point. It is why it got there in the first place.. One fact we can all agree on and the Daytona was built with one purpose. Win at Talladega. Beat Ford. Correct? My point is that when the drawing was shown to engineering. They immediately saw a problem right off the bat. That was a rub problem on the top of the right fender is very likely.. Pointer worked on it so that it would not mess up the aero. The exact quote is that he worked on it (feverishly.) Now how could it be aero first if it was not there and he was told to do something? That is the exact reason why all the engineers say clearance. GMW exact quote is. We didn't care what Pointer did to the fender. That was his expertise.
Ok, so am I to understand that there is not any factory documentation that states the fender scoops are for tire clearance? In addition, it sounds like the inner hood braces on the race cars were the limiting factor for tire travel, not the top of the fenders. Not taking any sides here, just trying to understand the facts.
these 2 clips are from the June 5, 1968 document.....seems to me like tire clearance was an issue from the beginning....
http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_060568.html (http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_060568.html)
Take that document with a grain of salt - the 68 1/2 cars were deemed illegal by Nascar and Chrysler was told to never bring them back...
Legal cars had no issue. Key word is legal! The scoop discussion centers around the legal ride height of the 69 & 70 wing cars.
Happened to run across a couple of interesting photos. They answer the question of when the low speed car (converted to the fake 88) was donated to Nascar.
Quote from: 1RareBird on January 24, 2013, 08:58:28 PM
Ok, so am I to understand that there is not any factory documentation that states the fender scoops are for tire clearance? In addition, it sounds like the inner hood braces on the race cars were the limiting factor for tire travel, not the top of the fenders. Not taking any sides here, just trying to understand the facts.
Correct. No docs. Just the word of all the engineers when they talk about the first time they saw the picture of the Daytona idea and knew down force would be an issue. The limiting factor is the bottom of the car hitting the ground. You never what the suspension to bottom out on a race car. Never ever ever.
Quote from: odcics2 on January 24, 2013, 09:45:53 PM
Take that document with a grain of salt - the 68 1/2 cars were deemed illegal by Nascar and Chrysler was told to never bring them back...
Legal cars had no issue. Key word is legal! The scoop discussion centers around the legal ride height of the 69 & 70 wing cars.
Happened to run across a couple of interesting photos. They answer the question of when the low speed car (converted to the fake 88) was donated to Nascar.
But it was on the mind of the engineers. Even though it hit on illegal cars. Those were test cars. The 500 was slower and had way less down force. Also Daytona (track) was a slower track and not banked as much in which the test posted above was about. Talladega was an entire new ball game. Nobody have ever been there. They didn't know what to expect. And look at what happened. The tire hit the darn hood. You bet bigger bars became an instant necessity. IIRC they were bending upper or lower control arms.
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 24, 2013, 02:52:03 PM
That is the low speed test mule run at Chelsea like you say. But, Not the wind tunnel car. Come on now. Bob McCurry did have the body panels swapped out to clone it into the #88 car that is in Talladega Museum where it has been sitting for many years. I was a personal friend of McCurry's. I know exactly how it went down.
I can't say that I agree with you here. Here is the photo I was talking about earlier. This is from the November '69 issue of High Performance Cars magazine, page 30. Clearly the photo is of DC-74, the mule. As you can see, the home built panels were swapped out for more production like pieces; long before any notion of donating the car occurred.
As to the donation, the July of 1970 Chrysler memo indicates the request came from NASCAR to the race group. Gale Porter of High Performance Vehicles forwarded it to marketing. I can believe that McCurry knew about it and signed off on it at some point. I can't imagine that at his level, he would be involved with all the minutia of whether they donated the mule or the real #88, but OK. Do I believe that McCurry told you that he had the panels swapped out? Absolutely, yes.
My point is, when doing research, credible people may tell you things they recall and believe as fact. You may then believe them as fact. It might not be one hundred percent correct.
that magazine shot had to have been taken very late in the development stage, yet the car still does not have the fender scoops. my two cents would be that the aero design work had been completed at that point. if the fender scoops increased performance, it would have been known by this time, and they would have been on the car when this photo was taken.
what was known, is that the car was cranking out major amounts of downforce. magnify that by the steep track banking and potential for body roll due to centrifugal force, and it's easy to see the concern for right front tire clearance. having experienced the tire rub problem before, albeit on the illegal chassis, this potential issue was easily and, most importantly, quickly addressed by the fender scoops. the memo posted above discussed cutting away the support flange above the tire, to allow for more clearance. the scoop itself also accomplished the second half of the memo, effectively raising the fender.
the engineers didn't know if tire clearance was going to be an issue, but they weren't going to find out the hard way. at this point in time and financial investment, they were certainly going to err on the side of caution, and not have their bullet waylaid by a tire slamming into the fender at 185 mph.
Quote from: Aero426 on January 24, 2013, 11:04:34 PM
Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on January 24, 2013, 02:52:03 PM
That is the low speed test mule run at Chelsea like you say. But, Not the wind tunnel car. Come on now. Bob McCurry did have the body panels swapped out to clone it into the #88 car that is in Talladega Museum where it has been sitting for many years. I was a personal friend of McCurry's. I know exactly how it went down.
I can't say that I agree with you here. Here is the photo I was talking about earlier. This is from the November '69 issue of High Performance Cars magazine, page 30. Clearly the photo is of DC-74, the mule. As you can see, the home built panels were swapped out for more production like pieces; long before any notion of donating the car occurred.
As to the donation, the July of 1970 Chrysler memo indicates the request came from NASCAR to the race group. Gale Porter of High Performance Vehicles forwarded it to marketing. I can believe that McCurry knew about it and signed off on it at some point. I can't imagine that at his level, he would be involved with all the minutia of whether they donated the mule or the real #88, but OK. Do I believe that McCurry told you that he had the panels swapped out? Absolutely, yes.
My point is, when doing research, credible people may tell you things they recall and believe as fact. You may then believe them as fact. It might not be one hundred percent correct.
Very true Doug. I agree 1000%. Pointers story is another one I'd say changed too. And here is a Mule Pic you post at Chelsea and there is still no fender vents. Pointer story is getting questionable I'd have to say. As for McCurry, as we all know, he was very involved with Dodge and his vehicles in automobile racing. Especially the Grand National Series. He did say he took the mule and turned it into the #88. He did say for the 200mph award etc. He did say it was dressed up as the #71 car. But is sure looks that the body was already changed. Even though the fenders and front valance at fender look re-worked on the currant configuration of the DC-74 #88 car. Maybe they wanted it to look exactly like the real #88. Will never know. I did say to McCurry that it was a bummer to toss the #71 Mule's one off parts. So McCurry's story does have a hole in it. I agree. Back to the scoop, and as you know Doug, the fender scoop questions came up in the very first meetings with the engineers over 30 years ago. They have not swayed until Pointer did his wink wink.
So Pointer could have already been searching for an aerodynamic advantage in his mind before he was asked about tire clearance?
Yes, but 30 years later. :smilielol:
A few points -
The Fake 88 was donated in 1973, not 72. Baker won the Daytona 500 pole in '73 in the K&K Charger. I am surprised nobody jumped all over that! I guess we all aren't as smart as we like to think, me included! :smilielol:
Perhaps the #71 mule in the photo above was on the way to get the scoops installed, after turning laps for a base line to see how it performed prior to scoop installation.
Any good engineer knows a baseline is most important or you get tainted, useless data after that. :yesnod: Note that it is wired up for data collection.
When John Pointer saw that document he penned in 1969, he was absolutely floored. You would have had to been there to appreciate it! His face lit up like a pin ball machine! There is was - from being buried deep within Larry Rathgebs files all those years!!! (Just waiting to turn the Wing Car World on it's ears!)
When questioned further about the 3% drag reduction of exhausters, he did mention that, "If that's what is says, that's what it was."
The "wink-wink" was an a sign that the jig was up - the truth could finally be revealed. The data was now public. The coverup was over...
Consider this - what if that document was around at the FIRST meeting with all the guys??? Would the storys been different??
As far as down force, from an aero standpoint, the Daytona was an atemp at zero lift in the front and a little down force in the rear. You can tune it with front spoiler size and wing angle. For example, the Hamilton Bird was set up for some down force. The 43 not so much. Look at photos of both cars at the Daytona 500.
I hear you on the paper work in Rathgebs file. If Rathgab was asked today. What would he say? And show him the paper. Show Wallace. I would think his thought would be awesome. Pointer did more than we wanted. HEMIVIPER here on DC.COM talked to LR or GR last sumer about this very subject after this debate on DC.COM and he says the same thing. Clearance. My point is on this issue that Pointer was told to push the fender up right before the extractor thought came into place. Pointer from there made and extractor. What is still odd to me is not one extractor test has ever showed up. Personally I would think that a 3% test would of been well documented. Let alone all the other test and possible drawings to come to that conclusion. Not just a sugested package memo with no docmunted test to back it up. Like with the test of just bubbeling the fenders on the sides. Well documented on the 500 and the Daytona. It came is at a -1% on the Daytona. And that test is well documented. I understand that you and a few others personally talked to Pointer on the subject. I truly believe that Pointer worked his tail off to make sure it worked as an extractor. That is what all the engineers have said from day one. Please see my point too. I myself spent time with Mr.Wallace. In Talladega and here in California. His recollection has never swayed or has any of the other engineers. He says Pointer worked feverishly on those extractors after engineering asked him to do so for clearance. I can understand that Pointer would see it as an extractor. That is what he made. That is what they all have said. Engineers I would think say clearance because that was the original intention. My thought is too that extractors can be made with just louvering the fender top. I know Alan could give the best examples of that. That puppy is a huge extractor. Why? Why would Pointer not come clean till showed that paper? Why after years of people asking the same question. Why are the vents there? I see it from the engineers point of view. They got what they wanted. A little clearance.. I just can't see it another way without proof. If that first drawing had an extractor I and many others would think different. But they were not there until Engineering saw the drawing and he worked his magic. It's like a crime scene. Why was this person killed? Some are looking at the bullet. Others are looking into the mind of the shooter. Maybe not the best example the wife said..
i am the least informed person in this debate. i've never spoken to any of the engineers. i'm not even 100% certain which theory i subscribe to, but that said...
(http://i406.photobucket.com/albums/pp145/held1823/odds%20and%20ends/8dodgechargerda972_zps1aef86a4.jpg)
this early photo has fender scoops, which seemingly would not have been left off the car in the photo below, if they were indeed a speed advantage. why mock up the production-looking nose, and omit the scoops that would eventually be included in the daytona package. their overall shape was changed, but the car seen in photo below would aready be at a disadvantage without the scoops. given the time constraints of the program, it seems illogical to seek a new baseline for something that had aleady proven itself to be an advantage.
(http://i406.photobucket.com/albums/pp145/held1823/odds%20and%20ends/Mule71ProdBodySM1f_zps268b719e.jpg)
the second photo lacks the fender scoops that the production car ended up with. perhaps the tire clearance issue had not repeated itself with a legal chassis. the test equipment seen on the car appears to be concentrated on the nose, which might imply that the fender clearance issue had been put to rest. did the design group come together near the end, and reintroduce the fender scoops as an insurance policy against tire clearance? it has been mentioned before that race cars could not have modifications that the street cars did not. this is supported by the holes found in a street daytona fender, which served no purpose aerodynamically or tire clearance wise.
Production Birds had no scoop hole but the race cars did. Of course the customers complained and there was a service bulletin put out to cut them.
But to qualify that hole for Nascar in 1970 - ALL of them would have had to have holes.
So, that theory has holes in it! :lol: :lol:
Here is the back of the Daytona brochure. Where is the hood scoop it says will be on the Daytona? Or larger front wheel openings, for that matter.
Or the standard Hemi engine in all the 500's?
very cool photo. thanks for sharing.
the last line above the engine specification area is the one i find interesting.
Quote from: held1823 on January 26, 2013, 10:43:15 AM
very cool photo. thanks for sharing.
the last line above the engine specification area is the one i find interesting.
Fender "cooling vents" ?? !!! :shruggy: :shruggy: :cheers: :2thumbs:
Quote from: odcics2 on January 26, 2013, 10:26:31 AM
Here is the back of the Daytona brochure. Where is the hood scoop it says will be on the Daytona? Or larger front wheel openings, for that matter.
Most likely a reference the bubbled fenders tested... As seen in this wind tunnel report the bubbling of the fenders was a separate item from the fender exhausters, both in the text portion and the photographs. See the attachments below for the underlined text references, and the photograph showing the bubbled fenders with no exhausters visible...
seems to me that it was for clearance THEN they realized that there was an un-expected gain in aero. even the document below says
exhauster added to top of fenders at wheel centerline with no aerodynamic penalties, doesn't even mention the possibility of a gain in aero
Quote from: odcics2 on January 26, 2013, 10:26:31 AM
Production Birds had no scoop hole but the race cars did. Of course the customers complained and there was a service bulletin put out to cut them.
But to qualify that hole for Nascar in 1970 - ALL of them would have had to have holes.
So, that theory has holes in it! :lol: :lol:
Here is the back of the Daytona brochure. Where is the hood scoop it says will be on the Daytona? Or larger front wheel openings, for that matter.
Heres front and back of daytona postcard
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e67/75414/100_2903.jpg)
(http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae240/Wingcars69/ProdInfoBulletin1.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e67/75414/100_2904.jpg)
Quote from: odcics2 on January 24, 2013, 09:45:53 PM
Happened to run across a couple of interesting photos. They answer the question of when the low speed car (converted to the fake 88) was donated to Nascar.
I didn't realize the actual or exact date was of interest to anyone, but I can clear this issue up.
Along with a bunch of other documents from Anthony Young, I got a copy of McCurry's speech outline/highlights from when the car was donated. The title heading says:
Remarks by R.B. McCurry, Daytona International Raceway, February 15, 1973.
The date of the fake 88 being donated coincides with the 1973 Daytona 500. I wonder where the car was up until then? Maybe in storage at Chelsea? That would be the logical place...
The wind tunnel study proves that the scoops were indeed tested there. If there are no holes in the 3/8 model, that suggests the scoops weren't working, just statically present on the car. Perhaps, when on the red #71 mule car, those narrow front scoops were tested and on a real moving car, on a track and functional, they DID indeed have a 3% benefit that could not be witnessed in the wind tunnel because the holes were not present. Since Pointer was stationed at Chelsea, he would have been the only guy with first hand knowledge of the 3% reduction. I'd assume they ran many coast down studies to come up with the numbers of all the modifications.
Now - does that mean that John Pointers numbers were all from the Chelsea track, or a combination of that and wind tunnel numbers??
The more digging that goes on, the more info comes out! All good stuff! :cheers: :cheers:
Quote from: Aero426 on January 24, 2013, 08:12:59 PM
Quote from: Ghoste on January 24, 2013, 07:59:45 PM
Forgive me because I'm sure it's mentioned already in these threads but at what point in the timeline were they cognizant of the fender bubbling problem versus the decree for tire clearance?
Quote from: Ghoste on January 24, 2013, 07:59:45 PM
Forgive me because I'm sure it's mentioned already in these threads but at what point in the timeline were they cognizant of the fender bubbling problem versus the decree for tire clearance?
Bulged fenders were tested on the 68 1/2 Charger race car (aka the 2x2 cars, one of which became the #71 mule)
The genesis of the tire clearance issues can be found in the following two memos penned by GMW. Note that he acknowledges that stiffer springs and t-bars were being developed to combat the wheel tracel problem. Part of this I would attribute to the special build of the 2 x 2 cars and the way they were laid out.
http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_060568.html (http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_060568.html)
http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_062768.html (http://aerowarriors.com/cda/cda_09_062768.html)
Where are you saying these "Bulges" are in the fender? Top or Sides?
Dane
Dane, I think they are on the sides, most pics I have seen the fenders are flared way out on the top.
:Twocents: Lower profile fender scoops
http://www.freewebs.com/danno340/kkd/68-69_files/69test.jpg
Quote from: Daytona Guy on January 26, 2013, 07:20:29 PM
Where are you saying these "Bulges" are in the fender? Top or Sides?
They were on the sides. I don't think there is a photo of them that exists. Same deal with the "reinforced wheels", which had an outer plating of steel with a center opening to access the lug nuts. They would look something like an early 90's Indy Car wheel. Must have been super heavy.
If the problem was solved in June of 1968 – Why would there be the need for tire clearance in mid '69?
For both the Plymouth and Dodge the 68.5 fender was "pushed up" and the "flange on the right side hood was cut away for the greater tire travel". (documentation given above).
These solutions were only for testing on the track. They were not solutions to ever go into production. The solution was given in the notes, and that was, to get a stronger torsion bar and rear springs.
To say that these engineers gave the orders for tire clearance – would have also given orders for the hood as well. Both were of "equal" concern, yet no order was reported given for the hood to be modified.
If the tire was traveling that much – cutting and pushing of metal is not the solution. The solution is less tire travel for better handling at higher speeds (Note the true engineer's solution). Why would an engineer ask for more tire clearance? That would beg the question of... "Why allow a tire to travel that far?" Engineers want to solve problems, not put a bandage on it.
As for the exhausters, it says... "Mounted above both front tires". None of the E, F, or G series little wind test cars were tested with exhausters. What this shows to me is that this was not the testing ground for them. Were all the tests required to be done on little models for all e, f and g-series concepts? Apparently not. The e, f or g-series tests were not limited to one wind tunnel model, were they? To me it would be ridiculous to do a test on a car like the "little model" for fender exhausters, that does not have moving tires at the appropriate speeds, does not have an engine, or the variables needed to perform a scientific test that the extractor would be tested for. That would be insulting. This kind of a test can be done in other ways on real e, f and g-series cars not in a wind tunnel (unless it was a full size fully functional car). All they had to do is show a 3% less drag on any test mule car. It says they were getting the same numbers on the full size cars - so this tells me they were testing full size cars, does it not?
The jury is still out for me :)
Dane
Quote from: Daytona Guy on January 26, 2013, 09:05:01 PM
If the problem was solved in June of 1968 – Why would there be the need for tire clearance in mid '69?
For both the Plymouth and Dodge the 68.5 fender was "pushed up" and the "flange on the right side hood was cut away for the greater tire travel". (documentation given above).
The premise of the fender scoop was always as an insurance policy. You can't add stuff to the package once the homologation process is complete. Pointer was told to develop something that would not hurt the overall package.
Quote from: Aero426 on January 26, 2013, 10:38:04 PM
Quote from: Daytona Guy on January 26, 2013, 09:05:01 PM
If the problem was solved in June of 1968 – Why would there be the need for tire clearance in mid '69?
For both the Plymouth and Dodge the 68.5 fender was "pushed up" and the "flange on the right side hood was cut away for the greater tire travel". (documentation given above).
The premise of the fender scoop was always as an insurance policy. You can't add stuff to the package once the homologation process is complete. Pointer was told to develop something that would not hurt the overall package.
Then, why were they not concerned about the hood? Why was it not mentioned or modified for "insurance" reasons? They carried EQUILL value of concern. Why would these engineers only give direction for half the cure, for a problem that was cured?
Dane
Dane
There are later pics of the #88 showing the underside of the hood bracing beaten in with a ball peen hammer. At some point, it was communicated to field modify the hood on that car.
There is a lot of information in the surviving paperwork. While it is the only written documentation remaining, I also feel it is sometimes easy to over analyze and draw conclusions that may not be there. Sometimes you end up with more questions than answers.
Quote from: Aero426 on January 26, 2013, 11:08:42 PM
There are later pics of the #88 showing the underside of the hood bracing beaten in with a ball peen hammer. At some point, it was communicated to field modify the hood on that car.
There is a lot of information in the surviving paperwork. While it is the only written documentation remaining, I also feel it is sometimes easy to over analyze and draw conclusions that may not be there. Sometimes you end up with more questions than answers.
The documentation clearly says that beating a car to avoid this issue
"could not be done for a race", Because it was against the rules, that is why they corrected the problem with "higher rate" torsion bars that were available July 4th of 68.
I would like to see those pics of the 88 showing this...
Dane
They beat the inner hood bracing on the #88. Inner hood bracing is fair game. It does not affect the outer panel.
pics?
Not directed at you. But I will say again how annoying it is that we already have a recent TEN PAGE thread on the topic with the photos you want to see already there. There is no new ground being broken here. Only four new pages of the same back and forth.
If you look at the passenger side mechanic, to the right of his nose, you can see where the inner panel was beaten in. 3/24/70 at Talladega.
(http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=85143.0;attach=160578;image)
And where the arrow is. This is March 24, 1970.
(http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=85143.0;attach=160576;image)
This is an easy fix, and engineers did not give the correction for the hood. The Daytona hood was modified for the latch tray clearance (front ribbing eliminated), so correcting the hood would have been very easy vs handing down ballpeen hammer directions.
Again, this is not what engineers do, that is, give instruction to accommodate poor and excessive travel of suspension. That kind of defeats their purpose in making a car that is designed to win. An engineer would correct the problem, not accommodate it.
Dane
I can't see the scoop was for tire clearance because it looks like the hood edge would cut the tire before it ever came up to the fender because the vertical edge of the hood rests below the fender when shut you can see in the pic they cut the fender all the way to the top of the fender on the inside.
Those pics don't seem to help the cause- because there are sharp metal edges right next to it. Why would you want that?
I think it is an uphill battle for tire clearance without any documentation stating tire clearance. Then with documentation that states "extractors" and "Mounted above both front tires" with "3% less drag" is very hard to say these are untrue statements. Do you agree?
I disagree that we are coving the same thing. If a tire is hitting that hood - I would not want to drive that car @ 200 MPH with tires coming that close to the sharp metal edges of both the hood and fender.
Again this can be proven or disproven - I don't care who's right. The more these discussion go on the more people will have the desire to prove it.
Dane
Quote from: Daytona Guy on January 26, 2013, 11:45:56 PM
This is an easy fix, and engineers did not give the correction for the hood. The Daytona hood was modified for the latch tray clearance (front ribbing eliminated), so correcting the hood would have been very easy vs handing down ballpeen hammer directions.
Again, this is not what engineers do, that is, give instruction to accommodate poor and excessive travel of suspension. That kind of defeats their purpose in making a car that is designed to win. An engineer would correct the problem, not accommodate it.
Dane
Not sure where you are going with this. Whoever said the wheel travel on the #88 was poor and excessive? We may not be able to say exactly when the hood was beaten in. But the setup on the car was ideal for handling whether it was at Talladega in '69 or when they set the record in '70. But the hood bracing sticks down below the top of the fender. If you are suggesting they modify the street hood bracing, I don't think that makes sense. Lots of little things happened on the race cars that have absolutely nothing to do with the street cars. Note the hood on the #88 has been extended one inch and a lip added to the front edge.
Quote from: Indygenerallee on January 26, 2013, 11:58:00 PM
I can't see the scoop was for tire clearance because it looks like the hood edge would cut the tire before it ever came up to the fender because the vertical edge of the hood rests below the fender when shut you can see in the pic they cut the fender all the way to the top of the fender on the inside.
The fender has a metal bead of bar round stock running along the inside edge.
The hood edge rests very close to, or below the fender.
The inner hood bracing is below the hood edge.
Quote from: Daytona Guy on January 26, 2013, 11:45:56 PM
Again, this is not what engineers do, that is, give instruction to accommodate poor and excessive travel of suspension. That kind of defeats their purpose in making a car that is designed to win. An engineer would correct the problem, not accommodate it.
an engineer not facing a deadline would. these fellows were in a bit of a hurry.
Old material from the old thread.
Here is a very nice shot of the underside of the real #88 fender scoop area (and inside edge with bar stock). Metal flanges on sides are turned up so the scoop can be riveted on. You can see the riveting on the outside edge. This photo was taken by engineer George Wallace in 2001 on a visit to see the car. Also note the fender has minimal flaring on the wheel arch. Minimal flaring = fast!
(http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=85143.0;attach=161501;image)
Quote from: Aero426 on January 27, 2013, 12:03:26 AM
Quote from: Daytona Guy on January 26, 2013, 11:45:56 PM
This is an easy fix, and engineers did not give the correction for the hood. The Daytona hood was modified for the latch tray clearance (front ribbing eliminated), so correcting the hood would have been very easy vs handing down ballpeen hammer directions.
Again, this is not what engineers do, that is, give instruction to accommodate poor and excessive travel of suspension. That kind of defeats their purpose in making a car that is designed to win. An engineer would correct the problem, not accommodate it.
Dane
Not sure where you are going with this. Whoever said the wheel travel on the #88 was poor and excessive? We may not be able to say exactly when the hood was beaten in. But the setup on the car was ideal for handling whether it was at Talladega in '69 or when they set the record in '70. But the hood bracing sticks down below the top of the fender. If you are suggesting they modify the street hood bracing, I don't think that makes sense. Lots of little things happened on the race cars that have absolutely nothing to do with the street cars. Note the hood on the #88 has been extended one inch and a lip added to the front edge.
The documentation said that the suspension was traveling a greater distance than anticipated. I called it excessive. They modified it on the track for testing purposes, but the solution was the torsion bars. Again, accommodating the greater travel of the suspension was not the goal, but correcting the problem was. They corrected it by July 4th 1968.
Quote from: Aero426 on January 27, 2013, 12:15:15 AM
Old material from the old thread.
Here is a very nice shot of the underside of the real #88 fender scoop area (and inside edge with bar stock). Metal flanges on sides are turned up so the scoop can be riveted on. You can see the riveting on the outside edge. This photo was taken by engineer George Wallace in 2001 on a visit to see the car. Also note the fender has minimal flaring on the wheel arch. Minimal flaring = fast!
(http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=85143.0;attach=161501;image)
That picture makes it more scarry. All I see is a sharp edge. If that tire is hitting the hood, then it is hitting that edge. The tire should not be hitting anything. Why would tou want your tire doing that?
Would you want your tire even having the possibility of hitting that @ 200 MPH
(http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/7599/picture1kqc.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/picture1kqc.jpg/)
Quote from: Daytona Guy on January 27, 2013, 12:23:06 AM
The documentation said that the suspension was traveling a greater distance than anticipated. I called it excessive. They modified it on the track for testing purposes, but the solution was the torsion bars. Again, accommodating the greater travel of the suspension was not the goal, but correcting the problem was. They corrected it by July 4th 1968.
I don't think that what happened in '68 relates directly to the #88. When George talks about the suspension travel in 68, it was not that the suspension was different from before. But because they cheated and shaved the 2" off the forward part of the rockers, this put the top of the fender closer to the tire. The #88 was not built this same way.
First - I didn't even read half of this thread and the whole idea of jumping to another thread that I didn't even know about.....
Sheesh!
To me... its pretty clear that 3/8ths model testing is solely about aero and nothing to do with final fit finish OR race trim. So, nothing in the 3/8ths would have been about "tire clearance" - it would all have been about aero. The "exhausters" can also serve aero EVEN if they were not cut out - only by changing the airflow into the A piller. i.e. think of it as a two step - the scoops bump the air up before it hits the A piller - lending to a more dynamic air foil effect.
Now get yourself to actual testing. The first thing to realize is that tires on a race car DON'T track flat - because of camber - they'll run on their edges UNLESS they are on a banked track. So the supposed tire clearance, may ONLY have been talking about a 2" by 2" clearance spot. As a result, the fender scoops i.e. exhausters become the NATURAL spot for the clearance i.e. the location of the scoops were then matched to tire position in final design.
Finally, at 200 mph on a 33 degree bank - that car is going to compress down (at least that's what you want it to do in a race) AND it will compress down (reduce lift) by venting under car air. For example, the front splitter today is designed to keep air out from under the car.
So.... frankly I think EVERYONE IS RIGHT! Never designed as tire clearance. Adapted for tire clearance following mule testing. Produced with the scouring for the cutouts, because they thought they had too.
Quote from: rainbow4jd on January 27, 2013, 12:52:28 AM
Now get yourself to actual testing. The first thing to realize is that tires on a race car DON'T track flat - because of camber - they'll run on their edges UNLESS they are on a banked track. So the supposed tire clearance, may ONLY have been talking about a 2" by 2" clearance spot. As a result, the fender scoops i.e. exhausters become the NATURAL spot for the clearance i.e. the location of the scoops were then matched to tire position in final design.
This is the way the scoops were always explained.
(My next few posts are copied and pasted from the old thread.) http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,85143.150.html
In an attempt to load the right front suspension, I jacked the left rear of the #7 car up in the air. This transfers that weight to the right front corner. The result of this is that by looking at the lower control arm (bottom photo) being within one inch of the unibody the right front suspension is "not far" from being maxed out.
(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll56/Aero426/Ayers/PA118215.jpg)
(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll56/Aero426/Ayers/PA118216.jpg)
(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll56/Aero426/Ayers/PA118223.jpg)
Look at the angle of the upper control arm. I have some weight on that corner.
(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll56/Aero426/Ayers/PA118224.jpg)
dane, are you visualizing the tire traveling straight up? keep in mind two factors that come into play. the steep track banking would place all of the load on the right side of the car, moving the suspension on that side upward (and toward the area you highlighted in the last photo). at the same time, centrifugal force would try to "throw" the body towards the outside of the turn, which would (a) move the left fender away from the left tire, and (b) move the right tire closer to the right fender. this would occur at the outer edge of the fender, not the area highlighted above. suspension travel is regulated with the larger/stiffer components, which would limit the amount of upward travel enough to keep the tire away from the sharp inner edge.
*** rainbow posted the same scenario as i was typing this, and doug's photos are adding a visual reference to both our descriptions. the tire would hit the outer fender area, not the side nearest the hood***
The result of this is that with the suspension loaded, there are three inches between the top of the tire and the closest piece of metal (inner fender and hood). It's not even close to factoring into tire clearance relative to the scoop. The outer portion of the tire has one inch between itself and the inside of the fender lip.
(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll56/Aero426/Ayers/PA118225.jpg)
(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll56/Aero426/Ayers/PA118226.jpg)
It can be debated as to whether side of the fender is an interference issue, or not. Assuming there was enough travel, it's my belief that the tire would also hit the outside of the fender before it got to the scoop area.
BTW, this is what Chrysler referred to as a bubbled fender. Bubbled fenders refer to the SIDE, not the top. They did not recommend this treatment as shown on the #6 car for aero purposes. Look how smooth the Petty cars are on the sides of the fenders. Same for the #88. They wanted the airflow to stay attached on the side of the car.
Quote from: held1823 on January 27, 2013, 01:05:12 AM
dane, are you visualizing the tire traveling straight up? keep in mind two factors that come into play. the steep track banking would place all of the load on the right side of the car, moving the suspension on that side upward (and toward the area you highlighted in the last photo). at the same time, centrifugal force would try to "throw" the body towards the outside of the turn, which would (a) move the left fender away from the left tire, and (b) move the right tire closer to the right fender. this would occur at the outer edge of the fender, not the area highlighted above. suspension travel is regulated with the larger/stiffer components, which would limit the amount of upward travel enough to keep the tire away from the sharp inner edge.
*** rainbow posted the same scenario as i was typing this, and doug's photos are adding a visual reference to both our descriptions. the tire would hit the outer fender area, not the side nearest the hood***
I know - i'm just using the doc - about the tire hitting the hood and fender. I see more of the problem actually being the upper (outer) side fender. We are in agreement on this...
Dane
I think it is an uphill battle for tire clearance without any documentation stating tire clearance as the reason for the "extractors". Then with documentation that states "extractors" and "Mounted above both front tires" with "3% less drag" is very hard to say these are untrue statements. Do you agree?
Quote from: Daytona Guy on January 27, 2013, 01:54:31 AM
I think it is an uphill battle for tire clearance without any documentation stating tire clearance as the reason for the "extractors". Then with documentation that states "extractors" and "Mounted above both front tires" with "3% less drag" is very hard to say these are untrue statements. Do you agree?
:iagree: :2thumbs:
Quote from: Daytona Guy on January 27, 2013, 01:54:31 AM
I think it is an uphill battle for tire clearance without any documentation stating tire clearance as the reason for the "extractors". Then with documentation that states "extractors" and "Mounted above both front tires" with "3% less drag" is very hard to say these are untrue statements. Do you agree?
I agree too, It is an uphill battle for the tire clearance question as Chrysler tricked NASCAR into thinking it was an extractor ONLY. The conversations between the guys in engineering likely will never be on Chrysler's original documents. What is so awesome that these guys all have come out to the DSAC and WW National Meets. They laid it to rest for some of us 35 years ago. I don't doubt them. No matter what test was done. It was that "meeting" after Pointer's first drawing. Engineering saw the drawing, Engineering (Wallace) verbally said work on the fender top on drivers side for some clearance. Pointer took it further than Engineering wanted and made extractors. They are extractors. But the primary reason for it was clearance on the RF. Like Wallace said. It would look dumb with just the right one. Wallace has always stated that. We didn't care what Pointer did with it. It was his expertise....... That is how we got extractors. :brickwall:
Quote from: odcics2 on January 26, 2013, 09:26:31 AM
Production Birds had no scoop hole but the race cars did. Of course the customers complained and there was a service bulletin put out to cut them.
But to qualify that hole for Nascar in 1970 - ALL of them would have had to have holes.
So, that theory has holes in it!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/quote] :rofl: If I got your point right. The production cars were not required. But they did it on anyways for 69. Wallace did said after the Daytona was given the OK by GN, they would not be mandatory on the production model.
Re: Look we're famous
« Reply #79 on: January 26, 2013, 08:05:01 PM »
It says they were getting the same numbers on the full size cars - so this tells me they were testing full size cars, does it not?
The jury is still out for me :)
Dane
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/quote]That comment was referring to the full size E-Series (500) and the 3/8 E-Series scale car. Test numbers were identical. So no full size wind tunnel testing was done with the F-Series (Daytona.) All wind tunnel test were done with the 3/8 car only as the notes say.
Quote from: Daytona Guy on January 26, 2013, 09:05:01 PM
The e, f or g-series tests were not limited to one wind tunnel model, were they? To me it would be ridiculous to do a test on a car like the "little model" for fender exhausters, that does not have moving tires at the appropriate speeds, does not have an engine, or the variables needed to perform a scientific test that the extractor would be tested for. That would be insulting. The jury is still out for me :)
Dane
All E and F series test were limited to one 3/8 wind tunnel model. I think Petty has the 3/8 G-Series car. I'll have to ask Jim Radke/Joe Machado on why WW didn't grab that one too. That is what is so neat about this issue. It did have a motor with a fan connected simulate pulling air through the front grill area. Wallace had said that it really didn't make any difference as the fan was just to keep the engine from over heating during pit stops and at race speeds the grill opening was enough (barley) to keep them cool at speed. Less grill opening = more aero. Is it still an uphill battle for us Clearance Birthers? :smilielol:
QuoteIs it still an uphill battle for us Clearance Birthers? :smilielol:
Maybe because original Chrysler documentation supports 3% less drag and the clearance side of the coin has zip, zilch, nada in their corner... :nana:
like i've said before, i'm not sure which theory i support. both sides have merit, and the lack of any "official clearance documentation" is countered by decades of first hand accounts from the men who designed the car. it's not like they are recollecting this clearance theory, forty years after the fact. they have stated it from the very beginning. if anything, one of their stories has changed, with a "wink, wink", years after telling it differently.
there is a possible quirk with the handwritten document posted a few pages back. both times the exhausters are mentioned, there is a difference in the handwriting from the other lines near it. there is a slant to the writing, much like a left-handed person would have. was one of the enginners left handed? if so, which one? while the handwritten version is certainly genuine, was this report ever redone on a typewriter?
another original chrysler document supports aircraft-type fresh air intakes for the hood, along with larger wheel openings.
yet another chrysler document supports the idea of 100% hemi-powered c500's. should one have missed the second document, they would not believe a 440-powered c500 existed.
Thanks for those pics Aero426, my whole opinion on the scoops is it was to let out any trapped air in the engine bay because lets face it at 200 MPH that opening on the nosecone may not look big but there is a ton of air being forced through to cool the radiator, the stock cars had no inner fenders like the production cars so thats alot of air trapped under the front causing drag, I believe that the scoops were placed to evacuate any trapped air under the hood and also being made the way they were would it not also create a vaccum at high speed near the opening of the scoop helping airflow through the radiator in effect sucking more cool air in??
Quote from: Indygenerallee on January 28, 2013, 01:29:11 PM
Thanks for those pics Aero426, my whole opinion on the scoops is it was to let out any trapped air in the engine bay because lets face it at 200 MPH that opening on the nosecone may not look big but there is a ton of air being forced through to cool the radiator, the stock cars had no inner fenders like the production cars so thats alot of air trapped under the front causing drag, I believe that the scoops were placed to evacuate any trapped air under the hood and also being made the way they were would it not also create a vaccum at high speed near the opening of the scoop helping airflow through the radiator in effect sucking more cool air in??
This can't be denied.
Not to make this a religeouse issue, so please don't go there, but as a minister this is what we deal with all the time with scripture (the Bible). What document is authentic, what is verbal tradition, how many writers (in this case - engineers) report the same events, historical context, and so forth. The Logos (writen word - or Log) carries a lot of weight vs the "Rema" (the spoken word). If it is nowhere found in the Logos, and only in the Rema, then the Rema is more likely to be flawed. Yet in this case, there are only a couple of logos recorded, and that too is of concern. In the scriptures - Bibleon (Lat. for "The Book") there are 100s of Logos writen across cultures, and languages to use to get the harmonized (inspired) Book we have today.
The next step is, can these two witnesses be harmonized, the Log, and the Rema. Notice how both sides draw their lines? Can they be harmonized? They can, and one person in this thread has. It does not make it true, but a great effort and very well may be right :). The last point is the scientific look. Using God created physics and geometry that are within themselves "laws" or "facts" 2+2=4 every time. . This is where the bible is an exception (miracles) that go beyond the bounds of limited dimension of observable science (dark matter). Unless one of these two dilemmas defies known laws of science (that even Atheists believe in :) we are left to proving the "Exhausters" with the laws of science. Even then, the aero guys may have stumbled on to this because of other reasons. After all the lightbulb was an intentional accident.
The more we took into this in a fun way - the more truth may come out. So keep posting untill we test this. If the tire can't hit the top of the fender because of limited travel, and evey variable can be duplicated, then that may be definitive.
Dane
Sent from an iPhone - with no glasses - sorry if it not good eng
Quote from: odcics2 on January 28, 2013, 05:43:29 AM
QuoteIs it still an uphill battle for us Clearance Birthers? :smilielol:
Maybe because original Chrysler documentation supports 3% less drag and the clearance side of the coin has zip, zilch, nada in their corner... :nana:
:lol: I agree, Yes there is documents on the exhausters. That is what Pointer called them. Were they not to test it? That is the thing. He was told to push up the RF fender first. A verbal. Hey since we can modify the new body. Lets try that now. As Wallace said before. We could not modify the fender top on the 500 so we had to modify the suspension. We could on the Daytona. So Pointer designed exhausters. Double affect with no aero penalties. Pointer didn't come up with the exhauster thought till after he was told to fix the fender. That is exactly how they tell it. :flame: :lol:
Quote from: Indygenerallee on January 28, 2013, 01:29:11 PM
Thanks for those pics Aero426, my whole opinion on the scoops is it was to let out any trapped air in the engine bay because lets face it at 200 MPH that opening on the nosecone may not look big but there is a ton of air being forced through to cool the radiator, the stock cars had no inner fenders like the production cars so thats alot of air trapped under the front causing drag, I believe that the scoops were placed to evacuate any trapped air under the hood and also being made the way they were would it not also create a vaccum at high speed near the opening of the scoop helping airflow through the radiator in effect sucking more cool air in??
Agree, they do let out engine heat on a GN car. But that was not the original purpose. There was plenty of room for the engine air too leave the bay. No wheel wells. Big front spoiler and the forward edge of the fenders and vallance were to be out past the tire. Look at the 3 holes on the nose. Look in the engine bay of any GN car. Acres of room for air to escape. The pressure problem was not there. They put in a motor with a fan and it had no affect. Wallace said that. That too is why the exhauster 3% seem like a very high number. But that is besides the point on the order of how the engineers said it happen. Even if they put exhaust fans to aid in sucking out more air and put hot surface sickers don't touch on the fender vents. :lol:
Letting air out was addiquit before the Exhausters, but was it efficient? The aero engineers are on record stating their biggest struggle is the air that is being "chewed up" under the car and out the sides. Anytime you can get air to flow over the car vs out the side or under the car is an advantage.
The little test cars did not have moving wheels at the scaled speeds that effect things either. Their concern was before the Daytona was a concept. 68.5 - was that not before the testing of the f-series cars? If the fender scoops were a thought even if they were only for tire clearance purposes, then where did they get the data for them not effecting drag? They had to be tested somewhere... They where not tested in a wind tunnel on any of the E,F or G cars.
RED MULE CAR!!!!! That is where the parts were developed 1:1 scale..... :cheers:
My understanding of how things worked was that the concepts tested on the 3/8 scale cars were proved out full scale.
High speed test car. July 1969. Stuff that looked promising in the wind tunnel, combined with things that looked promising on the red mule car were final tested and proved out on this car.