DodgeCharger.com Forum

This is a long running issue with me, but let's see where everyone's at on this subject...

:argue: :soapbox: :poke: :spank: :nutkick: :pullinghair:  :brickwall:  :shruggy:  :icon_smile_big:  :lol:  :popcrn:

I think they're there to reduce lift due to higher pressures under/inside the wheel wells, and thus increase front traction.

If they were ducted to the engine bay, I'd say they're there to reduce engine bay air pressures and allow for more airflow through the radiator.

It allows the HOT temperatures to escape, generated from the tires that moving at VERY high speeds. 150-200 mph
That's a fact...Jack.  :cheers:

They were open to the wheel well to help cool the brakes.  :Twocents:

Quote from: Mr.Woolery on October 05, 2011, 07:05:45 PM
I think they're there to reduce lift due to higher pressures under/inside the wheel wells, and thus increase front traction.

:iagree:

My understanding is tire clearance, simple................

I believe the document for this can be found on the aerowarriors site but as stated it was to reduce drag by 3%.

Hitail  :2thumbs:

Did the race cars have the screen in the fenders under the scoops? I thought it was for additional tire clearence when the cars bottomed out in the corners due to the additional downforce?  :-\

Quote from: FJ5WING on October 05, 2011, 08:25:20 PM
Did the race cars have the screen in the fenders under the scoops? I thought it was for additional tire clearence when the cars bottomed out in the corners due to the additional downforce?  :-\

As far as I know, no... The race cars didn't have the screen.. The screen was a street-production modification. Now, I'm not the one who pontificates the gospel.   :icon_smile_big:

Reduced drag! Stop and think about the idea of tire clearance.
How wide is a fender scoop compared to the width of a stock car tire.
You could not get a street width tire covered by a fender scoop let along a racing tire.

Hitail

Quote from: FJ5WING on October 05, 2011, 08:25:20 PM
Did the race cars have the screen in the fenders under the scoops? I thought it was for additional tire clearance when the cars bottomed out in the corners due to the additional downforce?  :-\

The right one was for tire clearance on the race cars.  The tire was hitting the top of the right front fender in testing.    The left one was just to match the right for looks.   That is the ONLY reason as per George Wallace telling me this on our drive to Talladega in 04.  Oh my the story's from him..   They would have to kill me if I relayed them..      

Quote from: hitail on October 05, 2011, 08:31:23 PM
Reduced drag! Stop and think about the idea of tire clearance.
How wide is a fender scoop compared to the width of a stock car tire.
You could not get a street width tire covered by a fender scoop let along a racing tire.

Hitail

Take a look at a race Daytona and how the scoop was mounted to the fender and you will see how much more room it actually gave them.     

For the Aerowarriors web site.

Hitail

Quote from: hitail on October 05, 2011, 08:37:48 PM
For the Aerowarriors web site.

Hitail

Did I miss something?    There is nothing about the scoops.  Just the bulge on the side of the fender.

Isaac's fender

Just below that line. exhausters (fender scoops) mounted over both front tires. Drag reduced 3%.

Hitail

just curious as to why they are referred to as "exhausters"...why not "less draggers"?  :smilielol:
they seem to have made a big impact on the drag numbers.  :scratchchin:

Quote from: hitail on October 05, 2011, 08:44:41 PM
Just below that line. exhausters (fender scoops) mounted over both front tires. Drag reduced 3%.

Hitail

LOL,  Got it.   So they did double duty..   At least the right one..     

Quote from: FJ5WING on October 05, 2011, 08:25:20 PM
Did the race cars have the screen in the fenders under the scoops? I thought it was for additional tire clearence when the cars bottomed out in the corners due to the additional downforce?  :-\

No screans on the race cars.   The street birds were not even cut out.

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 05, 2011, 08:51:35 PM

Quote from: FJ5WING on October 05, 2011, 08:25:20 PM
Did the race cars have the screen in the fenders under the scoops? I thought it was for additional tire clearence when the cars bottomed out in the corners due to the additional downforce?  :-\

No screans on the race cars.   The street birds were not even cut out.

did I give the impression I was referring to Superbirds? :shruggy: I thought we were discussing Daytonas? :icon_smile_wink:

Quote from: hemi68charger on October 05, 2011, 08:23:21 PM
My understanding is tire clearance, simple................

Read an article many years ago (80's?) that said the same thing - clearance.  According to the interviewee, who worked on the project,  when they needed to cover the hole they grabbed the not yet in production 1970 scoops of the shelf.

A previous discussion:

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?topic=36288.10 (http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?topic=36288.10)

More good reading:

http://www.aerowarriors.com/tsots.html (http://www.aerowarriors.com/tsots.html)

Thanks for the past post. NOT for tire clearance.  :brickwall:

Hitail

Quote from: FJ5WING on October 05, 2011, 08:53:29 PM

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 05, 2011, 08:51:35 PM

Quote from: FJ5WING on October 05, 2011, 08:25:20 PM
Did the race cars have the screen in the fenders under the scoops? I thought it was for additional tire clearence when the cars bottomed out in the corners due to the additional downforce?  :-\

No screans on the race cars.   The street birds were not even cut out.

did I give the impression I was referring to Superbirds? :shruggy: I thought we were discussing Daytonas? :icon_smile_wink:

The thread started out,  "What is the purpose of the scoops?"   Birds have them too.. :nana:

they werent there to allow for tire clearance. the tires would be shredded on the edges, or grated on the screens. they did have screens, as items would be picked up and fired through the holes, had they not been screened. there's no reason to screen them, other than that. if you look at the tire on a race car, and collapsed the suspension on it, the tire isnt going to fit inside the hole anyways. i believe the tire story was just some BS created by chrysler, to hide the fact they were getting downforce from allowing the wheelwells to vent. air pressure builds under the car, and the front wheelwells are no exception. it is a simple tool, to aid in downforce, nothing more really. .02 cents  :nana:

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 05, 2011, 09:02:19 PM

Quote from: FJ5WING on October 05, 2011, 08:53:29 PM

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 05, 2011, 08:51:35 PM

Quote from: FJ5WING on October 05, 2011, 08:25:20 PM
Did the race cars have the screen in the fenders under the scoops? I thought it was for additional tire clearence when the cars bottomed out in the corners due to the additional downforce?  :-\

No screans on the race cars.   The street birds were not even cut out.

did I give the impression I was referring to Superbirds? :shruggy: I thought we were discussing Daytonas? :icon_smile_wink:

The thread started out,  "What is the purpose of the scoops?"   Birds have them too.. :nana:

youre absolutly right  :2thumbs:..........for some reason I went right to the Daytonas. :P

I'm certainly no expert on wing cars and hiding a competitive advantage sounds very plausible,,,, in 1969 - 1970.  But "it ain't the launch codes" so why not come clean a decade or two later?   :shruggy:

Quote from: Golden-Arm on October 05, 2011, 09:07:38 PM
they werent there to allow for tire clearance. the tires would be shredded on the edges, or grated on the screens. they did have screens, as items would be picked up and fired through the holes, had they not been screened. there's no reason to screen them, other than that. if you look at the tire on a race car, and collapsed the suspension on it, the tire isnt going to fit inside the hole anyways. i believe the tire story was just some BS created by chrysler, to hide the fact they were getting downforce from allowing the wheelwells to vent. air pressure builds under the car, and the front wheelwells are no exception. it is a simple tool, to aid in downforce, nothing more really. .02 cents  :nana:

Hey Thomas  :eyes:  No screens on the race cars.  Lets get that straight.    Tire is spinning in a forward motion.  Objects do hit the vent.  If that were the case, they would make them run mud flaps too.    The whole tire doesn't need to stick through the fender.  It was just rubbing the fender top in a small patch.   The aero aid was a benni..        

Ok, short of reading every peice of literature ever written, where in the link does it explain the "reason"? I see plenty of "what if's" and the fact the Chrysler really never said conclusively why? But, everything points to tire clearance issues, thus reducing the potential for tire rubbing at high speeds and load. The race cars had bigger holes, not the small ones like the street versions, according to what I read................ Maybe we can get Tim to pull one of his scoops off #71 and check it out.....  :icon_smile_big:

conspiracy theories aside tire clearance is the only reason according to George Wallace or Larry Rathgeib.  I've heard the story more than once from them, and even under pretty intense grilling they stick to the clearance story.  If it was something else, why would they keep it a secret now?

side note:  GWB knocked down the twin towers, and if you play a $20 bill backward on a turntable it gives instructions for the Masonic handshake.

Regardless of the end result of the scoops, the ORIGINAL problem encountered was on the '68 1/2 Charger race car.    They did have a legitimate tire rub problem on the right front of that car.    It was real.  That was where the idea that they MIGHT need the scoops came from.   Read the two excerpts posted here.

Paragraph continued...   Note the creation of a blister on top of the fender and cutting away part of the hood.   This 68 1/2 car was extremely low.  

This piece of the story is fact, not some conspiracy theory.  

Quote from: hemi68charger on October 05, 2011, 09:37:20 PM
But, everything points to tire clearance issues

Quote from: pettybird on October 05, 2011, 09:53:54 PM
conspiracy theories aside tire clearance is the only reason according to George Wallace or Larry Rathgeib.

Other than the recollections of these two gentlemen (admittedly important), what other evidence is there for tire clearance being the reason for fender scoops?  Tire clearance can be obtained with far less disturbance to the contour.  If you fit the outboard edge of a tire at a "best fit" into the larger race opening, it might protrude 1/2 before contacting the sharp un-radiused edges of the opening, so why the tall scoop... and no radii, especially on the forward edge of the opening?

Superbird brochure:

Stuart is gonna like the "telestrator"... :lol:

Quote from: hemi68charger on October 05, 2011, 09:37:20 PM
Ok, short of reading every peice of literature ever written, where in the link does it explain the "reason"? I see plenty of "what if's" and the fact the Chrysler really never said conclusively why? But, everything points to tire clearance issues, thus reducing the potential for tire rubbing at high speeds and load. The race cars had bigger holes, not the small ones like the street versions, according to what I read................ Maybe we can get Tim to pull one of his scoops off #71 and check it out.....  :icon_smile_big:

Here is my "reason for believing."  This comes from George Wallace 2004 as we are driving in my Daytona to Talladega.     George ask me while he pointing at the right fender vent.  Do you know why that is there?   I said,  yes, tire clearance.   George's reply was good..   George pointed at the left vent and said,  Do you know why that is there?  I said, clearance.  He said, no.  It would look dumb with one.   Then he said,  the Ford guys thought it was a vent.      But leave it to Doug to put the final nail on the coffin...   :2thumbs: :2thumbs:  Here is Mr. Wallace and I that very day.    Awesome guy.

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 06, 2011, 12:05:02 AM

Quote from: hemi68charger on October 05, 2011, 09:37:20 PM
Ok, short of reading every peice of literature ever written, where in the link does it explain the "reason"? I see plenty of "what if's" and the fact the Chrysler really never said conclusively why? But, everything points to tire clearance issues, thus reducing the potential for tire rubbing at high speeds and load. The race cars had bigger holes, not the small ones like the street versions, according to what I read................ Maybe we can get Tim to pull one of his scoops off #71 and check it out.....  :icon_smile_big:

Here is my "reason for believing."  This comes from George Wallace 2004 as we are driving in my Daytona to Talladega.     George ask me while he pointing at the right fender vent.  Do you know why that is there?   I said,  yes, tire clearance.   George's reply was good..   George pointed at the left vent and said,  Do you know why that is there?  I said, clearance.  He said, no.  It would look dumb with one.   Then he said,  the Ford guys thought it was a vent.      But leave it to Doug to put the final nail on the coffin...   :2thumbs: :2thumbs:  Here is Mr. Wallace and I that very day.    Awesome guy.

I understand your feeling Sean, but not knowing either gentleman, my approach is purely analytical.  The low speed and trans-sonic aerodynamics courses that I took to obtain my BS Aerospace Engineering degree make it clear to me that it did function as an air extractor, whatever the original design intent was.  My 30+ year Aerospace Engineering experience, including designing three air extractors on aircraft, makes it difficult to see how it effectively functioned to significantly increase tire clearance.

We can disagree while understanding each other's reasoning... :cheers:

Quote from: hemi68charger on October 05, 2011, 08:23:21 PM
My understanding is tire clearance, simple................

If you look at the test mule this is clearly not the purpose of the scoops. I'm on an iPad so I can't post a pic - if someone has the pic of the mule post it.

Dane

Quote from: FJ5WING on October 05, 2011, 08:25:20 PM
Did the race cars have the screen in the fenders under the scoops? I thought it was for additional tire clearence when the cars bottomed out in the corners due to the additional downforce?  :-\

They bottom out on the frame so the tire can't reach the top of the fender.

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 06, 2011, 12:31:32 AM

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 06, 2011, 12:05:02 AM

Quote from: hemi68charger on October 05, 2011, 09:37:20 PM
Ok, short of reading every peice of literature ever written, where in the link does it explain the "reason"? I see plenty of "what if's" and the fact the Chrysler really never said conclusively why? But, everything points to tire clearance issues, thus reducing the potential for tire rubbing at high speeds and load. The race cars had bigger holes, not the small ones like the street versions, according to what I read................ Maybe we can get Tim to pull one of his scoops off #71 and check it out.....  :icon_smile_big:

Here is my "reason for believing."  This comes from George Wallace 2004 as we are driving in my Daytona to Talladega.     George ask me while he pointing at the right fender vent.  Do you know why that is there?   I said,  yes, tire clearance.   George's reply was good..   George pointed at the left vent and said,  Do you know why that is there?  I said, clearance.  He said, no.  It would look dumb with one.   Then he said,  the Ford guys thought it was a vent.      But leave it to Doug to put the final nail on the coffin...   :2thumbs: :2thumbs:  Here is Mr. Wallace and I that very day.    Awesome guy.

I understand your feeling Sean, but not knowing either gentleman, my approach is purely analytical.  The low speed and trans-sonic aerodynamics courses that I took to obtain my BS Aerospace Engineering degree make it clear to me that it did function as an air extractor, whatever the original design intent was.  My 30+ year Aerospace Engineering experience, including designing three air extractors on aircraft, makes it difficult to see how it effectively functioned to significantly increase tire clearance.

We can disagree while understanding each other's reasoning... :cheers:

:2thumbs:    You got it.  It did function as a air extractor.  Totally.  I just think it being left open as a vent was an added benefit.  The original intent was to stop the tire from rubbing on hard bumps at speed.  After Daytona in Feb of 70 I don't think tire rub was ever an issue due to the restrictor plate.  So after that.  Defiantly just a vent in my opinion.    They were having a problem on the right front with rub in 68 as per the note Doug posted.      In your defence,   If anyone has ever driven a Daytona in the rain knows how much air and water comes out of those (things.)   Also, Larry Rathgeb was staffed with former aerospace engineers like Bob Marcell and John Pointer.

Quote from: Daytona Guy on October 06, 2011, 01:11:56 AM

Quote from: FJ5WING on October 05, 2011, 08:25:20 PM
Did the race cars have the screen in the fenders under the scoops? I thought it was for additional tire clearence when the cars bottomed out in the corners due to the additional downforce?  :-\

They bottom out on the frame so the tire can't reach the top of the fender.

You don't ever want to bottom out in a race car at speed on hard bumps. That is a big fat never too.   That is one good way to break spindles..

Quote from: Aero426 on October 05, 2011, 10:11:24 PM
Regardless of the end result of the scoops, the ORIGINAL problem encountered was on the '68 1/2 Charger race car.    They did have a legitimate tire rub problem on the right front of that car.    It was real.  That was where the idea that they MIGHT need the scoops came from.   Read the two excerpts posted here.

Notice it hit the hood too - this is corrected in the suspension - not the scoop.

Well the HORSE(s) said,  Tire clearance.....    :RantExplode:  :lol: :lol:

Quote from: Daytona Guy on October 06, 2011, 01:18:22 AM

Quote from: Aero426 on October 05, 2011, 10:11:24 PM
Regardless of the end result of the scoops, the ORIGINAL problem encountered was on the '68 1/2 Charger race car.    They did have a legitimate tire rub problem on the right front of that car.    It was real.  That was where the idea that they MIGHT need the scoops came from.   Read the two excerpts posted here.

Notice it hit the hood too - this is corrected in the suspension - not the scoop.

Yes they did for the 68.  They could not modify the fender top.    Then came the Daytona with WAY WAY more downforce..   They were able to modify the fender top if the street car had it.    

F Series Charger Wind Tunnel Test Report...

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 06, 2011, 12:05:02 AM

Quote from: hemi68charger on October 05, 2011, 09:37:20 PM
Ok, short of reading every peice of literature ever written, where in the link does it explain the "reason"? I see plenty of "what if's" and the fact the Chrysler really never said conclusively why? But, everything points to tire clearance issues, thus reducing the potential for tire rubbing at high speeds and load. The race cars had bigger holes, not the small ones like the street versions, according to what I read................ Maybe we can get Tim to pull one of his scoops off #71 and check it out.....  :icon_smile_big:

Here is my "reason for believing."  This comes from George Wallace 2004 as we are driving in my Daytona to Talladega.     George ask me while he pointing at the right fender vent.  Do you know why that is there?   I said,  yes, tire clearance.   George's reply was good..   George pointed at the left vent and said,  Do you know why that is there?  I said, clearance.  He said, no.  It would look dumb with one.   Then he said,  the Ford guys thought it was a vent.      But leave it to Doug to put the final nail on the coffin...   :2thumbs: :2thumbs:  Here is Mr. Wallace and I that very day.    Awesome guy.

Yeap, George is an awesome guy. Had the privilege of chatting with him on pit row back in '04 at Talladega. What's mentioned here comes straight from the horses mouth and IS the only LOGICAL explanation. Tire clearance, tire clearance, tire clearance....................... That's my final answer.......  Next........  :icon_smile_big:

I firmly believe the 'Birds don't have the holes cut out of the fenders just because...... they could get away without the mod as long as the scoop was there. Additional mod's equal additional money....

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 06, 2011, 12:31:32 AM
but not knowing either gentleman, my approach is purely analytical. 

It's a shame you haven't met them.  They're sharp as tacks and remember the program vividly.

The #5 Bobby Unser Superbird which is described by Terry Nichels as "the biggest cheater of them all" had no fender scoops whatsoever.  

Quote from: pettybird on October 06, 2011, 07:33:24 AM

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 06, 2011, 12:31:32 AM
but not knowing either gentleman, my approach is purely analytical. 

It's a shame you haven't met them.  They're sharp as tacks and remember the program vividly.

:iagree:  Mr. Wallace had so much influence in the Hemi, TA/AAR program, NASCAR; you name it.........

 Air extractors make somesense as you see similar ones and same location except for the scoops.On high end european 200mph cars there fenders are louvred...I believe to reduce lift and air pressure under the car .The tire clearance reason has merit to.I read and heard somewhere before that nascar wingcars crew chiefs had plastic spacers under the torsion bar adjustment bolt.And after a few laps these spacers would crush down lowering the car.As they would check car height prerace and not post race.Wouldnt the fenders scoops just being there contribute to that advantage :Twocents:

Quote from: hemi68charger on October 06, 2011, 06:55:27 AM
Yeap, George is an awesome guy. Had the privilege of chatting with him on pit row back in '04 at Talladega. What's mentioned here comes straight from the horses mouth and IS the only LOGICAL explanation. Tire clearance, tire clearance, tire clearance....................... That's my final answer.......  Next........  :icon_smile_big:

:confused:  :scratchchin:

Quote from: hemi68charger on October 06, 2011, 06:55:27 AM
I firmly believe the 'Birds don't have the holes cut out of the fenders just because...... they could get away without the mod as long as the scoop was there. Additional mod's equal additional money....

More likely due to mud & debris complaints...  :Twocents:

Because they look cool??? I thought that was the reason for everything Dodge related.

The tire would hit the inside of the fender before the scoop would come into play.

Even with correct 1970 tires, they would likely hit the outside of the fenders before the scoop would be an issue.

Inside edge of fender

Quote from: Aero426 on October 06, 2011, 09:20:21 AM
The tire would hit the inside of the fender before the scoop would come into play.

Even with correct 1970 tires, they would likely hit the outside of the fenders before the scoop would be an issue.

:cheers:  :yesnod:  Good pic!  :2thumbs:

Quote from: Daytona Guy on October 06, 2011, 01:09:50 AM

Quote from: hemi68charger on October 05, 2011, 08:23:21 PM
My understanding is tire clearance, simple................

If you look at the test mule this is clearly not the purpose of the scoops. I'm on an iPad so I can't post a pic - if someone has the pic of the mule post it.

Dane

Here you go...

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 06, 2011, 09:40:41 AM

Quote from: Daytona Guy on October 06, 2011, 01:09:50 AM

Quote from: hemi68charger on October 05, 2011, 08:23:21 PM
My understanding is tire clearance, simple................

If you look at the test mule this is clearly not the purpose of the scoops. I'm on an iPad so I can't post a pic - if someone has the pic of the mule post it.

Dane

Here you go...

These pictures of a car that looks like it's standing still without any downforce. As George eluded to, the right side front is the primary load bearing corner, hence the deflection/compression of the car down on the suspension.

Not sure I understand why there's a controversy about all this, especially when Mr. Wallace mentions this and it's in the original testing literature about the top of the tire hitting the fender creating friction. If it was for ventilation, wouldn't the Fords and Mercury's have it too? I'm sure the downforce on the front of the Dodge and Plymouth with the nose, at Superspeedways, was much greater than the Talladegas and Spoilers.

I'll go sit in my corner now...........

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 06, 2011, 09:26:20 AM

Quote from: Aero426 on October 06, 2011, 09:20:21 AM
The tire would hit the inside of the fender before the scoop would come into play.

Even with correct 1970 tires, they would likely hit the outside of the fenders before the scoop would be an issue.

:cheers:  :yesnod:  Good pic!  :2thumbs:

Wrong angle though. Would need to see it more straight on to see if the tire protrudes to the edge of the fender.

This topic seems to come up from time to time, but always muddled in controversy.
After reading the post it looks like one designed intention also had another.

My question is , has anyon ever asked the MYTHBUSTERS to test this?   :icon_smile_big:
I'm sure there is a few board members who wouldn't mind using there Daytonas as test mules .
(Troy you reading this,  ;)  )

They could test both the drag and the tire hitting the fender issues, and in the end , they would be put to rest.  Not to mention getting the old Dodges back in the spotlight  :2thumbs:

Quote from: WINGIN IT on October 06, 2011, 12:47:13 PM

This topic seems to come up from time to time, but always muddled in controversy.
After reading the post it looks like one designed intention also had another.

My question is , has anyon ever asked the MYTHBUSTERS to test this?   :icon_smile_big:
I'm sure there is a few board members who wouldn't mind using there Daytonas as test mules .
(Troy you reading this,  ;)  )

They could test both the drag and the tire hitting the fender issues, and in the end , they would be put to rest.  Not to mention getting the old Dodges back in the spotlight  :2thumbs:

I'm sure I'm not the only wingcar owner who's felt it, but at 100+ mph out of turn 2 going down the backstretch hitting 125mph, I could feel my car squating. I can ONLY imagine what the downforce is like at nearly 200 mph in a real race Daytona. The tire wearing/touching problem probably isn't as apparent at tracks like Bristol and Rockingham..

Quote from: WINGIN IT on October 06, 2011, 12:47:13 PM

This topic seems to come up from time to time, but always muddled in controversy.
After reading the post it looks like one designed intention also had another.

My question is , has anyon ever asked the MYTHBUSTERS to test this?   :icon_smile_big:
I'm sure there is a few board members who wouldn't mind using there Daytonas as test mules .
(Troy you reading this,  ;)  )

They could test both the drag and the tire hitting the fender issues, and in the end , they would be put to rest.  Not to mention getting the old Dodges back in the spotlight  :2thumbs:

They can use my Daytona in a second.  :yesnod:    But with todays way better shock technology they will hot have this problem of the tire hitting.   

Here is the proper way to clear the tire.   Notice the seamless fender to scoop.  

Just a question - does anyone know how much the race tires distorted at speed.  Sitting still, the tire clearly would not fit in the scoop but at 180 mph the top of the tire should be significantly narrower due to centripetal/centrifugal forces.  It should stretch the same way top fuel slicks do only not as dramatically.

All this has been very interesting to me. I still hold to my understanding that they are for venting and here is why... my 2 cents...

If a tire is traveling that far to the point of rubbing "the top fender" (in the corners) the adjustment would be made in the suspension, not by accommodating the problem by cutting holes in the fender. If there is that much down force (I believe there was) it would not be addressed by altering the fender. The suspension would be set up for those speeds and down forces. Look at the suspension – it does not travel that for. They have stops in the suspension before it reaches that point, on the lower control arm. Simply look at the geometry of the suspension.

(http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/3869/1969test.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/695/1969test.jpg/)

I would argue that the "bubble" does not refer to the fender scoops, but is referring to "extra" bulge or flair they gave the fenders of the Daytona (the race car version) for "tire and wheel" clearance, as long as it was not too drastic or it would affect the aerodynamics of the car.

Notice the "exhausters" or "vents" are referring to the fender scoops IMHO.

(http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/7291/bubblerm.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/15/bubblerm.jpg/)

(http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/1908/200mphrun5.gif) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/560/200mphrun5.gif/)

Look at that tire (I know it is turning) but I do not see that tire hitting the top of the fender, do you? Also, if it could reach that far, it would be too close to exposed sharp steel. (I just don't buy it :) - not yet that is.

Notice on the test mule exhausters?  You do not leave that narrow of raw sharp cut steel exposed to a tire that can reach that far and shred it at high speeds. Look at how narrow this is? You are talking 4" wide at that center with exposed edges.

(http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/4784/milec.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/525/milec.jpg/)

Dane

Quote from: Aero426 on October 05, 2011, 10:11:59 PM
Paragraph continued...   Note the creation of a blister on top of the fender and cutting away part of the hood.   This 68 1/2 car was extremely low. 

This piece of the story is fact, not some conspiracy theory. 

(http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/3770/cda12.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/805/cda12.jpg/)

(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7905/1969dodgechargerdaytona.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/23/1969dodgechargerdaytona.jpg/)

Like I said, the correction, or the answer to the problem, is in the suspension - You do not want your tire to travel that far - it will through your car around. Notice that the answer was in a better torsion par.

If the tire rubbing theory was true then there would be a hood exhauster too, because it was rubbing the hood too. There is not. Notice that they cut away the lip (flange) of the fender and Hood,  because it would have slit the tire. Notice on the Daytona's the flange is still there, meaning, they did not worry about the tire traveling that far.

The more air you let out the top of a car keeps it from getting chewed up underneath. Not a huge deal, but every little bit helps.  3%

Quote from: hemi68charger on October 06, 2011, 01:08:19 PM

Quote from: WINGIN IT on October 06, 2011, 12:47:13 PM

This topic seems to come up from time to time, but always muddled in controversy.
After reading the post it looks like one designed intention also had another.

My question is , has anyon ever asked the MYTHBUSTERS to test this?   :icon_smile_big:
I'm sure there is a few board members who wouldn't mind using there Daytonas as test mules .
(Troy you reading this,  ;)  )

They could test both the drag and the tire hitting the fender issues, and in the end , they would be put to rest.  Not to mention getting the old Dodges back in the spotlight  :2thumbs:

I'm sure I'm not the only wingcar owner who's felt it, but at 100+ mph out of turn 2 going down the backstretch hitting 125mph, I could feel my car squating. I can ONLY imagine what the downforce is like at nearly 200 mph in a real race Daytona. The tire wearing/touching problem probably isn't as apparent at tracks like Bristol and Rockingham..

Forget Mythbusters.   For $800 you can take your car to Aerodyn in Charlotte and run it in the tunnel.   You can determine what Romberg said that air goes IN to the scoops, not out.    Of course Troy you will need to cut open your scoops to race spec so the test is relevant.   
Because of the 36 degree banking, Bristol has tire loads much like Daytona and Talladega.

Doug - have you compared under-carriage to pavement clearance, exhaust to pavement, spoiler, etc to tire to fender top clearance?... What would contact first?  Looks kinda close on the RM car...

Quote from: Aero426 on October 06, 2011, 07:34:08 PM

Quote from: hemi68charger on October 06, 2011, 01:08:19 PM

Quote from: WINGIN IT on October 06, 2011, 12:47:13 PM

This topic seems to come up from time to time, but always muddled in controversy.
After reading the post it looks like one designed intention also had another.

My question is , has anyon ever asked the MYTHBUSTERS to test this?   :icon_smile_big:
I'm sure there is a few board members who wouldn't mind using there Daytonas as test mules .
(Troy you reading this,  ;)  )

They could test both the drag and the tire hitting the fender issues, and in the end , they would be put to rest.  Not to mention getting the old Dodges back in the spotlight  :2thumbs:

I'm sure I'm not the only wingcar owner who's felt it, but at 100+ mph out of turn 2 going down the backstretch hitting 125mph, I could feel my car squating. I can ONLY imagine what the downforce is like at nearly 200 mph in a real race Daytona. The tire wearing/touching problem probably isn't as apparent at tracks like Bristol and Rockingham..

Forget Mythbusters.   For $800 you can take your car to Aerodyn in Charlotte and run it in the tunnel.   You can determine what Romberg said that air goes IN to the scoops, not out.    Of course Troy you will need to cut open your scoops to race spec so the test is relevant.    
Because of the 36 degree banking, Bristol has tire loads much like Daytona and Talladega.

Interesting,  The tire being so close to the vent at 200+ mph would suck in the air?    I missed that day in school.   Awesome and I get it.    I guess the conspiracy people are right.  But in the wrong direction... :D :D            Why modify the suspension when the scoop fixed the minor problem rather easy and by Grand National Rules,  It was legal.    My point is all the Chrysler guys say the same thing.  "They needed the extra clearance on the RF."   The venting of the wheel well (in either direction) is just a bonus.   And if it was just going to be a vent why didn't they just louver the fender.   That is cheaper than putting on a scoop.   Sorry to all the Thomas's but there is nobody else to ask but the guys from Chrysler and they have spoken about this many times and never flip flopped.     We could build another car and all that cool stuff.   But trying to find those Oriflow in new working order is going to be a challenge.        

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 06, 2011, 08:06:22 PM
Doug - have you compared under-carriage to pavement clearance, exhaust to pavement, spoiler, etc to tire to fender top clearance?... What would contact first?  Looks kinda close on the RM car...

:slap:   Come on now.  The bottom picture looks like a street car with stickers..

Yes, to compare anything using the modern McCluskey car isn't relevant because it's a tribute built from a street '70 Coronet.      It is actually raced, but has nothing to do with a Nichels type car. 

Back to your question.    Car #7 probably would not pass tech as the current distance from oil pan to ground is 3.75" and should be 4" minimum.    Bellhousing is even a little closer yet.  So the front end needs to be raised a little.

The first challenge of tire clearance is the inner fender and HOOD.  Look at the pic I posted this morning of the tire sticking well beyond the inside of the fender.   In fact the hood sticks down a solid one inch below the edge of the fender.    The fender has a 3/8" piece of round bar stock to reinforce the inside edge where the normal mounting surface was cut away.   From the inside edge of the tire to the hood is no more than 3" clearance. 

Not only can you test your car at Aerodyn, but Romberg himself will probably show up to check it out.   You can present all your fender scoop conspiracy theories face to face!

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 06, 2011, 08:30:27 PM

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 06, 2011, 08:06:22 PM
Doug - have you compared under-carriage to pavement clearance, exhaust to pavement, spoiler, etc to tire to fender top clearance?... What would contact first?  Looks kinda close on the RM car...

:slap:   Come on now.  The bottom picture looks like a street car with stickers..

Yes, a replica car... used the pic because the orientation was similar to racing pic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RogerMcCluskey1970PlymouthSuperbird.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RogerMcCluskey1970PlymouthSuperbird.jpg)

http://www.onlyclassics.com/p1056.jpg (http://www.onlyclassics.com/p1056.jpg)

On the day that Baker set the record at Talladega,  they had trouble with the tire hitting the hood.   There are photos showing the hood with no modification on this day, and later photos the same day showing where they "clearanced" the underside edge (see arrow).    Greg Kwiatowski says you can see the ball peen hammer marks on the underside of the hood today. 

Another photo.  Just below Fred Schrandt's glasses (black jacket) you can clearly see where they field modified the hood to clear the RF tar.

Tell me a bedtime story about the fender scoops Uncle Doug...

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, Greg Kwiatkowski brought the original Daytona drag studies (the one posted above with the 3% drag statement) to John Pointer one day.   Pointer looked and admitted it was in his own writing.  He asked, "Where did you get THAT?" (as if Greg stumbled upon a secret document) Greg told him it was from Larry Rathgeb's files. When Greg pointed it out that the 'exhausters' helped with a 3% drag reduction, Pointer smiled slightly, winked and stated, "Those were the numbers we got."   Now, this was before the car hit the track!  Also, when the car finally hit Chelsea, being a 4.77 mile track was easier on the car in the corners than Daytona, for example.  Greg says, "So, right there tells me the 3% drag reduction was the primary goal, and any perceived benefit for tire clearance was secondary at best."    

Greg continues "That info, written by John Pointer prior to the car turning a race lap, is the smoking gun, as we say.  The fact that HE WROTE IT, "exhausters" are a 3% drag reduction, it came from wind tunnel studies as opposed to track information and that it was part of the recommended "Daytona" package tell me that  the reason for the scoops is DRAG REDUCTION.     This shouldn't be so hard to believe when it is original vintage documentation, and the writer of it confirmed it."    

Greg says "I give the Daytona team credit for keeping quiet all these years and sticking to their story! I especially like the old story John still tells that he made sure the scoops "did nothing"!     What else could they say??"

Quote from: Aero426 on October 06, 2011, 09:30:03 PM
Tell me a bedtime story about the fender scoops Uncle Doug...

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, Greg Kwiatkowski brought the original Daytona drag studies (the one posted above with the 3% drag statement) to John Pointer one day.   Pointer looked and admitted it was in his own writing.  He asked, "Where did you get THAT?" (as if Greg stumbled upon a secret document) Greg told him it was from Larry Rathgeb's files. When Greg pointed it out that the 'exhausters' helped with a 3% drag reduction, Pointer smiled slightly, winked and stated, "Those were the numbers we got."   Now, this was before the car hit the track!  Also, when the car finally hit Chelsea, being a 4.77 mile track was easier on the car in the corners than Daytona, for example.  Greg says, "So, right there tells me the 3% drag reduction was the primary goal, and any perceived benefit for tire clearance was secondary at best."    

Greg continues "That info, written by John Pointer prior to the car turning a race lap, is the smoking gun, as we say.  The fact that HE WROTE IT, "exhausters" are a 3% drag reduction, it came from wind tunnel studies as opposed to track information and that it was part of the recommended "Daytona" package tell me that  the reason for the scoops is DRAG REDUCTION.     This shouldn't be so hard to believe when it is original vintage documentation, and the writer of it confirmed it."    

Greg says "I give the Daytona team credit for keeping quiet all these years and sticking to their story! I especially like the old story John still tells that he made sure the scoops "did nothing"!     What else could they say??"

Thanks for the pics AND  bedtime story Uncle Doug!   :cheers:  :popcrn:

And they all lived happily ever after. 

 :2thumbs:... Wheres that chirping cricket animated gif....?  :scratchchin:  ;)

  "Louvers" on top of the fender would not get the desired effect. The shape of the fender scoop creates a vacuum at the back opening as air flows over it at 190 mph; this helps to draw air out (not in) of the engine bay. Air flowing in through the front has only two places to exit, out the bottom of the engine bay (that creates instability), or help draw it out through the fender scoops. Why would they call it "exhausters"? Because that is what they do :)

PS, if it sucked air in - it would create drag, therefore if this was for tire clearance they would have just made a bulge with no opening.

(http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/2200/img1271am.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/97/img1271am.jpg/)

Dane

Rathgeb, Pointer, Romberg or  Wallace.     You can chime in anytime now..     You knew the tire was going to hit before you drew the car Mr. Pointer.    :scratchchin:   

This I got from XX29.    Isn't this the original sketch?  No vents.    Why would of John left them off unless?   :scratchchin:

Forget Mythbusters.   For $800 you can take your car to Aerodyn in Charlotte and run it in the tunnel.   You can determine what Romberg said that air goes IN to the scoops, not out.    Of course Troy you will need to cut open your scoops to race spec so the test is relevant.   
Because of the 36 degree banking, Bristol has tire loads much like Daytona and Talladega.
[/quote]

Because it would be cool to watch it on the tube perhaps, and have it publically published??


Even after your bedtime story,  I see posts AIR goes OUT, no AIR goes IN.... PROVE IT !

so, is this going to come down to a show me and then only believable......start a chip in to get the funds, pick a car and go to the tunnel and if you can get some of the old engineers there even better.

Sounds like a good meet activity.......lol

Quote from: Mopurr on October 07, 2011, 10:56:12 AM
so, is this going to come down to a show me and then only believable......start a chip in to get the funds, pick a car and go to the tunnel and if you can get some of the old engineers there even better.

Sounds like a good meet activity.......lol

:smilielol:

No doubt................... It's curved like a tire, placed over the tire, centered over tire.............. Smells like a tire is the common denominator..  :think:

Quote from: Aero426 on October 06, 2011, 09:43:35 PM
And they all lived happily ever after. 

+1

We also have to get that tire spining at 220+mph and right up to the fender top in the wind tunnel.           

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 07, 2011, 11:20:59 AM
We also have to get that tire spining at 220+mph and right up to the fender top in the wind tunnel.          

Agreed, wind tunnel testing isn't a true test persay......

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.............................   Just drive & admire 'em................

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 07, 2011, 11:20:59 AM
We also have to get that tire spining at 220+mph and right up to the fender top in the wind tunnel.          

Do the Nascar boys do that now - spin up the wheels while in the tunnel?

I would think the air is looking at nothing more than the EPA (Effective Projected Area) of the tire. I don't think it cares too much if it is moving or not....unless the tire has paddles or the wheel has some kind of turbo effect built into it.

And.....

Bill Sr. let Chrysler put the scoops on if they let the King go to Ford....... :icon_smile_big:

Quote from: Mopurr on October 07, 2011, 10:56:12 AM
so, is this going to come down to a show me and then only believable......start a chip in to get the funds, pick a car and go to the tunnel and if you can get some of the old engineers there even better.

Sounds like a good meet activity.......lol

I am actively seeking sponsorship for such an endeavor.     :smilielol:

Quote from: maxwellwedge on October 07, 2011, 11:43:24 AM

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 07, 2011, 11:20:59 AM
We also have to get that tire spining at 220+mph and right up to the fender top in the wind tunnel.          

Do the Nascar boys do that now - spin up the wheels while in the tunnel?

I would think the air is looking at nothing more than the EPA (Effective Projected Area) of the tire. I don't think it cares too much if it is moving or not....unless the tire has paddles or the wheel has some kind of turbo effect built into it.

The main Aerodyn tunnel has the capability to spin tires to simulate a rolling road and runs to 135 mph    For their A2 tunnel (which is where Gary and Pam tested the K & K), the wheels are stationary.   A2 is the cost effective tunnel to test in.   It tests between 30 and 85 mph, but they are able to calculate the aero forces at race speeds.

http://www.a2wt.com/ (http://www.a2wt.com/)

Quote from: hemi68charger on October 07, 2011, 11:12:44 AM

No doubt................... It's curved like a tire <Really?!?  :scratchchin:>, placed over the tire, centered over tire <both placed and centered, Huh?>.............. Smells like a tire < :eek2:> is the common denominator..  :think:

Basics:  http://www.gmecca.com/byorc/dtipsaerodynamics.html (http://www.gmecca.com/byorc/dtipsaerodynamics.html)

The fender scoops are "scuppers", aka air extractors, aka air exhausters, aka ...

Used on other cars: http://www.transamworld.com/ta-features.php#ffae (http://www.transamworld.com/ta-features.php#ffae)

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=61524 (http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=61524)

To understand how it works, Google "Bernoulli Effect"...  basically as air is accelerated over the scoop, the air pressure is reduced locally...  same effect which gives an airplane wing lift... notice the airfoil shape is upside down on the rear wing spoiler horizontal bar...

Quote from: Aero426 on October 07, 2011, 11:58:55 AM

Quote from: Mopurr on October 07, 2011, 10:56:12 AM
so, is this going to come down to a show me and then only believable......start a chip in to get the funds, pick a car and go to the tunnel and if you can get some of the old engineers there even better.

Sounds like a good meet activity.......lol

I am actively seeking sponsorship for such an endeavor.     :smilielol:

I'll chip in $100...

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 07, 2011, 12:28:46 PM

Quote from: Aero426 on October 07, 2011, 11:58:55 AM

Quote from: Mopurr on October 07, 2011, 10:56:12 AM
so, is this going to come down to a show me and then only believable......start a chip in to get the funds, pick a car and go to the tunnel and if you can get some of the old engineers there even better.

Sounds like a good meet activity.......lol

I am actively seeking sponsorship for such an endeavor.     :smilielol:

I'll chip in $100...

And here I thought 40 crazy Aero people @ $20 a piece and we already have a $100 offer  your sponsorship could happen ...lol

wonder if 40 or 50 people can get into the room where the data willl be coming into? :)

 :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: I guess you will have to agree to disagree :slap:

As for original intent...

In my opinion, air extraction to reduce front end lift without the increased drag of a larger nose spoiler...

The use of a "reverse" NACA scoop appears to have been the first attempt.  Look at the side-by-side comparison below.  Not a good idea, slow acceleration of airflow has minimum effect on pressure reduction.  Use of a standard exit ramp, or a modified exit ramp will give better results.

Quote from: Mopurr on October 07, 2011, 10:56:12 AM
so, is this going to come down to a show me and then only believable......start a chip in to get the funds, pick a car and go to the tunnel and if you can get some of the old engineers there even better.

Sounds like a good meet activity.......lol

That's why I said let Mythbusters have at it- at THEIR cost. I'm sure with the resources they have they could come up with a viable plan.

Although a good meet activity sounds like a great idea as well.  :2thumbs: :icon_smile_big:

Quote from: Mopurr on October 07, 2011, 02:16:20 PM

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 07, 2011, 12:28:46 PM

Quote from: Aero426 on October 07, 2011, 11:58:55 AM

Quote from: Mopurr on October 07, 2011, 10:56:12 AM
so, is this going to come down to a show me and then only believable......start a chip in to get the funds, pick a car and go to the tunnel and if you can get some of the old engineers there even better.

Sounds like a good meet activity.......lol

I am actively seeking sponsorship for such an endeavor.     :smilielol:

I'll chip in $100...

And here I thought 40 crazy Aero people @ $20 a piece and we already have a $100 offer  your sponsorship could happen ...lol

wonder if 40 or 50 people can get into the room where the data willl be coming into? :)

I am 5x crazy?!?....  :P    Maybe I should reduce my sponsorship to my standard 3x crazy... $60   :lol:

Quote from: WINGIN IT on October 07, 2011, 02:31:50 PM

Quote from: Mopurr on October 07, 2011, 10:56:12 AM
so, is this going to come down to a show me and then only believable......start a chip in to get the funds, pick a car and go to the tunnel and if you can get some of the old engineers there even better.

Sounds like a good meet activity.......lol

That's why I said let Mythbusters have at it- at THEIR cost. I'm sure with the resources they have they could come up with a viable plan.

Although a good meet activity sounds like a great idea as well.  :2thumbs: :icon_smile_big:

Or the History Detectives show...  :Twocents: :shruggy:

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 07, 2011, 02:35:54 PM
I am 5x crazy?!?....  :P    Maybe I should reduce my sponsorship to my standard 3x crazy... $60   :lol:

I am guessing you are not the only one 5x crazy to want to know the answer.

I'm 5x crazy as well. As long as  they let someone video tape it when its going on. I'd drive down with HD camera's in tow if they would allow it.

Quote from: 69_500 on October 07, 2011, 04:42:38 PM
I'm 5x crazy as well. As long as  they let someone video tape it when its going on. I'd drive down with HD camera's in tow if they would allow it.

'Tell you what... I will design and have printed an event T-Shirt and provide a FREE T-Shirt to all 5x "Penta-Crazy" contributors of $100 or more... any more takers?

Here is a T-Shirt that I did recently for myself...

is this appropriate yet?










(http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/9416101.jpg)

Quote from: pettybird on October 07, 2011, 05:06:11 PM
is this appropriate yet?

No, not in the least...









(http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/9416101.jpg)

I think that Allen just likes to draw pictures.

Anonymous opinion poll added for the quiet types to express their thoughts...  :2thumbs:

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 07, 2011, 06:14:40 PM
Anonymous opinion poll added for the quiet types to express their thoughts...  :2thumbs:

And Mr. Anon didn't go first!   :lol:

Quote from: maxwellwedge on October 07, 2011, 06:29:56 PM

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 07, 2011, 06:14:40 PM
Anonymous opinion poll added for the quiet types to express their thoughts...  :2thumbs:

And Mr. Anon didn't go first!   :lol:

Just getting over my shyness...  :lol:  I'll go vote now!  :yesnod:  :icon_smile_big:

Can someone who thinks that the fender vents on the test mule are for tire clearance, explain to me how they can be effective for tire clearance?

Can someone explain to me, who use the tire rubbing the fender and HOOD as an argument for the fender scoops being used for tire clearance, why they made NO changes in the place where the tire rubbed the hood on the Daytona (don't see a partial hood scoop)?

If the opening in the fender where the scoop is for tire clearance why would they leave exposed sharp steel if that was true?

Why are they called "exhausters"?

Answers to good questions by those who believe in the tire clearance theory...

The exhausters are located directly over the tire because that is the most reasonable place for them. Too far forward it looses it's effect. To far back and it simply looks bad, and you end up getting too much air trapped to the back of the fender well before it can be extracted. They could have covered all the locations. :) do those look familiar? Notice where they start the first vent? Directly over the tire.

(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/b00fis/DSC_0012.jpg)

Quote from: Arnie Cunningham on October 06, 2011, 03:34:06 PM
Just a question - does anyone know how much the race tires distorted at speed.  Sitting still, the tire clearly would not fit in the scoop but at 180 mph the top of the tire should be significantly narrower due to centripetal/centrifugal forces.  It should stretch the same way top fuel slicks do only not as dramatically.

"That was 1 of my thoughts exactly" , the tire is much narrower & taller at speeds & much more upwards movement/wheel travel under high speeds or hard breaking on corners even at shorter tracks with a bunch more caster & camber shown in any of the photos, I've seen on this thread, you would have to see the cars attitude at 200mph+ & cornering or hard breaking with caster & camber angles properly set with properly, style, sized rim & tires to give a real determination on what the drivers & engineers came up with & why they came up with it.... "On Race Car Only" Aerodynamics mainly, then "Pulling air out" from under the car sucking the car down to the track reducing wind drag & tire clearance was just an added bonus... IMHO

Quote from: Daytona Guy on October 07, 2011, 07:09:12 PM
Can someone who thinks that the fender vents on the test mule are for tire clearance, explain to me how they can be effective for tire clearance?

Can someone explain to me, who use the tire rubbing the fender and HOOD as an argument for the fender scoops being used for tire clearance, why they made NO changes in the place where the tire rubbed the hood on the Daytona (don't see a partial hood scoop)?

If the opening in the fender where the scoop is for tire clearance why would they leave exposed sharp steel if that was true?

Why are they called "exhausters"?

Answers to good questions by those who believe in the tire clearance theory...

The exhausters are located directly over the tire because that is the most reasonable place for them. Too far forward it looses it's effect. To far back and it simply looks bad, and you end up getting too much air trapped to the back of the fender well before it can be extracted. They could have covered all the locations. :) do those look familiar? Notice where they start the first vent? Directly over the tire.

(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/b00fis/DSC_0012.jpg)

I am not going to argue with the Chrysler engineers that I and many others have talked to.  You can.  They say tire clearance.  (Safety) is first.    I can understand why.    I also know they are extractors.   I understand all the fuss but they said clearance and call them extractors.  :RantExplode: :lol:    Well except those in Doug's bed time stories..   :lol:  Making room for a tire is simple.  Making it areo and other benefits takes extra work.  Maybe that is why it is called Extractor other than,  The Clearance Tire Thingies..  The original drawing of the Daytona that Pointer showed to McCurry doesn't even have (Extractors.)   :shruggy   Afterthought?  Did someone say to Pointer "You know we are going to need more room up top of the fender?"   He did design an extractor that fits over the race Daytona tire pretty well.  Looks to be more than an Extractor...   They knew they had a problem in late 68 with tire rub and they changed the torsion bar after a series of shock testing.   That fixed the problem.  They knew the Daytona (even before the first wind tunnel test) that there was going to be major down force on all 4 corners of the car.   Another thought.  Make the torsion bar stiffer?  At what cost?  Wheel bearings and spindles taking more of a beating?  More testing and someone here even said they have suspension bump stops..   Are you kidding?  At 200+MPH the last thing you want is the suspension hitting a bumper.)   That would be like hitting a wall for the control arm at that rate and speed the arm is moving.     Or just modify the production fender that was coming out in a few months?   I would choose the latter too.   Also, during those test engines are not running and tires are not spinning and (was the suspension is not loaded?)  But no big deal.   Wasn't the test mule a slow speed test car?  It's just a mock up car.  Also,  Why is the wing on the production and race Daytona so much higher than the mule?  More down force?  No!!  Trunk lid Clearance.  That darn word again...    The mule was just that..  A mule.   And I would defiantly call those one purpose air extractors on the mule. Not for clearance at all..  I also do call the vents on the production Daytona vents too.    My opinion is that when they took the car to the wind tunnel they thought they had made enough room and were interested in making areo and down force.   Also the Daytona didn't have near as much air going under the hood as the Charger 500 did.  The Daytona also has a huge spoiler under the nose in which it creates vacuum behind it.  So that high pressure issue under the hood was not as high as they had on the Charger 500.  Even with the Daytona traveling nearly 20mph faster.  The air was pushed out and even away from the tires with some spoiler set ups..  Very little air was allowed into the nose.  Just enough to keep it from overheating.  Which is even an issue on the street car due to the lack of air flow thought the radiator.    Obviously in some testing the tire even hit the hood, not near as hard as it would of hit the fender without that vent there.  We can throw in all our Degrees and racing knowledge but when more than one engineer says to me "believe it or not there for clearance 1st."  Well that is good enough for me.   I don't have a real race Daytona and extra millions to disprove them..  Or even care to question them to try to discredit them and think,   why did they lie?    Like I said.  I see both sides of the extractor, clearance issue.       I got to know George Wallace and even Bob McCurry quite well and I greatly enjoyed the many times I spent with them and the storys they told me.   So you can send over the FBI..     I am not changing my mind unless they say so..   :nana:    Now I know there will be a post.  This turd is dumb and will not listen to reason.   I have bigger fish to fry.  Now,  when is the next track day??     If I typed something wrong or your pissed I will not change my mine..  Please,  just let it go..  Let it go.    Peace

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 07, 2011, 05:05:37 PM

Quote from: 69_500 on October 07, 2011, 04:42:38 PM
I'm 5x crazy as well. As long as  they let someone video tape it when its going on. I'd drive down with HD camera's in tow if they would allow it.

'Tell you what... I will design and have printed an event T-Shirt and provide a FREE T-Shirt to all 5x "Penta-Crazy" contributors of $100 or more... any more takers?

Here is a T-Shirt that I did recently for myself...

Yes. To whom do I PayPal/ mail the funds?

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 08, 2011, 02:52:49 AM
The mule was just that..  A mule.   And I would defiantly call those one purpose air extractors on the mule. Not for clearance at all..  I also do call the vents on the production Daytona vents too.    My opinion is that when they took the car to the wind tunnel they thought they had made enough room and were interested in making areo and down force. 

I see both sides of the extractor, clearance issue.       I got to know George Wallace and even Bob McCurry quite well and I greatly enjoyed the many times I spent with them and the storys they told me.   So you can send over the FBI..     I am not changing my mind unless they say so..   :nana: 

Sean, your opinion on this matter is very close to mine...  I voted for #4 on the poll (Aero design intent, minor tire clearance improvement with NASCAR mods).  Not having the correct racing parts on hand to evaluate makes analysis of the tire clearance issue very difficult.

You are very fortunate to have gotten to know the Chrysler employees involved in that era, and I have no intention of trying to discredit any of them.  My main interest in the subject is technical in nature, but I also have tired of the mocking and disrespectful way in which the subject is often discussed.  Your input on this has been clear, reasoned, and respectful... and I very much appreciate your participation in this thread.  

Quote from: kab69440 on October 08, 2011, 06:13:39 AM

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 07, 2011, 05:05:37 PM

Quote from: 69_500 on October 07, 2011, 04:42:38 PM
I'm 5x crazy as well. As long as  they let someone video tape it when its going on. I'd drive down with HD camera's in tow if they would allow it.

'Tell you what... I will design and have printed an event T-Shirt and provide a FREE T-Shirt to all 5x "Penta-Crazy" contributors of $100 or more... any more takers?

Here is a T-Shirt that I did recently for myself...

Yes. To whom do I PayPal/ mail the funds?

:shruggy:  I guess Doug is just taking pledges at the moment... lets see what his plan is...  :popcrn:

Here is my best guess at how the fender scoops may have helped tire clearance... not to scale sketch only...

With reduced tire growth and less tire angle...

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 08, 2011, 06:22:10 AM

You are very fortunate to have gotten to know the Chrysler employees involved in that era, and I have no intention of trying to discredit any of them.  

but...you...are.


why are you even beating this dead horse?  you asked if the INTENDED use for the scoops was clearance, and that's what the INTENDED use was.  like Sean said, go back to the mule.  it had poles for wing uprights.  they didn't know it would be helpful in turns to wrap them until it was done.  the INTENDED use for the uprights was to hold the horizontal stabilizer--the unintended happy side effect was that the wrapped uprights helped stability in corners. 

by questioning the INTENDED use for the scoops you most certainly are stating that you think the people we've met throughout many years and at many events are lying to us.  if you'd like to apply your knowledge of aerospace through the lens of 2011 knowledge, it's pretty interesting.  I encourage you wholeheartedly to continue telling us why our cars work--I love that stuff.  if, on the other hand, you continue to argue that a few guys that built rockets instead of race cars, working with pencils and slide rulers, manufacturing their own test equipment, using 1960's knowledge of aeronautics, knew something then which has NO VALUE kept as a secret, continuing their cover-up for reasons unknown...I don't even know how to finish the sentence.

I am just happy I have cars with the scoops on the fenders.....whatever their intended purpose.

Allen's drawings are exactly the intended scenario that the Chrysler people have described.   However, the reality proven on the #88 was that with the angle of the tire, the inside of the tire HITS THE HOOD before anything else.   And that is with "Talladega suspension".      

The caveat the Chrysler people always added was that the fender scoops were added because of the problem on the '68 1/2 race car on an "if they were needed" basis.    In other words, they could not go back and add them after production.   So they did it, but then say, as it turned out the tire clearance to the fender wasn't a problem on the wing cars.

For many years, I was a true believer in the clearance function as Wallace, Rathgeb, Pointer, Romberg et al have described.     But when you look at it on the race car, it just becomes harder to believe.  

The 3% drag reduction statement.   Was it on the 3/8 scale tunnel cars, or was it proved out full scale?   Is it really relevant to the full scale car?   I don't know.   3% is a lot.   If you could give a modern Cup guy 3% aero improvement today, that would be HUGE.  

I do not believe that with the high air pressures being run, that tire growth was an issue.    They were not running wrinkle walls!

Quote from: maxwellwedge on October 08, 2011, 09:42:24 AM
I am just happy I have cars with the scoops on the fenders.....whatever their intended purpose.

+1

Let's all just have a big group hug now.   :smilielol:

I can't vote..You failed to add a vote block for Ventilation.  :yesnod:

Quote from: ACUDANUT on October 08, 2011, 10:43:16 AM
I can't vote..You failed to add a vote block for Ventilation.  :yesnod:

I had felt that ventilation / brake cooling / etc would be encompassed by air extraction / Aero improvements, but since you asked... your very words are now an option... now GO VOTE!  :RantExplode:  :icon_smile_wink:  :icon_smile_big:

The drawings below are not meant to be contentious – but are just to aid in the discovery process.

I hope that none of this gets people upset. People should be allowed to question and get answers. There are no accusations involved in any of the questions. There are no personal attacks on anyone. No one is lying here and there is no conspiracy. I have known engineer's from Ford (grads of Art Center College Deign) who were apart of teams that designed the Mustang. Teams build cars. Not everyone knows the reasoning for what another team member or group does. They may get told many things in the development process. Do we know the actual engineer who designed the fender scoop? There is no documentation that says the scoops are for tire clearance. This is the typical tension between physical evidence and witnesses. Sometimes they don't add up for many reasons. I have worked on my own car and can't remember why I did something (Smile).

I am coming to understand the tire clearance thing better from my own drawing and geometry from my car. I still have questions that would scare me to death driving if that tire traveled that far with sharp steel edges exposed. You don't cut wholes in fenders to fix one half of the equation.

All we have to do is see if someone who has a race Daytona to put a load on the top and jack in down to see where the tire would hit.

To me it is a part of life to question – even people's experiences – that is how things get tested and proven. There is nothing personal about it. I have no problem discovering I'm wrong about my questions. I just like the discovery process, but I also know some people don't.

(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9422/tirec1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/7/tirec1.jpg/)
(http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/2310/tirec2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/269/tirec2.jpg/)

(http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/5315/tiresc3.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/847/tiresc3.jpg/)
(http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4707/tirec4.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/513/tirec4.jpg/)

My feelings are that the tire clearance was solved even under the heavier loads because there were no reports of it being a problem after that (68). We have facts that show air flow and improvements in aerodynamics are the reason for the scoops, and we have the infamous name "exhausters".  The test mule was the K & K car that hit 200 -  they would have had issues of rubbing if that was true. Do you test a car a low speeds to see if you're your high speed effects work?

M y point is that the scoops are for aero reasons. Secondary effects may have entered to picture and this is under question and can be proven true or false. Does anyone have the dimensions of the race suspension? Any parts measurements. This can be simulated.

Let's just enjoy this process; this does not need to be a bad thing.

Dane

Quote from: hemi68charger on October 06, 2011, 01:08:19 PM

I'm sure I'm not the only wingcar owner who's felt it, but at 100+ mph out of turn 2 going down the backstretch hitting 125mph, I could feel my car squating. I can ONLY imagine what the downforce is like at nearly 200 mph in a real race Daytona. The tire wearing/touching problem probably isn't as apparent at tracks like Bristol and Rockingham..

Yes, it is an amazing feeling. It is like someone is pushing down on the roof of your car. But in race setup, once you get the desired down force to stay in the corners, you make adjustments (camber, wing, front spoiler) so that it does not necessarily incrementally increase the faster you go.  What we experience at 100-125, the race cars may be dialed in to feel that at much higher speeds.  They were always battling the advantages and disadvantages of down force (then the need of more HP) and the aerodynamics of slipping through the air (giving more speed with same HP), yet loosing stability because it does not want to stay on the ground,  yet hoping to get a happy medium of both. I do get your point the Daytona had much greater down forces (that is what they were going for) than the 500. That does not mean necessarily that that the tires are going to rub. The answer is in the suspension because that did not fall under homologation rules. Also, a tire traveling that far makes for a lot of bounce and terrible handling. If it did rub, I would think that is not what you want from your suspension.

Another thought is the shocks – Can we look and see how far they would travel before they bottoms out. They look very short on top justing sitting still. Just a thought.

Dane


Dane

I worked with Larry Rathgeb for many years on the Viper Project...he was our suspension development Engineer. I asked him the same question many years ago, and he said the scoop was there for tire clearance reasons only! I am sure they were hoping for an aero advantage, it just didn't happen.

Quote from: Daytona Guy on October 08, 2011, 02:21:24 PM
The drawings below are not meant to be contentious – but are just to aid in the discovery process.

<snip>

Let's just enjoy this process; this does not need to be a bad thing.

Dane

No problem Dane... Its great to have someone else sketching too... My sketches are to demonstrate a concept only. not true layouts by any means!

As I stated when  posted the first one:

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 08, 2011, 07:36:27 AM
Here is my best guess at how the fender scoops may have helped tire clearance... not to scale sketch only...

Also, the previous sections that I posted were accidentally left two degrees rotated, so they were not quite as far off as it appeared.  Again, my postings are conceptual sketches only... no data to do a layout!

Two more sketches:

(1)  Section through both front wheel centerlines during hard banking turn on a surface with a bank angle of about 25 degrees...

(2)  Potential tire damage from the forward edge of the cutout opening.

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 08, 2011, 06:22:10 AM

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 08, 2011, 02:52:49 AM
The mule was just that..  A mule.   And I would defiantly call those one purpose air extractors on the mule. Not for clearance at all..  I also do call the vents on the production Daytona vents too.    My opinion is that when they took the car to the wind tunnel they thought they had made enough room and were interested in making areo and down force. 

I see both sides of the extractor, clearance issue.       I got to know George Wallace and even Bob McCurry quite well and I greatly enjoyed the many times I spent with them and the storys they told me.   So you can send over the FBI..     I am not changing my mind unless they say so..   :nana: 

Sean, your opinion on this matter is very close to mine...  I voted for #4 on the poll (Aero design intent, minor tire clearance improvement with NASCAR mods).  Not having the correct racing parts on hand to evaluate makes analysis of the tire clearance issue very difficult.

You are very fortunate to have gotten to know the Chrysler employees involved in that era, and I have no intention of trying to discredit any of them.  My main interest in the subject is technical in nature, but I also have tired of the mocking and disrespectful way in which the subject is often discussed.  Your input on this has been clear, reasoned, and respectful... and I very much appreciate your participation in this thread.  

Funny,  I voted #3.     Tire clearance AND Aero improvements by design from the start.   Because of the comments from Wallace and Rathgeib about the clearance issue they were worried about.  Which was probably after the first drawing of the Daytona.  That is my thought.   Yes, Wallace went into quite detail about his life and work accomplishments.   He is a Genius in every since of the word.    Buddy Baker did called him the human computer.    The guy could touch the pavement at the track and he would have the blueprints of the track and tell you what tire, spring, shock package you would need for the specific car they were running..  He even told me the top secret (proprietary) additive to B&M Quick Shift trans fluid and so on and so on.  You would  :smilielol: if I told you.   Also for Chrysler he would see what gear the car had,  What tire the car had,  What trans it had and other misc options and usage's the car was to be used for and then tell you what pulley on the fan it needed after days on calculations in his office.  I am not kidding.  These are the things he did.  Things we can do from our iphone in 1/2 second.   They would run laps and he would take notes and even photos of what the car was doing at speed and he would go to his room and not come out till the next day with his answer or state that we need more info.     This thread starts out,  what is the purpose of the scoops?    I am going off the origins of how it started.    Not where it went..    Also,  they were not thinking about brake cooling at Daytona and Talladega.  That is for sure.    Off subject here but on the brake heat topic the wing car was not meant to run Riverside or any road courses.  But it did well there at Riverside.    Jack McCoy told me once that when they showed up for the 1970 January race at Riverside, he thought all the wing car guys were nuts.    The cars were longer and that is one of the enemies of a road course.  Then Jack said,  I was in my Charger and the Bird's and Daytona's were blowing by me on back straight.   You bet we had a Daytona there for the June race.   He actually qualified 4th next to Isaac.   He even told me how he called Chrysler to get some Daytona parts and Chrysler sent them for free to the local Dodge Dealer for them to pick up..  Maybe charged shipping,  not sure.    Bill Conn (before he passed actually about 2 weeks before Jack) still had all the paperwork on that deal.   Back on the subject here,    I totally understand the fact of what the vents do.  Nothing to do with clearance,  especially after 70 Daytona 500.    But again,  I am going of what I and many others were told by Engineers themselves.  I know we can contact Myth Buster but really?  It's not much of a myth is it?    Again.  The quote the Chrysler Engineers say is,  the Ford guys thought they were extractors and that is what we called them.  But they were for clearance on the right front only.   Wallace did also say,  why not take advantage of the aero on what we were doing there.     It's great stuff.    It really is.    

Quote from: ACUDANUT on October 08, 2011, 10:43:16 AM
I can't vote..You failed to add a vote block for Ventilation.  :yesnod:

Okay.  :2thumbs:... :D

Here is the actual front end to the Jack McCoy #7 Daytona which ran in the 1970 Daytona 500.   The cut fender edge under the vent is bent up and was riveted to the scoop.   There was no way for the tire to be cut on any edges on the cut part of the fender.  Sorry it's a bad picture.  It was sitting in the back of the shop in a dark room.    I can email a bigger picture to anyone.  

Quote from: hemiviper588 on October 08, 2011, 04:22:57 PM
I worked with Larry Rathgeb for many years on the Viper Project...he was our suspension development Engineer. I asked him the same question many years ago, and he said the scoop was there for tire clearance reasons only! I am sure they were hoping for an aero advantage, it just didn't happen.

Thank you for the input.  I feel like I am marching to the beat of a mute drum on this subject.    Was that the Viper the last project Larry worked on?   I talked to Larry some 10 years ago and he said it was.

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 08, 2011, 06:15:22 PM
Here is the actual front end to the Jack McCoy #7 Daytona which ran in the 1970 Daytona 500.   The cut fender edge under the vent is bent up and was riveted to the scoop.   There was no way for the tire to be cut on any edges on the cut part of the fender.  Sorry it's a bad picture.  It was sitting in the back of the shop in a dark room.    I can email a bigger picture to anyone.  

Please email me a larger version... uncompressed if possible.

Thanks Sean!

Larry retired after his stint with Viper...he is doing well, in fact he is Pheasant hunting with some friends as we speak!

Quote from: Daytona Guy on October 08, 2011, 02:21:24 PM
The drawings below are not meant to be contentious – but are just to aid in the discovery process.

I hope that none of this gets people upset. People should be allowed to question and get answers. There are no accusations involved in any of the questions. There are no personal attacks on anyone. No one is lying here and there is no conspiracy. I have known engineer's from Ford (grads of Art Center College Deign) who were apart of teams that designed the Mustang. Teams build cars. Not everyone knows the reasoning for what another team member or group does. They may get told many things in the development process. Do we know the actual engineer who designed the fender scoop? There is no documentation that says the scoops are for tire clearance. This is the typical tension between physical evidence and witnesses. Sometimes they don't add up for many reasons. I have worked on my own car and can't remember why I did something (Smile).

I am coming to understand the tire clearance thing better from my own drawing and geometry from my car. I still have questions that would scare me to death driving if that tire traveled that far with sharp steel edges exposed. You don't cut wholes in fenders to fix one half of the equation.

All we have to do is see if someone who has a race Daytona to put a load on the top and jack in down to see where the tire would hit.

To me it is a part of life to question – even people's experiences – that is how things get tested and proven. There is nothing personal about it. I have no problem discovering I'm wrong about my questions. I just like the discovery process, but I also know some people don't.

(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9422/tirec1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/7/tirec1.jpg/)
(http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/2310/tirec2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/269/tirec2.jpg/)

(http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/5315/tiresc3.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/847/tiresc3.jpg/)
(http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4707/tirec4.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/513/tirec4.jpg/)

My feelings are that the tire clearance was solved even under the heavier loads because there were no reports of it being a problem after that (68). We have facts that show air flow and improvements in aerodynamics are the reason for the scoops, and we have the infamous name "exhausters".  The test mule was the K & K car that hit 200 -  they would have had issues of rubbing if that was true. Do you test a car a low speeds to see if you're your high speed effects work?

M y point is that the scoops are for aero reasons. Secondary effects may have entered to picture and this is under question and can be proven true or false. Does anyone have the dimensions of the race suspension? Any parts measurements. This can be simulated.

Let's just enjoy this process; this does not need to be a bad thing.

Dane

Dane,  The engineers are alive.   THEY TALK..    I am giving names,  Not the this guy said stuff.    If you talked to them it was not areo first on the scoop.  It really was not in this RF scoop.   Safety was first and then lets make it aero.    And yes you do build a slow speed car first.  A mule..     You don't go 200mph back then out of the box.   It's a process of try this, try that back then.  They didn't have 100 years of automobile technology backing them up.  Just their experiences.  No computers,  No handbooks,  Nobody had ever been were they were.   They wanted to make sure the had the clearance issue fixed on the RF fender.  They didn't with the hood  but did with the fender..   They could not modify the fender top on the 68.  They could with the Daytona.   They just didn't want it to be an issue.  It still hit the hood.  Yes it did for the second time.  A computer program would of caught that.  Yes..    These are humans bending and forging metal and risking their life.   George Wallace even took a piece of welding rod,  welded it to a upper a-arm and put numbers on it.  There was a hole in the fender and the rod was sticking out of it.   He said they would make high speed laps and he would try to take pictures of the numbers on the rod sticking out the fender (while hanging on to the roll bar with no seat) as they were going around the track.  That was one way he would know what bar to run.   This is real stuff.  There is even published pictures of him doing similar stunts with all the streamers on the car.   This stuff is unheard of today.    They really risked their lives in the name of winning.    Can you imagine what they were trying to do back then?    They really were going places nobody had ever been.  On the race track of course.   They got the 200MPH mark they wanted.  They beat Ford.  Well I think Plymouth did that better with Hamilton.   Which was really amazing he did it to think about it.  Those were 2 ton cars with 9 inch wheels and bias ply tires.   I do race a 69 Daytona.  With the exact same combo except for the weight.   And let me tell you.  They are a handful.  I do personally road race with bias ply blue streaks on 9 inch wheels.   I am totally a 60s junky.   But I am a ninny that I run power steering.   My buddies say I should work out and get manual steer.   :hah:     In my eyes one of the most amazing times for Grand National racing. (NASCAR) today.   I think you and some others are all looking at the Daytona as if it was going to be built today.  We have 40 years of experience since then.  You have to look at it in their shoes and where they came from and what they had to work with.     Hope I am not posting to much?  Not much of chatty Internet one.   So I thought.. :lol:  But, I just have seen this debate for years.   Nobody listens to the engineers and what their concerns were of the time (late 60s) which is what we are talking about.  It is not what it would do today...    It is obvious that the vents were better vent/extractor than it was for clearance to me.   I keep stating that.  But the engineers wanted to MAKE SURE there was no clearance issue.   That is a fact.    We can spend millions of dollars testing it and we don't need to.   They already did.    The purpose of the scoop was for clearance from the beginning.   The aero was a secondary thought on this item.   Really..   My reason for the scoop being 1st is in how in chronological order how they came to be in what I and many others were told by the actual engineers from Chrysler.  I think this it the 3rd time I have said this in this post.    Of course with today's science we would of built it on a computer first and not had to iron out all the labor of build and re-build and this would of never been an issue.   I have been trying to explain the process of how the vents came to be.   Not what it IS....  Now everyone keeps looking at the hood.   They didn't think it was going to hit then.  But it did on the #88 car.       You say it yourself.  The other engineers don't tell on what they are doing.   EXACTLY...   Ford guys thought the Mopar teem were after ventilation.   That was not the primary focus.  Do you get this?    George Wallace actually laughed at it.   He said,  The Ford people called them vents.  So did we...   Do you get it?     David Pearson thought,  Look at the dumb wings.  That won't work.  Then after they raced.  He said,  I thought to myself.  They really do work.   Remember, Pearson didn't have a computer.  Just what he thought in his head.    this was all uncharted territory back then.  Everyone thought it was a clown car or space ship till it ran.   McCurry even hated the first drawing that Pointer did.   Pointer didn't McCurry a computer generated image of a Daytona.  Pointer drew a picture.  See my point.  They did stuff from experience and put their thoughts to use.  Of course today,  EVERYTHING would be different and would be done with different meanings.      Really,  I do love the banter but most of us on here is not stepping back in time at what they were doing and had been doing to make them think the way they did.      Some here keep looking at this with today perspective.  Stop it..  :brickwall: :brickwall:     I was just thinking,  If you talk/type too much nobody will be paying attention.   Man I hope that is not the case with this topic..

Quote from: hemiviper588 on October 08, 2011, 06:54:49 PM
Larry retired after his stint with Viper...he is doing well, in fact he is Pheasant hunting with some friends as we speak!

Awesome.   That is very good to hear he is in good health.   That group of men have been the nicest to all of us.     He has said to me before that he really didn't think about the history they were working on these cars.  They were just doing a job.     He really liked how everyone was so interested in their hay day.   I have a letter from Bob McCurry thinking me for my time and the photos I had of his days at Dodge.. What a great group of people.   McCurry would call me and tell me to get my butt down to the local Lexus dealer and hang out with him..  And to bring one of his cars.   He called the Daytona (his car.)   When I was with George at Talladega,  George and Larry were going over their home values.   Wallace had left Chrysler in 71 and moved to California and worked for B&M.   Larry had made a comment that his home was worth the same as it did when Wallace left and Wallace's house was like 10x what he paid..   Are you still with Chrysler?  Working on the new Viper?   I saw the new record at Nurnburgring.  7.12    That put a big smile on my face. 

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 08, 2011, 06:47:52 PM

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 08, 2011, 06:15:22 PM
Here is the actual front end to the Jack McCoy #7 Daytona which ran in the 1970 Daytona 500.   The cut fender edge under the vent is bent up and was riveted to the scoop.   There was no way for the tire to be cut on any edges on the cut part of the fender.  Sorry it's a bad picture.  It was sitting in the back of the shop in a dark room.    I can email a bigger picture to anyone.  

Please email me a larger version... uncompressed if possible.

Thanks Sean!

I sent it.  Please let me know if you get it.   I tried to send through the member contact info but I could not get the page to work. 

I did some mock ups (two dimensional) using my car and some pics of the suspension. My discovery is this...

Venting seems to have been on the minds of the aero engineers because the test mule's vents have no though of tire clearance. Yet, on the minds of the builders/mechanical engineers there was a known tire clearance issue that needed to be addressed.

In the testing of the Daytona the idea of lowering the car gave it more stability. This would require the fenders to be bubbled. This also created some problems. Lowering the car changed the suspension. By adjusting the upper control arm out (or lengthening it) can make up for this adjustment (camber), but makes the car as it is already under a load just sitting still. Since the upper control arm is shorter than the lower (and the car is lowered) makes the tire travel up more extreme (pulls the tire in at the top) than normal.

Now,  get the car moving and under a load the tire does not have to travel very far up and the tire begins to angle more than usual,  because the upper control arm is shorter than the lower the geometry pulls the top of the tire in – already towards the end of its limits. 

The other discovery is that the lower control arm has limits to its movement up. It stops on the frame of the car. This stop can guarantee the tire can't move up past a certain point.  This can give the engineers comfort in cutting a hole and leaving exposed sharp edges where it is impossible for the tire to reach.  Let's say they only need .5" because after that the suspension can't physically past that point. Allowing for tire expansion and flexing they came up with a 5' inch diameter hole,  only needing .25" of extra tire clearance up. 

Notice the difference - The suspension on the Daytona is as if it is under a load sitting still. My bet is that they made an adjestment on the torsion bar to keep it loaded, because lowering the car makes if softer.
(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/5329/fs1969dodgecharger500an.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/249/fs1969dodgecharger500an.jpg/)



The hood clearance issue is still a problem I can't figure out. It may be that after the car was lowered and the camber changed it only had one point of contact (the fender).

Can this come down to engineer ownership. Can both tire clearance and aero efficiency be true? The Aero engineers are seeing the benefits, and the mechanical engineers are seeing their benefits. Two groups taking two separate paths end up at the same point. The planets lines up  :2thumbs:

Cars after the Daytona would have never benefited for the added venting because they could not handle the stance the Daytona enjoyed because of its dynamics.

Dane

Quote from: Daytona Guy on October 08, 2011, 09:19:18 PM
I did some mock ups (two dimensional) using my car and some pics of the suspension. My discovery is this...

Venting seems to have been on the minds of the aero engineers because the test mule's vents have no though of tire clearance. Yet, on the minds of the builders/mechanical engineers there was a known tire clearance issue that needed to be addressed.

In the testing of the Daytona the idea of lowering the car gave it more stability. This would require the fenders to be bubbled. This also created some problems. Lowering the car changed the suspension. By adjusting the upper control arm out (or lengthening it) can make up for this adjustment (camber), but makes the car as it is already under a load just sitting still. Since the upper control arm is shorter than the lower (and the car is lowered) makes the tire travel up more extreme (pulls the tire in at the top) than normal.

Now,  get the car moving and under a load the tire does not have to travel very far up and the tire begins to angle more than usual,  because the upper control arm is shorter than the lower the geometry pulls the top of the tire in – already towards the end of its limits. 

The other discovery is that the lower control arm has limits to its movement up. It stops on the frame of the car. This stop can guarantee the tire can't move up past a certain point.  This can give the engineers comfort in cutting a hole and leaving exposed sharp edges where it is impossible for the tire to reach.  Let's say they only need .5" because after that the suspension can't physically past that point. Allowing for tire expansion and flexing they came up with a 5' inch diameter hole,  only needing .25" of extra tire clearance up. 

Notice the difference - The suspension on the Daytona is as if it is under a load sitting still. My bet is that they made an adjustment on the torsion bar to keep it loaded, because lowering the car makes if softer.
(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/5329/fs1969dodgecharger500an.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/249/fs1969dodgecharger500an.jpg/)



The hood clearance issue is still a problem I can't figure out. It may be that after the car was lowered and the camber changed it only had one point of contact (the fender).

Can this come down to engineer ownership. Can both tire clearance and aero efficiency be true? The Aero engineers are seeing the benefits, and the mechanical engineers are seeing their benefits. Two groups taking two separate paths end up at the same point. The planets lines up  :2thumbs:

Cars after the Daytona would have never benefited for the added venting because they could not handle the stance the Daytona enjoyed because of its dynamics.

Dane

You wrote:    Venting seems to have been on the minds of the aero engineers because the test mule's vents have no though of tire clearance. Yet, on the minds of the builders/mechanical engineers there was a known tire clearance issue that needed to be addressed.

Me:  The original drawing that I posted earlier that Pointer gave to McCurry has NO EXTRACTORS.    Theory.. When they show the drawing to the mechanical engineers they said.  Tire problems up front for sure...  As they just ran into it the year before..  Yes the mule has tiny extractors.  Possible that the mechanical guys said.  Pointer,  We need a tire to go up there just in case.   Pointer gives that ugly mule scoop back to Ford  :rofl: and makes a beautiful work of art.   Also if you look at the mule everything is crude, flat....  mock up stuff.  Flat.   Nothing that was used.  Just the ideas.

You Wrote:  The other discovery is that the lower control arm has limits to its movement up. It stops on the frame of the car. This stop can guarantee the tire can't move up past a certain point.

Me:  Yes the arm has it mechanical limit on a race car.  There are rubber bumpers on a street car..  BUT you never want to find the mechanical limit of a control arm when you are racing...  EVER..  You DON'T wants the suspension to EVER bottom out.  I can't say that more loudly.    That is a bad bad thing.  The car can bottom but NEVER the suspension.   When you are going 200+ I am talking about..    Yes the control arm will stop somewhere but you don't want it to do it..  You will break a spindle/bend a control arm and who knows where you go from there.

I do agree,  You have at least 2 groups of engineers trying to build a car.  Also it was just a very small group of guys.  Bob McCurry even said to Pointer,   Build the car if you think it will win.  If anyone gets in your way, send them to me and keep working.      Design was not happy about not having a say either.    But the engineers are very adamant about it was for clearance.  FIRST....   And they say only for clearance too.     I do think Pointer was thinking about the areo possibilities he could do with it..  That was his expertise.     I know in my head that Pointer took that thought to drawing boards and to the wind tunnel for what we have on the finished product.    Basically,  I think in this order..   Pointer draws car.     (no extractors)   Mechanical guys say,  Need to put humps in the top of the fender since you Pointer say there will be more down force.  Pointer goes back and puts on little extractors.  Then the mechanical guys say,  Really Pointer?   We are not using donuts for tires..   Make sure there is enough room on the top outside of that fender.   Pointer then goes back and makes one bitchen vent in fit and function.    Now have you ever seen a more beautiful vent on a car ever?  Well maybe the 1/4 Scoops on a 69 Coronet.  The optional ones....       Remember they were on a crash program to beat Ford at the new Talladega race track.   They had to be there with the new car..  That was mandatory...   

The hood clearance issue is still a problem I can't figure out. It may be that after the car was lowered and the camber changed it only had one point of contact (the fender).

Can this come down to engineer ownership. Can both tire clearance and aero efficiency be true? The Aero engineers are seeing the benefits, and the mechanical engineers are seeing their benefits. Two groups taking two separate paths end up at the same point. The planets lines up  :2thumbs:

Cars after the Daytona would have never benefited for the added venting because they could not handle the stance the Daytona enjoyed because of its dynamics.

Dane

[/quote]  I personally don't think they expected the tire to hood problem..   My thoughts are on how the vent came to be by what the engineers say.     I think it is totally possable that both clearance and aero efficiency were going on at once.   But the engineers had to have the extra room for security 1st.   I think that the aero guys played with it after that.   A vent is more usefull than a hump on the fender over the tire and so on.       It is possible too that Chrysler didn't want to modify the structural integrity of the hood since it was a finished product.   Well basically finished.  They Daytona doesn't have the ribs in the front of hood.  But the sides of the hood were more than likely off limits to modify..       Funny, thinking about this what I do with my wife I just say,  Your right honey and turn my head and roll my eyes...   :smilielol:     I think I have said all I can say about this.    Hemiviper, Pettybird and others all say the samething too.  Funny,  the ones who have not meet the group is not believing them..  Doug,  Where are you?  lol..     I am not trying to convert anyone.  But really,    I think we are looking to hard for this needle when it is right in front of us..   They have said the same thing over and over and over again..   They have nothing to hid..  Really,  there is no benefit for them to lie..   You can talk to them in which some of us have and for the past 35 years they say the exact thing over and over again.      Man, I know looking at it gives you another idea but they wanted the clearance first.   The aero part was a secondary thought that was probably more important in the end.  But the initial idea was for clearance.    :Twocents: :Twocents: :Twocents:    

You:)   Yes the arm has it mechanical limit on a race car.  There are rubber bumpers on a street car..  BUT you never want to find the mechanical limit of a control arm when you are racing...  EVER..  You DON'T wants the suspension to EVER bottom out.  I can't say that more loudly.    That is a bad bad thing.  The car can bottom but NEVER the suspension.   When you are going 200+ I am talking about..    Yes the control arm will stop somewhere but you don't want it to do it..  You will break a spindle/bend a control arm and who knows where you go from there.

Me: Just look at the lower control arm (not on a street car). It will hit the frame if they travel too far up (not far). The only way around this is to cut the frame away. (does someone have a pic) I'm not and never have been talking about a stock front lower control arm. I'm not saying that it was OK to hit the frame, or that it hits the frame, it just could not go past that point (that gave assurances). This guaranteed the tire had a limit on how far it could go up. Take your pick, it will either bottom out the shock or the lower control arm on the frame. That is what I observe. Look at the shocks - what am I missing? All I am saying is that the travel upward had a limit.

I hope I made it clear that I see the tire clearance issue now - once I could see how it could work. It is just the way I work, once I see it - I get it. That is why I'm glad you guys are willing to work through this with those of us who never got it because it did not look like it could be done - just having a stock body and not seeing the track car - it seemed laughable that the scoops were for tire clearance. Now I can see it. Thanks for your patience.

Just a guess - but I have always thought that they used these in their thinking up the design the of fender scoops. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought this.

(http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/4169/img69861.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/img69861.jpg/)

Dane

Funny,  Sorry for my You: Me: post.      I am not a computer guy and could not figure out how to break down the question and answer them from what I know or my thoughts.  I do know how to right click, copy and paste...  You may laugh at me for that.   :hah:  I am sure I look like a dork with the computer literate, but that was the only way I could do it in my world...

On the race cars,  the car will bottom out on the track before the suspension bottoms out on the frame or exhaust.  Just like in todays Cup cars.   That is why you see the sparks during the night races.    Another problem that was coming up with the Daytona was bending one of the arms.  Can't remember if it was the lower or upper.   The cars had so much downforce on the superspeedways that they never experienced before.   There were issues with some drivers momentarily blacking out too.   That is one thing about the Daytona and the Superbird.  They were the cars that changed the rule book more than any other car.  It really was a game changer.   The cars were just too fast for the technology they had.  Especially when it came to tires.    Can you imagine even if you left the Daytona/Superbird body alone and just gave it all today's technology in the chassis/running gear department.   They really are special cars.    The drivers really liked the fact that you could point the car where ever you wanted it to go and it went there.    That was something they really didn't have before.  Plus the fact that they never went that fast before..   What a great time in American automotive history to be an engineer.   I know I would of had one heck of a blast.  I do now playing with my Daytona now and dialing it is for faster laps times is fun and a challenge.   Expensive but fun..  

I totally agree with the,  It looks like a vent/extractor,  it works like one,  it is called one and it smells like one.  It is wild that it is actually for tire clearance insurance as the primary function.     I hope I have not sounded like a jerk or said things 20 times.  But even as a young pup and sitting there with Rathgeib, Romberg and others from Chrysler listening to them tell us what was really going on and I was actually really interested even as a kid.   I know my father has made comments before that he didn't think I was paying attention.

I still laugh when Mr. Wallace asked me about the right and then left vent and I said, Clearance? on the left too.     I was not sure about the left one.   And he said, nope, it not for clearance on the left.   It would look dumb with just the right one.   That will stick in my head till the day I die.   His chuckle cracks me up.


I was going to say the Ram Charger hood was one of my favorites too but I did love the 1/4 scoop design (even though it didn't do anything) better.     Yep,  It does look like a reversed scoop on the Daytona but it is of a different design.   Rises more rapidly on the Daytona.

Have been reading this thread and just ran across this article while searching for something else.  Not posting for any arguments for or against just thought the article would make for an interesting read.  Has a member or two cars pictured and anothers aviator.

http://americanclassicars.com/dodge-daytona-and-plymouth-superbird/

"John Arruzza explains some of the things that had to be done to make a Charger into a Daytona: "The nose cone is sheet metal. The headlight doors are fiberglass. They used a '70 model Charger fender and hood because the' 70 model Charger was going to come out with the wrap around bumper, which gave perfect place to line up the nose cone." The little bumps on the Daytona's fenders served an important purpose, too. "Chrysler had holes in the tops of the fenders to release air trapped in the front fenders at high speed. They really didn't want the Ford camp or the Chevy camp to realize that's what they were for so they came up with the story that the tires were rubbing and they needed to cut a hole in the fender for the tire. That was not actually the case. They really did speed the car up by releasing trapped air from inside the fender."

Quote from: oldcarnut on October 09, 2011, 11:48:01 AM
Have been reading this thread and just ran across this article while searching for something else.  Not posting for any arguments for or against just thought the article would make for an interesting read.  Has a member or two cars pictured and anothers aviator.

http://americanclassicars.com/dodge-daytona-and-plymouth-superbird/

"John Arruzza explains some of the things that had to be done to make a Charger into a Daytona: "The nose cone is sheet metal. The headlight doors are fiberglass. They used a '70 model Charger fender and hood because the' 70 model Charger was going to come out with the wrap around bumper, which gave perfect place to line up the nose cone." The little bumps on the Daytona's fenders served an important purpose, too. "Chrysler had holes in the tops of the fenders to release air trapped in the front fenders at high speed. They really didn't want the Ford camp or the Chevy camp to realize that's what they were for so they came up with the story that the tires were rubbing and they needed to cut a hole in the fender for the tire. That was not actually the case. They really did speed the car up by releasing trapped air from inside the fender."

I don't think John said the headlight door are fiberglass.  They are plastic.  That is a case of the author misspeaking.     The article says about 250 of the Daytona's made it to dealers.  They pretty much all made it to dealers, sales shows and a few company cars.  Cars were even passed on to some drivers.   I think 1 or 2 are still missing.  But they have been found in stock (1 burnt and cut in half) condition.    Half the cars went racing?   :smilielol:    Chrysler sold Body in Whites.  There was no need to purchase a complete car.  Unless in some emergence they need body parts.    On the vents,  John has said that many times the clearance issue was not real..  The engineers say exactly the opposite.  They like the fact that Ford thought they were for ventilation.   They even chuckle about it.   Are they retarded?  I don't think so.  The original intent was clearance.  The after affect is totally 100% ventilation.    They were not running around saying clearance to Ford..    They called them vents....      What I am trying to beat in some heads  :slap: Chrysler engineers wanted clearance on the RF  FIRST..     Also There was NO Chevy camp..  Unless we are talking about the cars at the rear of the field to please Bill France... :smilielol:     GM offered absolutely NO competition to Ford and Chrysler those days.   That is not a joke either... They didn't..   

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 08, 2011, 11:55:21 PM
Doug,  Where are you?  lol..    

He's deep inside the DSAC bunker, drinking heavily and shouting expletives at the wall.


Do you get the feeling that the people who don't want to listen to what we say are looking at us like we're stoned hippies who claim we were at Woodstock?  You had to BE there, man...

Quote from: pettybird on October 09, 2011, 11:17:53 PM

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 08, 2011, 11:55:21 PM
Doug,  Where are you?  lol..    

He's deep inside the DSAC bunker, drinking heavily and shouting expletives at the wall.


Do you get the feeling that the people who don't want to listen to what we say are looking at us like we're stoned hippies who claim we were at Woodstock?  You had to BE there, man...

:smilielol: :smilielol:  Where do you come up with this stuff?  :cheers:   Some keep looking at the finished product and not how it came to be.   It's all good.   It is just one of those things that has always rung in my head.  The words of the engineers.    George Wallace, would probably just schrug is shoulder and say fine believe what you want but I can't stop for some reason...   Like you and pretty much everyone else on here, we love these cars.  I just don't understand the (it can't be) thought after all the grilling..  :RantExplode: :RantExplode: :lol:  But that's cool.. I guess..      

While following along with this thread from about the second day I have been behind the tire clearence reasoning as thats what I heard many moons ago. But I began to wonder if the clearence was just smoke to mislead the competition as the pressure relief argument sure was sounding more and more legitimate.  :shruggy:

now I see this and am buying tickets to the "pressure relief train"......... :D

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 07, 2011, 02:39:04 PM

Quote from: WINGIN IT on October 07, 2011, 02:31:50 PM

Quote from: Mopurr on October 07, 2011, 10:56:12 AM
so, is this going to come down to a show me and then only believable......start a chip in to get the funds, pick a car and go to the tunnel and if you can get some of the old engineers there even better.

Sounds like a good meet activity.......lol

That's why I said let Mythbusters have at it- at THEIR cost. I'm sure with the resources they have they could come up with a viable plan.

Although a good meet activity sounds like a great idea as well.  :2thumbs: :icon_smile_big:

Or the History Detectives show...  :Twocents: :shruggy:

love that show  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCBRohCCewM

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 08, 2011, 08:10:09 PM

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 08, 2011, 06:47:52 PM

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 08, 2011, 06:15:22 PM
Here is the actual front end to the Jack McCoy #7 Daytona which ran in the 1970 Daytona 500.   The cut fender edge under the vent is bent up and was riveted to the scoop.   There was no way for the tire to be cut on any edges on the cut part of the fender.  Sorry it's a bad picture.  It was sitting in the back of the shop in a dark room.    I can email a bigger picture to anyone.  

Please email me a larger version... uncompressed if possible.

Thanks Sean!

I sent it.  Please let me know if you get it.   I tried to send through the member contact info but I could not get the page to work. 

Sean -  I received your email with the photo attached, but it was the same 32 Kb version that you posted.  What is the file size of the original pic/scan?  Try attaching it to an email that is already created and ready to go, instead of using the "email pic" function which may be setup to automatically resize it when it is sent.

BTW -  I am just now emerging from a visit back to the distant past...  I lost Internet service shortly after requesting the picture (at about 7:30 PM on Saturday evening), and have only started to have some connectivity in the last hour... having been offline for over 39 hours.  Even now the connection is only for a minute or so at a time.  I have been reporting Internet service problems to my ISP (Charter... aka "those Bast@rds") for nearly two months.  It is now being handled through their supervisors, and a tech is supposed to be here early tomorrow morning to fix it...   AND, to top off the weekend, the sub-division lost electrical power for over 14 hours after some light showers... about the 20 th outage we have had THIS YEAR!  OnCor is the electrical power delivery company in the area... those  #%@&*$#Q&@s!

 

Quote from: FJ5WING on October 10, 2011, 09:17:19 AM
While following along with this thread from about the second day I have been behind the tire clearence reasoning as thats what I heard many moons ago. But I began to wonder if the clearence was just smoke to mislead the competition as the pressure relief argument sure was sounding more and more legitimate.  :shruggy:

now I see this and am buying tickets to the "pressure relief train"......... :D

:RantExplode:    :smilielol:

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 08, 2011, 10:49:52 PM

Quote from: Daytona Guy on October 08, 2011, 09:19:18 PM

Can this come down to engineer ownership. Can both tire clearance and aero efficiency be true? The Aero engineers are seeing the benefits, and the mechanical engineers are seeing their benefits. Two groups taking two separate paths end up at the same point. The planets lines up  :2thumbs:

Me:  The original drawing that I posted earlier that Pointer gave to McCurry has NO EXTRACTORS.    Theory.. When they show the drawing to the mechanical engineers they said.  Tire problems up front for sure...  As they just ran into it the year before..  Yes the mule has tiny extractors.  Possible that the mechanical guys said.  Pointer,  We need a tire to go up there just in case.   Pointer gives that ugly mule scoop back to Ford  :rofl: and makes a beautiful work of art.   Also if you look at the mule everything is crude, flat....  mock up stuff.  Flat.   Nothing that was used.  Just the ideas.

<snip>

I do agree,  You have at least 2 groups of engineers trying to build a car.  Also it was just a very small group of guys.  Bob McCurry even said to Pointer,   Build the car if you think it will win.  If anyone gets in your way, send them to me and keep working.      Design was not happy about not having a say either.    But the engineers are very adamant about it was for clearance.  FIRST....   And they say only for clearance too.     I do think Pointer was thinking about the areo possibilities he could do with it..  That was his expertise.     I know in my head that Pointer took that thought to drawing boards and to the wind tunnel for what we have on the finished product.    Basically,  I think in this order..   Pointer draws car.     (no extractors)   Mechanical guys say,  Need to put humps in the top of the fender since you Pointer say there will be more down force.  Pointer goes back and puts on little extractors.  Then the mechanical guys say,  Really Pointer?   We are not using donuts for tires..   Make sure there is enough room on the top outside of that fender.   Pointer then goes back and makes one bitchen vent in fit and function.    

Very definitely possible...  competing Engineering requirements from different Engineering groups is the norm...

Although my college courses prepared me for a career as an Aerodynamics Analyst,  my entire career was spent in design... Structural, Mechanical Systems, & Hydraulic Systems.  I had an offer from Boeing to be an Aerodynamics Analyst, but took a Mechanical Design job offer from Fairchild in order to stay in Texas.

The design tradeoffs between Engineering disciplines existed at every company that I worked at.  For example, I was the Lead Engineer on the Dee Howard TR7000CX Thrust Reverser developed for Cessna's Citation X (Ten) and was constantly having to negotiate (or mediate) different design requirements from the various Engineering disciplines involved.  And clearances were always a major issue requiring extensive tolerance analysis.

Extensive testing was also required, and I was heavily involved in that as well.  Inexpensive and innovative measurement techniques like Sean describes Mr Wallace using were extensively utilized to check/verify clearances.

The first three pics below show Citation X thrust reverser under development and testing.  The fourth pic shows what can happen if tolerance accumulation is not adequately controlled.  After this incident I was tasked with designing a retrofitable fix and a production redesign.

My point of this off-topic excursion is that I understand clearances, and have extensive Mechanical Systems design practical experience, much of it before the advent of CATIA and other computer software aids were available.

My recent sketches were intended to bolster the possibility that tire clearances were a design consideration, and my request for a larger picture was made because the flanges mentioned may well be evidence of tire clearance being a factor.  Any sign on the underside of the fender of tire contact?

Awesome stuff.  My grandfather was Program Manager for the B-1B.   He was under contract with Grumman, Lockheed, Boeing at one time or another.   He was one of the designers or the one (not sure) the wing structure at the cabin on the B17.   I know he worked on the JATO's mount too.   He designed a of the quick release hydraulic fittings on not sure which one but the wings were removible or folded up.    My aunt has the paper thinking him for his invention.  Since he was undercontract he didn't get no big payoff for all is skills.    Seeing your pictures reminds me of the stuff he would show me that worked on.     The 747 stall test he showed me with the wings looking like they were strait up was incredible..   Totally off subject but reminded me of my grandfather.   Sorry to all the other guys who read this...            That is a photograph I took of the McCoy front end.   I put it on my scanner and copied it.   Is there a better way?    Remember,  I am using rotary phone technology here   :lol:.. 

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on October 10, 2011, 04:43:54 PM
That is a photograph I took of the McCoy front end.   I put it on my scanner and copied it.   Is there a better way?    Remember,  I am using rotary phone technology here   :lol:.. 

Most scanners can be adjusted for image resolution, i.e. 300 dpi, 600 dpi, 1200 dpi, etc.   A setting of 600 dpi would be fine for a large good quality scan, and virtually any file format would be fine (.jpg, .bmp, etc...).  As a .jpg file the file size would probably be about 1 Mb, while a .bmp might be 3-4 Mb.

If you call me, I will try to walk you through the scanning...  I will PM my cell no.

My Internet connection will probably croak in the next few hours...

One more pic showing final assembly of the instrumented prototype test article...

Well, this thread has about run it's course... so it is probably time to bury the "dead horse" we have been  :horse:

When I started the thread, I expected a debate based on the technical merit of each "theory", with pictures and sketches being exchanged.

I appreciate everyone's input, especially Sean's & Dane's... and thanks to everyone who participated it the poll.

So, unless new information comes to light, or someone posts something that I feel compelled to respond to, the sketch below may be my final input on the matter.  It is based on Sean's picture and description of the "McCoy" Daytona front end...

Below it are the Interim Poll results...

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)

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)

I thought the scoops were put there so people at car shows can look inside there and see if they can find Waldo or hidden treasure...every time we take our car to a show....everyone who passes looks inside the scoops

Quote from: A383Wing on October 11, 2011, 09:09:38 PM
I thought the scoops were put there so people at car shows can look inside there and see if they can find Waldo or hidden treasure...every time we take our car to a show....everyone who passes looks inside the scoops

Show spectators find scoops fascinating...  :smilielol:

I have searched extensively for wing cars in hard cornering situations and had very little luck...  Anyone have a source for such photos...?

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 11, 2011, 09:21:41 PM

Quote from: A383Wing on October 11, 2011, 09:09:38 PM
I thought the scoops were put there so people at car shows can look inside there and see if they can find Waldo or hidden treasure...every time we take our car to a show....everyone who passes looks inside the scoops

Show spectators find scoops fascinating...  :smilielol:

Either that, or he's looking for that Budweiser six pack......  :D

Quote from: hemi68charger on October 11, 2011, 09:40:46 PM

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 11, 2011, 09:21:41 PM

Quote from: A383Wing on October 11, 2011, 09:09:38 PM
I thought the scoops were put there so people at car shows can look inside there and see if they can find Waldo or hidden treasure...every time we take our car to a show....everyone who passes looks inside the scoops

Show spectators find scoops fascinating...  :smilielol:

Either that, or he's looking for that Budweiser six pack......  :D

Only the real Budweiser... Budweiser Budvar!!!    :cheers:

This was my point earlier. Is this a real actual race car with original framing? My point was that the lower control arm will hit the frame. I thought that these race cars, if they bottomed out on the ground would leave the oil pan on the track -  I know mine did:) Can you show a pick of this car's oil pan - clearance to the ground? If this car had one inch before the lower control arm hit the frame - then the K frame should be on the ground.

(http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9867/picture1anp.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/18/picture1anp.jpg/)

Also, I know this would mess up your car, but if you torque the bars down you could allow the lower control are to hit the frame  - and see where the tire is. Are these the same tires. The K & K car looks like it used bigger tires.

(http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/236/isaac70tally1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/833/isaac70tally1.jpg/)

(http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9895/pa118216.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/638/pa118216.jpg/)

The question I have is if this is the same framing - and suspension - how did they get the K & K car so low? It looks as if they ran this car with only once inch left on the lower control arms range ????

So what are we saying now? If this tire is 1" from the fender and 1" from the lower control arm hitting the frame, that would give the builders the assurance they need that the tire can't shred or go too far. Is the bird fender taller than the Daytona? Are there holes in this Bird's fenders? - what did the tire location look like through the scoop?

Dane

This is killing me...  :lol:     Doug,  Is your car aligned for Talladega?  Vintage 69 Tires?  When you say, one inch from the fender lip, I assume you are talking about the top of the fender since the (lip on the side) was not an issue.   Doug, please just put some 800 pound weights on each corner for this test..  Please, in the name of Science... :D         Dane,  The tire hit the fender top in testing in 68.  The oil pan (sump) was OK..    1 inch between the frame rail and the control arm is good.  Not good if it hits but they have that figured (hopefully) out in the torsion bar rate for each track.  They had what is called a Cook Book for the chassis set ups at each track.    I run 3/8 between the bumper on the control arm and the frame on my street car.     That is enough room.  Thanks to a bumper.   Look at the bump stop on a stock B-body.  (yes I know race cars don't have them) but if you drop the car 1/4 inch at the bumpstop that's about 5/8 inch at the tire.    Measure from the top outer side of the tire to the lower top lip of the fender on a street car.   You can see how much travel there is for so little movement at the frame.    Please don't make me mess up my alignment..   :icon_smile_wink:        I am not sure but is the Grand National lower control arm longer?  If so the drop is more.    If shorter it will be less.     Now Doug.  Here is the crazy thing.  The engineers just wanted the extra room for cheep insurance before testing.   You more than most have talked with all of the engineers many times.  I know just about every time we see them this comes up..   Did they wink at you?    Rumor has it not to believe everything you hear but they really are adamant about this clearance issue concern before the car was built.    :brickwall:   One more time, No matter what happened in the end, they wanted it NOT to be an issue in the beginning...

Quote from: Daytona Guy on October 12, 2011, 12:18:24 AM
This was my point earlier. Is this a real actual race car with original framing? My point was that the lower control arm will hit the frame. I thought that these race cars, if they bottomed out on the ground would leave the oil pan on the track -  I know mine did:) Can you show a pick of this car's oil pan - clearance to the ground? If this car had one inch before the lower control arm hit the frame - then the K frame should be on the ground.

Before doing anything, the oil pan is 4" from the ground.   This is a wet sump car.  If anything, the car is sitting too low in the front.

QuoteAlso, I know this would mess up your car, but if you torque the bars down you could allow the lower control are to hit the frame  - and see where the tire is. Are these the same tires. The K & K car looks like it used bigger tires.

The tires on the car are 80's era tires, and are somewhat larger than the ones raced in 1970.   In fact, they look like big balloons to me.

Quote
The question I have is if this is the same framing - and suspension - how did they get the K & K car so low? It looks as if they ran this car with only once inch left on the lower control arms range ????

Bodies were positioned differently over time.      K & K is a dry sump car, so without that huge wet sump pan, it allows more freedom in getting the engine (and everything else) a little lower.   You can't compare suspensions by looking at the body.

QuoteSo what are we saying now? If this tire is 1" from the fender and 1" from the lower control arm hitting the frame, that would give the builders the assurance they need that the tire can't shred or go too far. Is the bird fender taller than the Daytona? Are there holes in this Bird's fenders? - what did the tire location look like through the scoop?

Yes there are full holes in the fender directly above the tire.   The side edges are turned up to rivet the scoops on.     It's all smooth and bondoed on the bottom side.  

There is no doubt that there was a problem on the 1968 1/2 race car with clearance.   The 68 1/2 was also deemed illegal because of the way that body was positioned (dropped in the front) on the chassis.     This opened the door for a scoop to be placed on the car "just in case".     Again, for either purpose (extractor or tire) , they could not go back after production and add it.     I have never any of the heard of the scoops being actually necessary on a Superbird or Daytona for interference on the TOP of the fender.     None of the engineering guys have ever claimed that the wing cars had the tire to fender problem of the 68 1/2.    They have always stated the scoop was "just in case".

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.  

Didn't NASCAR have rules about how large a fender opening you could run?  Your fenders, the #6 and the #71 are all shaped differently...

Quote from: Aero426 on October 12, 2011, 08:54:02 AM

There is no doubt that there was a problem on the 1968 1/2 race car with clearance.   The 68 1/2 was also deemed illegal because of the way that body was positioned (dropped in the front) on the chassis.     This opened the door for a scoop to be placed on the car "just in case".     Again, for either purpose (extractor or tire) , they could not go back after production and add it.     I have never any of the heard of the scoops being actually necessary on a Superbird or Daytona for interference on the TOP of the fender.     None of the engineering guys have ever claimed that the wing cars had the tire to fender problem of the 68 1/2.    They have always stated the scoop was "just in case".

Now - who are we to believe? Here it says "None of the engineering guys have ever claimed" it was for tire clearance like the 68.5 problems.

My issue was that if the tire has that much movement you would want to fix that because of the haddling issues it creates.

The claim has ALWAYS been that the scoops were for tire clearance.  That is not in doubt.      

What I said was that "I know of no documented experiences of tire rubs / failures on TOPS of fenders on wing cars with or without scoops".    

I also said that to my knowledge, "the engineering people (Wallace, Rathgeb, et al) have never cited fender rubs on tops of wing car fenders with or without scoops".  

The engineering guys have said the scoops were placed on the cars "in case they were needed".   They ALL will tell you they had trouble with the 68 1/2 which was a special program just predating the C500 and wing programs.   That car was radical and built to the extreme, which is why they got busted.

I believe that tire clearance to the top of the fender was NOT a factor in wing car performance.   So then, what creedence should be given to Pointer's "exhauster" claim?    Why did he call it that?    
The bottom line was he came clean on it.  He gave GK the proverbial "wink-wink" when confronted on it.    At the very least, that is a chink in the armor that there is more to the story.      

One more time...

This is a car that never ran with fender scoops.  It ran at Michigan on the high banks with NO fender scoops.    

Apparently there were no problems with tire rubs except on the REAR quarter panels  :smilielol:

(http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=85143.0;attach=160546;image)

Just a little pounding on the rear wheel arches.   Changing the rear tires must have been fun.

No scoops and look how LOW that stinkin' car sits.    Terry Nichels says this was the ultimate cheater Bird.   In USAC you could get away with a little more.

(http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j25/wingcar_builder/bobby_unser_c6.jpg)

photo stolen from someone who stole it from someone, who stole it from aerowarriors.com[/size]

Quote from: pettybird on October 12, 2011, 01:30:02 PM
Didn't NASCAR have rules about how large a fender opening you could run?  Your fenders, the #6 and the #71 are all shaped differently...

The rule book sez...

"Fenders may not be cut or altered except for wheel or tire clearance which must be approved by NASCAR technical inspector."

Translation of that to me means "reasonable and customary" alterations are OK.       In other words, "we'll tell you if it's not OK".

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 11, 2011, 11:08:43 PM

Quote from: hemi68charger on October 11, 2011, 09:40:46 PM

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 11, 2011, 09:21:41 PM

Quote from: A383Wing on October 11, 2011, 09:09:38 PM
I thought the scoops were put there so people at car shows can look inside there and see if they can find Waldo or hidden treasure...every time we take our car to a show....everyone who passes looks inside the scoops

Show spectators find scoops fascinating...  :smilielol:

Either that, or he's looking for that Budweiser six pack......  :D

Only the real Budweiser... Budweiser Budvar!!!    :cheers:

Good for you Allen... :2thumbs:  I have one of those beer cans from Europe; the original and first Budweiser...  Along with mopars, I have about 500 different beer cans on display...  :icon_smile_big:     

Quote from: Aero426 on October 12, 2011, 02:47:46 PM

Quote from: pettybird on October 12, 2011, 01:30:02 PM
Didn't NASCAR have rules about how large a fender opening you could run?  Your fenders, the #6 and the #71 are all shaped differently...

The rule book sez...

"Fenders may not be cut or altered except for wheel or tire clearance which must be approved by NASCAR technical inspector."

Translation of that to me means "reasonable and customary" alterations are OK.       In other words, "we'll tell you if it's not OK".

Templates?!?... Don't need no stinkin' templates!!!   The NASCAR rule...suggestion book sez safety first!  :D

Note the variety of wheel openings... dome shaped, bell shaped, semi-flat top, and check out the No. 88 Engineering Daytona which appears to have a secondary trim at the top of the opening.  :eek2:  :shruggy:

On the fake #88, it's just the cut of the wheel opening, or that particular spot on the forward part of the wheel lip is pushed in a little bit.    The angle of the photo makes it look less concentric.

No templates in that area of the car back then - just the one going over the top center for the length profile, and I believe one over the top of the front clip for width at top of the fenders. 

Quote from: Aero426 on October 12, 2011, 02:20:44 PM
The claim has ALWAYS been that the scoops were for tire clearance.  That is not in doubt.      

What I said was that "I know of no documented experiences of tire rubs / failures on TOPS of fenders on wing cars with or without scoops".    

I also said that to my knowledge, "the engineering people (Wallace, Rathgeb, et al) have never cited fender rubs on tops of wing car fenders with or without scoops".  

The engineering guys have said the scoops were placed on the cars "in case they were needed".   They ALL will tell you they had trouble with the 68 1/2 which was a special program just predating the C500 and wing programs.   That car was radical and built to the extreme, which is why they got busted.

I believe that tire clearance to the top of the fender was NOT a factor in wing car performance.   So then, what creedence should be given to Pointer's "exhauster" claim?    Why did he call it that?    
The bottom line was he came clean on it.  He gave GK the proverbial "wink-wink" when confronted on it.    At the very least, that is a chink in the armor that there is more to the story.      

After everything I have read this makes the most sense.

Ten years ago in 2001, we had all the guys in the same room.    Rathgeb, Pointer, George, Bill Wright,  John Vaughn - ALL of them at the same time!    At that moment, we probably did not have enough information to come back to them with the exhauster document to ask about it.    And then we never said, "OK, come out to the parking lot and look at this car (the #7 car - which was present)".  And then we did not ask, "What are the potential contact points for the tire?"   And lastly, "Can you explain how the heck the tire can even get close to the scoop area?"      The answers would have been interesting to listen to.    Sadly, this was a missed opportunity.       Like the old saying goes, hindsight is 20/20.

Quote from: Aero426 on October 12, 2011, 05:54:48 PM
On the fake #88, it's just the cut of the wheel opening, or that particular spot on the forward part of the wheel lip is pushed in a little bit.    The angle of the photo makes it look less concentric.  

OOPS...  The B&W pic of the fake #88 slipped by...  :icon_smile_blackeye:  I was too busy looking at the wheel opening shape...  :P   In the other pics, there does not seem to be much distance from the opening to the top of the fender though...  :scope:

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 12, 2011, 06:20:17 PM
I was too busy looking at the wheel opening shape...  :P   In the other pics, there does not seem to be much distance from the opening to the top of the fender though...  :scope:

If you referring to the fake #88, keep in mind it is the big fat cheater busted at the '68 Firecracker 400.  Because of the tricks played with the body shell, the bottom of the rocker panels are shaved at the front to make it all work.   Look how weird the front of the rockers look and the bottom of the front fender.    Things are going to fit differently on that car.   In any event, since the car was mocked up for display when it was donated, you can't read too much into it relative to other Daytonas.   I hear there is a period photo of that car raised, umm, a little higher.    

Here's the fake 88 (68 1/2 race car) in its work clothes.    Note that it's now been raised up so high that you can slide the oil drain pan underneath without jacking the car up.   When they were caught at Daytona, they had to run the race this way.   

At Daytona, this thing was slammed to the ground.   Now you can drive a lowered '64 Chevy underneath.

By comparison, this is one of the other '68's but NOT the illegal x2 car which was more radical.   This is the starting point for why they felt they needed the fender scoop.  

Another race fender showing the scoop opening.   This is from the #88.

sure does look like the top of a tire would have clearence there. :icon_smile_wink:

if a lil hole lets some air out a biggun will let out more air!

this is a good thread  :yesnod: , lot of intresting ideas pictures   , love reading this kind  stuff  :2thumbs: :cheers:

, my  :Twocents:  tire clearence !!  because of  what i read  many years ago , ! the scoops were purly there for an extra margin of tire clearence at speed going into a corner with loading on the right front suspension
, also sure it said !  ((((( it was made sure the scoops did not affect the aero ! or they were designed in a way that it would be minimal )))))))))) :scratchchin:
was  searching through stuff , looking for where i had read this (was words from one of the guys on the daytona project )  came across this picture !!  thought i would post it as there are a couple of good pictures of  superbirds with out scoops  :yesnod: ;)

:popcrn:

Quote from: Aero426 on October 17, 2011, 12:57:02 PM
Another race fender showing the scoop opening.   This is from the #88.

I have not seen one loose before, that is very interesting to see.  thanks for sharing

Quote from: tan top on October 18, 2011, 05:29:20 PM
this is a good thread  :yesnod: , lot of intresting ideas pictures   , love reading this kind  stuff  :2thumbs: :cheers:

, my  :Twocents:  tire clearence !!  because of  what i read  many years ago , ! the scoops were purly there for an extra margin of tire clearence at speed going into a corner with loading on the right front suspension
, also sure it said !  ((((( it was made sure the scoops did not affect the aero ! or they were designed in a way that it would be mimimal )))))))))) :scratchchin:
was  searching through stuff , looking for where i had read this (was words from one of the guys on the daytona project )  came across this picture !!  thought i would post it as there are a couple of good pictures of  superbirds with out scoops  :yesnod: ;)

:popcrn:

I would put money on that cone being glass  :2thumbs: The same one they used on the white/Red wing car with the pin stipe headlight doors.

also looks like a Daytona...not a 'Bird

I haven't bothered to read all 8 pages, but, street cars or competition cars?

Street cars, purely asthetics.

Comp cars, they are aero aids. Airflow through the grill stacks up in the engine bay and creates lift. The scoops allow built up pressure in the nose to escape by being pulled out by the high speed, low pressure area above them. They are too narrow to provide any real tire clearance. Besides, the suspension would bottom out before the tire contacted the fender top.

We've all heard the story about tire clearence. It is a red herring. We all know none of the Chrysler engineers would ever suggest anything wasn't what it would seem, right? Kinda like plastic spacers put on the torsion bar adjusters to allow cars to meet ride height limits at the start of the race, but allow them to drop in height after a couple of bumps at speed. Or how about the imfamous trans am acid dip proposition. No, Chrysler's race engineers never "embelished" their statements at all.

 Didn't read the whole thing. When passing another car at high speed there is a ton of air coming off the the other car and some of it will be pushing sideways into your wheel well when you go by. With no place to go except under your car this reverse scoop      MIGHT   help vent the air out the top of the fender instead of underneath  your car.   Just a thought....

Quote from: Highbanked Hauler on October 19, 2011, 03:01:06 PM
Didn't read the whole thing.

Nope, I admitted that. Based on the photos on page 7 of front tire set ups on actual competition cars, I'd say air migration past the tire is a pretty small part of the equation compared to ram air at 180 mph at the nose of the car going into a 24x6 inch opening.

Also consider that on a high bank oval, body roll is considerably less of a concern compared to suspension travel. This is why superspeedway cars ran huge 1.38" and larger torsion bars. Bottoming out was a bigger concern than body roll.That means less static camber is required, hence angles of interference as implied by body roll and camber settings is also minimized.

Basic aero research shows extreme high pressure areas at the nose, low pressure over the hood, and high pressure again at the base of the windshield. The perfect formula for putting an extractor right over the center of the wheel well.

Quote from: HPP on October 19, 2011, 05:43:41 PM

Quote from: Highbanked Hauler on October 19, 2011, 03:01:06 PM
Didn't read the whole thing.

Nope, I admitted that. Based on the photos on page 7 of front tire set ups on actual competition cars, I'd say air migration past the tire is a pretty small part of the equation compared to ram air at 180 mph at the nose of the car going into a 24x6 inch opening.

Also consider that on a high bank oval, body roll is considerably less of a concern compared to suspension travel. This is why superspeedway cars ran huge 1.38" and larger torsion bars. Bottoming out was a bigger concern than body roll.That means less static camber is required, hence angles of interference as implied by body roll and camber settings is also minimized.

Basic aero research shows extreme high pressure areas at the nose, low pressure over the hood, and high pressure again at the base of the windshield. The perfect formula for putting an extractor right over the center of the wheel well.

For those interested in the technical aspects of dynamic pressure and the generation of lift, the following at worth checking out.  The first is the best IMO, but only focuses on aircraft.

http://www.witsflyingclub.co.za/lounge/ac01.asp (http://www.witsflyingclub.co.za/lounge/ac01.asp)

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/ (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/)  and  http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/dynpress.html (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/dynpress.html)  (also try additional links at bottom of page)

http://www.beamthescience.com/index_files/beamdoc/downforcelift.htm (http://www.beamthescience.com/index_files/beamdoc/downforcelift.htm)  (race cars discussed)

Also see the images below... the first one shows how a car is similar to the airfoil section of an airplane wing...

Thanks for this info too cool.

This is not all that complicated. A standard wing gets "lift" because the air flowing over the top of the wing takes a longer path than the air flowing under the wing. This forms lift and raises the wing (and anything attached) regarless if the wing is tilted. With the flaps way down (like when a plane lands) counters lift causing the air flow to take almost the same distance. After landing wanting drag they tip up spoilers, flaps extended completely, and the slats extended (stable drag). At take off the front slats lowered and back flaps slightly lowered causing air to travel even farther over the top for greater lift.

Race wings are a matter of how much drag the wing will cause vs how much lift (down force) you desire. The Daytona wing wanted less drag and optimal lift, so this is why it appears they chose the top of the wing to be flat - You get lift (inverted) with very little drag. The wings that swoosh up are usually for lower speeds needing stronger forces with drag not being as much of factor.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/race%20wings/friedwb/BMC/ProductionPP1.jpg





             

                   
           

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 19, 2011, 09:18:23 PM
the first one shows how a car is similar to the airfoil section of an airplane wing...

As a kid growing up in the '70s who buried himself in car mags and spent an inordinate amount of time at dragstrips, I can remember the fledgling funny car class in the early '70 having problems with cars flying off the track exactly because of this problem. Since at the early stages of the funny car class the bodies duplicated their street counter parts with minimal aero aids and speeds that kept rising, eventually there became a point where funny cars would become airborn until the body seperated from the chassis, eliminating lift, and allowing everything to crash back to the ground.

Here is a very nice shot of the underside of the real #88 fender scoop area.    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!

Photo of the full #88 fender.    Note minimal flaring on the wheel opening.    The yellow paint is Don White's 1971 color.    Corporate Blue from the #88 underneath, and B5 blue is under that.   Photo taken by George Wallace.

Fender scoops on McCluskey's #3 Superbird.  Note that the stock posts for attaching the scoops are still visible.   That would mean the area under the scoop was only partially cut away on this particular car.  

Whats with the  :hah: "429cu.in." on the hood, shouldn't it be "426cu.in."  :icon_smile_question: Just curious...

I asked before as well.....   http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,86849.msg978875.html#msg978875 (http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,86849.msg978875.html#msg978875)

Quote from: maxwellwedge on December 06, 2011, 02:32:41 PM
I asked before as well.....   http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,86849.msg978875.html#msg978875 (http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,86849.msg978875.html#msg978875)

Thanks, now I remember that post, I kind of figured it was the NASCAR cube limit or something along those lines, Chrysler guys/teams trying to 1 up Ford or something, just possibly thought it may have been more reasoning than that...

I was handed this photo yesterday while out and about with Old #7 (aka #47).   It is turn two at Milwaukee, and an angle you seldom see.   Look at the attitude of the front wheels relative to the sheet metal.   You can see that the left front tire on the #47 is not being contained by the edges of the fenders.   Also note the body roll and the relatively large distance from the top of the LF tire to the scoop.     I would like to see what the other side looks like. 

I have always thought that the tire clearance was an intended miss direction, for the Fords did not have this issue, but if they knew airflow was the intent - this could have led Ford to add this feature.

Just a guess

If it was only for tire clearance (it could have a killed two Birds with one stone) then all they needed to do is flare the top of the fender like they did with the side of the fenders. This was leagal.   

Dane

Yeah, from that pic you would think there would be an issue with the other tire rubbing on the inside more than top but it would still be interesting to see.

Also, remember that the first thing the RF would contact is the bottom of the hood bracing, or the inside vertical edge of the fender.

Yes, thats what I mean.

I read all 8 pages of this and I have only one question...... what was the original purpose of these? :smilielol:

It allows the HOT temperatures to escape, generated from the tires that moving at VERY high speeds. 150-200 mph

It's baaaaaaaaaaaack...   I was reminded of this thread by another current thread... then amazed to see it reappear... hopefully the tone of this thread will remain civil... :Twocents:

Good picture Doug...  :popcrn:

Original documentation states 3% less drag. John Pointer authored it.
So, that's a given.

Of course, the air escaping /being pulled out by forward motion would be hot, therefore aiding cooling flow into the nose.

It would be nice to get an original '69 or '70 race wing car into a wind tunnel and run all the flow tests!   

Quote from: odcics2 on July 08, 2012, 12:05:41 PM
It would be nice to get an original '69 or '70 race wing car into a wind tunnel and run all the flow tests!   

From reply #92... who else is willing to chip in...?  :popcrn:

Quote from: xs29j8Bullitt on October 07, 2011, 12:28:46 PM

Quote from: Aero426 on October 07, 2011, 11:58:55 AM

Quote from: Mopurr on October 07, 2011, 10:56:12 AM
so, is this going to come down to a show me and then only believable......start a chip in to get the funds, pick a car and go to the tunnel and if you can get some of the old engineers there even better.

Sounds like a good meet activity.......lol

I am actively seeking sponsorship for such an endeavor.     :smilielol:

I'll chip in $100...

this is easy to find out with those fancy suction cup cameras they have now

put one right down into the rear edge of the scoop and take the car down the road, even if its not street legal it'll only take 4 mins to get up to speed and back down and back into your garage/trailer/ by using highway exit ramps for the return

you'll be gone before the cops ever show up, they can't arrest you 'cause someone said you did it, that's hearsay, they have to have proof............ those videos on you tube later in the afternoon are obviously fakes..............

and the thing about air going into the scoop??? oh lord, velcro some string to the inside of the fender and scoop and see which way it goes at speed

Count me in for $100. too.
Has to be vintage race car without the inner fenders.
Keep in mind Daytonas were designed to race on a track.  If Nascar didn't have the "build 500" rule in place, it's highly unlikely they would have gone to the trouble of building any street versions.

It's not what we think.  Hindsight is 20/20.    It's what the Chrysler Engineers thought...    You have to get into their heads at that time.  We could do all the test in the world.  It doesn't matter.   I personally like the thought of venting my front tires and brakes during hot laps road racing.  BUT.  It would not change what they say the (original) purpose was.   Great thing is the engineers have spoken.    Tire clearance insurance on the RF.  Aesthetics on the LF.     Now John Pointer might of thought different and he was the man to first pen the Daytona.  But then his first drawing has guess what?????   No Extractors.      Now there is this comment from John Pointer to GK.    Is it possible the engineers told John to make some room there and John made it look like an extractor?  Have to ask them.    Would be interesting.   Now if they said Oh yea,  I forgot about that, even after I have been asked this question a 1000 times...   :mad:          There was a definite Extractor only (unless they only needed room on the middle top of the fender) on the Mule at a later point.  The Chrysler Engineers do joke that Ford called them vents and so did we.   Get it?   I am not saying that stories never sway from what actually happened...    I'm still lost at why some want to test a Daytona?    Party was over on the finished product.    They were modifying a modified Charger...   you have to start at A and get to Z.  Not start off at Z...      Why are we posting pictures of Wing cars on short tracks?    :brickwall:       They had Talladega and downforce on the brain..  

Quote from Joe Machado to Gary Romburg in Huntsville AL, 1975.       Joe says,  at 200 MPH there is about 12 pounds of downforce on both the vents.   Gary Romburg's reply was, That may very well be, but that was not important there.       

The "extractors" were part of the "Recommended Package" for the Daytona. Read the bottom line of the document on post #12.

If extra tire clearance was needed on the Daytona I would think they would have been on John Pointers sketch, since that issue had been around for some time.
But they weren't.   They previously increased the front torsion bar rates to alleviate that issue.  (again - documented on the aerowarrior site)  So, it looks like the extractors were added because of the reduction in drag as the Daytona was being developed.  
John was a very smart aero engineer...   Let the Ford guys guess!  What exactly did he tell his Chrysler buddies about the scoops??  

I'd like to know the front spring rates the Fords ran at Talladega in 69.

But for that original sketch, how could he have known the extractors, scoops, holes for tire clearance, whatever, would be needed yet?  Wasn't the first sketch just to show the car with a missile nose to cut wind and a wing to add downforce at the rear?

 :iagree:    I can only speculate that when the engineers saw the drawing they said make room there for the tire as we are close to the top of the fender on the Charger 500 and did hit before the suspension mod.  But 15-18 MPH gain is huge and they knew before they hit Talladega that they were going to have more speed and downward G forces in the turns than they did at Daytona and on the Chrysler Proving Grounds.   Some say why not put on a bigger t-bar, shock and sway bar?  That would take more testing when the extractor fixed the problem.   John came up with the extractor.  Duel purpose but the original intent was for the tire.   Now if John found out that the extractor worked better than having no extractor was an after effect.   The ORIGINAL purpose was for the RF tire.     I know personally George Wallace talked about taking a test car out with a small hole in the right front fender, numbering a welding rod and welding it to the upper right a-arm.   That way the rod was sticking out the top of the right front fender and now picture this.   Having a driver take the car up to speed while he was hanging on to the roll cage and taking pictures of the rod sticking through the RF fender and that way he could calculate the suspension travel on the high banks and get a bar, shock and tire combo package ready for that particular track/car application.     If anyone knows George's antics they know very well he was the guy with the big balls.   He rode shotgun on more than one occasion.   

This is not a story about some guy at a dealership says to a prospect those are vents or for clearance or some tall tale.   My response to this issue is a case of the ACTUAL engineers saying tire clearance.   Nothing else.  They are very stern on this issue.    Of course they tested it and it worked great as part of the aero package.   Now, if they louvered the top of the fender that would be for a extractor only issue and get the same affect without the tire clearance issue.   But the engineers are very stern that they needed to push up the RF fender.     Pointer played with it and made it work with an aero advantage.   It really is that simple.     

Quote from: odcics2 on July 09, 2012, 04:46:51 AM
The "extractors" were part of the "Recommended Package" for the Daytona. Read the bottom line of the document on post #12.

If extra tire clearance was needed on the Daytona I would think they would have been on John Pointers sketch, since that issue had been around for some time.
But they weren't.   They previously increased the front torsion bar rates to alleviate that issue.  (again - documented on the aerowarrior site)  So, it looks like the extractors were added because of the reduction in drag as the Daytona was being developed.  
John was a very smart aero engineer...   Let the Ford guys guess!  What exactly did he tell his Chrysler buddies about the scoops??  

I'd like to know the front spring rates the Fords ran at Talladega in 69.

Yes the "extractors" were part of the "Recommended Package"     That was after the fact.   

John Pointer's sketch was just about aero and down force.   Nothing else..  That is also why the vertical supports changed.    The wing actually slowed the car down but added stability on the final design.     Who was questioning how smart John was?  Not me.  He was brilliant in my mind.      That was the trick to Ford and Grand National.  Call it an extractor and don't tell them the car gets that low in the corners (on the bumps.)   

The only reason for the front suspension mod on the to the Non Daytona car was Chrysler was not allowed to push up the fender according to Grand National Rules.   So they were forced to modify the suspension.   But on the Daytona they could modify the fender.  So they did.   The trick it to get the car as low as possible at speed.  The fender was limiting the possibility on the standard Charger fender.   So when the option came to push up the fender with a new car........  They did.

The limiting factor on a race Daytona is the bottom of the hood bracing on the pass side. That hangs lower than the fender strengthening rod, which is just under the surface of the fender.  It will hit the inner hood way before the tire gets into the scoop. During the 200 record run, there is a photo with the hood up where you can see ball peen hammer marks done by Chrysler mechanic Fred Schrandt to clear the tire.  As the speeds got up to the 200 range, a little extra clearance was needed, in spite of the massive torsion bars.    Mind you that it only hit the hood inner on the bump at Talladega, no place else...

Actually, the "Recommended Package" did not include the wing. Like you stated, the wing adds some drag and the package was to achieve the lowest drag possible.
Obviously, to balance the car, a wing is a better choice than a huge rear spoiler.

Quote from: odcics2 on July 09, 2012, 09:21:28 PM
The limiting factor on a race Daytona is the bottom of the hood bracing on the pass side. That hangs lower than the fender strengthening rod, which is just under the surface of the fender.  It will hit the inner hood way before the tire gets into the scoop. During the 200 record run, there is a photo with the hood up where you can see ball peen hammer marks done by Chrysler mechanic Fred Schrandt to clear the tire.  As the speeds got up to the 200 range, a little extra clearance was needed, in spite of the massive torsion bars.    Mind you that it only hit the hood inner on the bump at Talladega, no place else...

Actually, the "Recommended Package" did not include the wing. Like you stated, the wing adds some drag and the package was to achieve the lowest drag possible.
Obviously, to balance the car, a wing is a better choice than a huge rear spoiler.

Yep, the tire hit the hood.  The more they modified the car the more they had to modify.  It's a never ending saga.    Car did go lower than they expected.  But it didn't hit the fender top....     Mission accomplished.    On the wing I was referring to the original drawing from Pointer..  Not the Recommended Package.  My bad on not being clear.   Pointer only designed the extractor after the engineers told him to make something to clear the tire..  In the engineers eyes they were after the clearance.  Sure. Pointer made it work with an aero advantage.   So. Clearance was first then the aero..       You know,  first comes love than comes marriage...   Well in theory..   :D

I just read all 9 pages of this thread again, thank you for the inside information....

Ah, is there a way to put these two treads together?  :brickwall:   Good info on both..

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on July 11, 2012, 04:48:50 PM
Ah, is there a way to put these two treads together?  :brickwall:   Good info on both..

Maybe just add a link to the other treads in your posts that way people can check them both out & compare in separate windows... Don't ask me how to do it though....

Me neither....    My library and garage are full but I am now lacking the computer skills....  :lol:

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on July 11, 2012, 04:58:40 PM
Me neither....    My library and garage are full but I am now lacking the computer skills....  :lol:

:cheers: I can relate  :brickwall: , for sure  :2thumbs: when I 1st got into cars, a computer would fill a 3 bedroom house, not fit on a desk, let alone carry around, like the notebooks or the new phones....

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on July 11, 2012, 04:48:50 PM
Ah, is there a way to put these two treads together?  :brickwall:   Good info on both..

What other thread are you referring to?

The fender brace one.

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,36288.0.html

The only problem with merging the two threads together is that it'll get REALLY confusing when going back through it... the forum's software will mesh all the threads together according to the date the reply was made - regardless of the continuity in logic between the reply immediately preceding or following.  IMHO it will make the "conversation" more difficult to follow. 

Tire Clearence.

so  exhausters or tire clearance    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :hah: :hah: :hah: :hah: :hah: :hah: :hah:

That settles it!!!  :icon_smile_big:

Must be a bitch at railroad tracks and speed  bumps.  :lol:

good one stuart

Regardless of what the published stories of what the fender outlets might have been designed to do I can tell you that their effect would have been to provide more front down force by evacuating the higher pressure air from the under hood area . Downforce (nascar term) or negative lift is achieved through an air pressure differential. If you look at the Nascar gen 4 cars or what we called the common template cars before the COT you will see they have flat angled fenders. One would assume that this if for the air to press on them to force the car down. To a degree that is true but the real effect of that particular shape is to speed up the air along the leading edge of the wheel opening causing an evacuation effect of the high pressure air under the front of the car. The lower air pressure verses the higher air pressure on the top of the hood area creates significant downforce. The reverse fender scoops on the Daytona and Superbird would have sped up the air flowing over them and drawn the air out from under the hood area. Check out the Can Am cars of the era and you will see they have similar features with louvers over the front tires.

QuoteRegardless of what the published stories of what the fender outlets might have been designed to do I can tell you that their effect would have been to provide more front down force by evacuating the higher pressure air from the under hood area . Downforce (nascar term) or negative lift is achieved through an air pressure differential. If you look at the Nascar gen 4 cars or what we called the common template cars before the COT you will see they have flat angled fenders. One would assume that this if for the air to press on them to force the car down. To a degree that is true but the real effect of that particular shape is to speed up the air along the leading edge of the wheel opening causing an evacuation effect of the high pressure air under the front of the car. The lower air pressure verses the higher air pressure on the top of the hood area creates significant downforce. The reverse fender scoops on the Daytona and Superbird would have sped up the air flowing over them and drawn the air out from under the hood area. Check out the Can Am cars of the era and you will see they have similar features with louvers over the front tires

X2

Quote from: Stevearino on June 24, 2013, 08:17:50 PM
Regardless of what the published stories of what the fender outlets might have been designed to do I can tell you that their effect would have been to provide more front down force by evacuating the higher pressure air from the under hood area . Downforce (nascar term) or negative lift is achieved through an air pressure differential. If you look at the Nascar gen 4 cars or what we called the common template cars before the COT you will see they have flat angled fenders. One would assume that this if for the air to press on them to force the car down. To a degree that is true but the real effect of that particular shape is to speed up the air along the leading edge of the wheel opening causing an evacuation effect of the high pressure air under the front of the car. The lower air pressure verses the higher air pressure on the top of the hood area creates significant downforce. The reverse fender scoops on the Daytona and Superbird would have sped up the air flowing over them and drawn the air out from under the hood area. Check out the Can Am cars of the era and you will see they have similar features with louvers over the front tires.

Yep.

Same idea here:

Quote from: Stevearino on June 24, 2013, 08:17:50 PM
Regardless of what the published stories of what the fender outlets might have been designed to do I can tell you that their effect would have been to provide more front down force by evacuating the higher pressure air from the under hood area . Downforce (nascar term) or negative lift is achieved through an air pressure differential. If you look at the Nascar gen 4 cars or what we called the common template cars before the COT you will see they have flat angled fenders. One would assume that this if for the air to press on them to force the car down. To a degree that is true but the real effect of that particular shape is to speed up the air along the leading edge of the wheel opening causing an evacuation effect of the high pressure air under the front of the car. The lower air pressure verses the higher air pressure on the top of the hood area creates significant downforce. The reverse fender scoops on the Daytona and Superbird would have sped up the air flowing over them and drawn the air out from under the hood area. Check out the Can Am cars of the era and you will see they have similar features with louvers over the front tires.

I 100% agree with you (this above).

Fact:
They are called "exhausters"
They are documented as gaining a percentage of better aero - 2%
The actual aero engineer for the Daytona project (who was not a car guy) talked about keeping as much air from going under the car as possible, where He said it, "gets chewed up", makes the car more stable and slips through the air better. I would imagine the air flow CFM out those exhausters at 200mph was tremendous. All that air, if it was not for the exhausters, would have no where else to go than out the fender well, or under the car. The vacuum it creates also aids in down force (suck the car down- not push), all be it very minor.  

Until someone can prove the tire will rub on a circle track Daytona - I'm unconvinced it is a tire clearance issue. The only place they said they rubbed was the side of the fender where they had to bulge the fender out.  

The only convincing photo, but weak, is the tire hitting the hood, and that is because the reinforcement was so low, and if so, the only proper answer for the tire rubbing the top of the fender and the hood would be to cut the top fender and hood bracing and everything in-between. This could all be solved by pulling the torsion bar and observe the travel on a race Daytona.

Dane

Speaking of COT and Nascar. What is wrong with Toyota? What were they thinking with the acronym TRD????? Turd  :smilielol:

Dane

Quote from: Daytona Guy on June 25, 2013, 12:17:24 AM
Speaking of COT and Nascar. What is wrong with Toyota? What were they thinking with the acronym TRD????? Turd  :smilielol:

Dane

:smilielol: :smilielol: :smilielol:

Yeah, they got that much right anyway.

At least Mopar sounds cool - The Toyota Racing Division ??? Come on Foreigners, understand the language you are working with. Change your acronym to Toyota Racing or Toyota Racing Team. Not TRD! - It does not even sound cool, or tough. They also put that logo on their trucks, and boy their trucks look like turds. There are two place where USA still seems to have the edge, Trucks and modern Muscle cars. Go USA. Fart cars will never take the place of Muscle.

Dane

I don't know about anyone else but the only airflow that I get is that all dirt and rain and mud seems to come out the hole and then the scoops direct them to my windshield. And what comes out is really very lttle.
To really direct air you would need to open up the inner fenders to allow heat and airflow through the scoop openings from under the hood.
My feeling is it is for tire clearance, when you crank down the torsion bars the top of tire gets pretty close to the spot the scoop is. It would scuff the tire pretty good. High bank tracks would also force the inside tire up into the wheel well and may hit fender.  Just a thought with a little experience.

Quote from: winged69 on June 25, 2013, 01:27:51 PM

To really direct air you would need to open up the inner fenders to allow heat and airflow through the scoop openings from under the hood.

The race cars had HUGE holes underneath them the size of the scoop. 

Quote from: Daytona Guy on June 25, 2013, 12:00:49 PM
Toyota Racing Division ???

The D is for development.  Still dumb that they write an acronym that looks like 'turd' on so many Tacomas.

Kinda like the Ford joke that says , "well, at least they circled the problem."

Quote from: pettybird on June 25, 2013, 01:33:36 PM

Quote from: winged69 on June 25, 2013, 01:27:51 PM

To really direct air you would need to open up the inner fenders to allow heat and airflow through the scoop openings from under the hood.

The race cars had HUGE holes underneath them the size of the scoop.  

You made my point - there are no inner fenders in the race cars. It's all open.

Guess where it would hit first in this picture? See the openness of the bay?
(http://imageshack.us/a/img69/6450/ug9n.jpg)



Dane

With hood closed it's the inner hood brace. The dimpling you see by Fred Schrandt's head was done that day, as the car progressed nearer 200 mph lap speeds.
And, there is a slight indent on the driver side inner hood, too.

I still agree with this: It allows the HOT temperatures to escape, generated from the tires that moving at VERY high speeds. 150-200 mph

Problem with that theory is tires only run around 150-180*. If venting tire heat was critical, there would be a similar vent on the rear quarters as well. Stevearino is pretty spot on with his assesment of aero benefits.

: :horse:   Guys,   When Pointer first drew the car there was no extractor.    Wallace quotes are still and have always been,  "when we (Engineering) saw the drawing for the first time we asked Pointer to push up the fender on the right front.  We are close there already."    Wallace states,  "why not, we are allowed to with the new Daytona.  We could not push up the fender on the Charger and Charger 500 as per NASCAR Rules to the existing body.   What Pointer did to the fender was up to him.  That was his expertise."    Now, that written 3% on the recommended package is the only test that can't be proven in more ways than one..   Chrysler documents state that "all test were to be done on the 3/8 car.  No full size test."     Photos and documents show all these 3/8 Daytona test...  And yes, those test were all done on the 3/8s car and they are all to my knowledge,  documented and photographed.    Now here is a major point.....  That E-Series 3/8s car is still around.  It was given to Winged Warriors by Chrysler in the 70s.  It doesn't have any holes or hole repairs in the top of the fenders.  So how was the 3% tested?  3% is HUGE and there is nothing to show how they got that number.   There is only one 3/8s E-Series car.      My feeling is exactly what ALL the engineers say.   Clearance.     Now if Pointer had other ideas.  That is fine.  But he was told to make clearance first..    Wallace is quoted as saying, "Pointer worked feverishly on them to make sure they had no aero affect."  So some where, some how Pointer did test them.  But that was after being told to make clearance.     What ever happened on any full scale test car including the #88 was after the fact.   Tire hitting the hood, stiffer bars, shocks and so on.    It was for first for clearance and Pointer made sure they got what they wanted and he made an extractor.  Maybe it did double duty (looks like it did)  but the original purpose was clearance on the right front only.       Some talk about why not put in bigger bars.   Yes you can and will need to do that since there will be more positive down force.    But you can't do that till you have the body ready.   They didn't have computers to magically tell them what to do.  They had to try and test many combinations over and over.       

These pictures are just hard to reconcile with claims. I'm not saying it is not possible for it to be a tires clearance issue, but how can these pictures justify the possibility of it being true? There is no way this tire's path will travel to hit where claimed. Now in the 68 car that hit the top, did it have narrower tires? Unless the upper control arm is absolutely really really short, or it is like a VW bug and did not have one, there is no way this tire is hitting anything. It even looks like this tire and suspension is only designed to travel a few inches.

I'm not ruling out though that the initial idea was a concern over tire clearance, and then lead to the actual an aero reason was for venting. Another reason was that the S-Bird has them, and they changed the design that would allow for greater evacuation.

(http://imageshack.us/a/img402/9579/xiqr.jpg)

Quote from: odcics2 on June 25, 2013, 03:23:45 PM
With hood closed it's the inner hood brace. The dimpling you see by Fred Schrandt's head was done that day, as the car progressed nearer 200 mph lap speeds.
And, there is a slight indent on the driver side inner hood, too.

Who gets the honers of putting the dimples back into the hood? :lol: 

Quote from: Daytona Guy on June 25, 2013, 07:49:46 PM
These pictures are just hard to reconcile with claims. I'm not saying it is not possible for it to be a tires clearance issue, but how can these pictures justify the possibility of it being true? There is no way this tire's path will travel to hit where claimed. Now in the 68 car that hit the top, did it have narrower tires? Unless the upper control arm is absolutely really really short, or it is like a VW bug and did not have one, there is no way this tire is hitting anything. It even looks like this tire and suspension is only designed to travel a few inches.

I'm not ruling out though that the initial idea was a concern over tire clearance, and then lead to the actual an aero reason was for venting. Another reason was that the S-Bird has them, and they changed the design that would allow for greater evacuation.

(http://imageshack.us/a/img402/9579/xiqr.jpg)

We have to go in the order it all happened to see it from the eyes of the engineers.   It's easy to see where we are now and not to see how it came to be.   The pictures of the #88 test car with hood dimpling was about a year after the fact. 

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on June 25, 2013, 07:49:39 PM
: :horse:   Guys,   When Pointer first drew the car there was no extractor.    Wallace quotes are still and have always been,  "when we (Engineering) saw the drawing for the first time we asked Pointer to push up the fender on the right front.  We are close there already."    Wallace states,  "why not, we are allowed to with the new Daytona.  We could not push up the fender on the Charger and Charger 500 as per NASCAR Rules to the existing body.   What Pointer did to the fender was up to him.  That was his expertise."    Now, that written 3% on the recommended package is the only test that can't be proven in more ways than one..   Chrysler documents state that "all test were to be done on the 3/8 car.  No full size test."     Photos and documents show all these 3/8 Daytona test...  And yes, those test were all done on the 3/8s car and they are all to my knowledge,  documented and photographed.    Now here is a major point.....  That E-Series 3/8s car is still around.  It was given to Winged Warriors by Chrysler in the 70s.  It doesn't have any holes or hole repairs in the top of the fenders.  So how was the 3% tested?  3% is HUGE and there is nothing to show how they got that number.   There is only one 3/8s E-Series car.      My feeling is exactly what ALL the engineers say.   Clearance.     Now if Pointer had other ideas.  That is fine.  But he was told to make clearance first..    Wallace is quoted as saying, "Pointer worked feverishly on them to make sure they had no aero affect."  So some where, some how Pointer did test them.  But that was after being told to make clearance.     What ever happened on any full scale test car including the #88 was after the fact.   Tire hitting the hood, stiffer bars, shocks and so on.    It was for first for clearance and Pointer made sure they got what they wanted and he made an extractor.  Maybe it did double duty (looks like it did)  but the original purpose was clearance on the right front only.       Some talk about why not put in bigger bars.   Yes you can and will need to do that since there will be more positive down force.    But you can't do that till you have the body ready.   They didn't have computers to magically tell them what to do.  They had to try and test many combinations over and over.        

We have to have fun keeping this interest going :) Can you give citations for these quotes? Where can we read these? Another note, are you ruling out the actual engineers documentation (report) of 3%? I can't remember the date of this report and the date to the actual testing of the K&K - that you have to admit those vents have nothing to do with tire clearance. They are an actual air venting design. Lets get the actual documented dates of these tests and make them known on this thread...

You should see this list of reasons/facts - including this picture - that does not help the "tire clearance" argument.

(http://imageshack.us/a/img811/6184/hf0u.jpg)

If they were simply a tire clearance device. why open them on the back side?Why not just put closed bubbles on the fenders? Why not shape them in an arc to match the contour of the tire?
Why on the low speed first version of the car in the above picture were they wedge shaped?

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on June 25, 2013, 07:54:19 PM

Quote from: odcics2 on June 25, 2013, 03:23:45 PM
With hood closed it's the inner hood brace. The dimpling you see by Fred Schrandt's head was done that day, as the car progressed nearer 200 mph lap speeds.
And, there is a slight indent on the driver side inner hood, too.

Who gets the honers of putting the dimples back into the hood? :lol:  

The entire ORIGINAL front end of the Chrysler Engineering #88 Daytona has been restored.    
 

Quote from: odcics2 on June 25, 2013, 09:11:35 PM

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on June 25, 2013, 07:54:19 PM

Quote from: odcics2 on June 25, 2013, 03:23:45 PM
With hood closed it's the inner hood brace. The dimpling you see by Fred Schrandt's head was done that day, as the car progressed nearer 200 mph lap speeds.
And, there is a slight indent on the driver side inner hood, too.

Who gets the honers of putting the dimples back into the hood? :lol:  

The entire ORIGINAL front end of the Chrysler Engineering #88 Daytona has been restored.    
 

Dimples removed?  Nooooo.     As with race cars.   At what stage of it's history do you chose to restore the car to?   Can't wait to see it done.  Next is to fix the #71 mule.

Quote from: Daytona Guy on June 25, 2013, 08:12:06 PM

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on June 25, 2013, 07:49:39 PM
: :horse:   Guys,   When Pointer first drew the car there was no extractor.    Wallace quotes are still and have always been,  "when we (Engineering) saw the drawing for the first time we asked Pointer to push up the fender on the right front.  We are close there already."    Wallace states,  "why not, we are allowed to with the new Daytona.  We could not push up the fender on the Charger and Charger 500 as per NASCAR Rules to the existing body.   What Pointer did to the fender was up to him.  That was his expertise."    Now, that written 3% on the recommended package is the only test that can't be proven in more ways than one..   Chrysler documents state that "all test were to be done on the 3/8 car.  No full size test."     Photos and documents show all these 3/8 Daytona test...  And yes, those test were all done on the 3/8s car and they are all to my knowledge,  documented and photographed.    Now here is a major point.....  That E-Series 3/8s car is still around.  It was given to Winged Warriors by Chrysler in the 70s.  It doesn't have any holes or hole repairs in the top of the fenders.  So how was the 3% tested?  3% is HUGE and there is nothing to show how they got that number.   There is only one 3/8s E-Series car.      My feeling is exactly what ALL the engineers say.   Clearance.     Now if Pointer had other ideas.  That is fine.  But he was told to make clearance first..    Wallace is quoted as saying, "Pointer worked feverishly on them to make sure they had no aero affect."  So some where, some how Pointer did test them.  But that was after being told to make clearance.     What ever happened on any full scale test car including the #88 was after the fact.   Tire hitting the hood, stiffer bars, shocks and so on.    It was for first for clearance and Pointer made sure they got what they wanted and he made an extractor.  Maybe it did double duty (looks like it did)  but the original purpose was clearance on the right front only.       Some talk about why not put in bigger bars.   Yes you can and will need to do that since there will be more positive down force.    But you can't do that till you have the body ready.   They didn't have computers to magically tell them what to do.  They had to try and test many combinations over and over.        

We have to have fun keeping this interest going :) Can you give citations for these quotes? Where can we read these? Another note, are you ruling out the actual engineers documentation (report) of 3%? I can't remember the date of this report and the date to the actual testing of the K&K - that you have to admit those vents have nothing to do with tire clearance. They are an actual air venting design. Lets get the actual documented dates of these tests and make them known on this thread...

You should see this list of reasons/facts - including this picture - that does not help the "tire clearance" argument.

(http://imageshack.us/a/img811/6184/hf0u.jpg)

I agree. This is fun.   :cheers:    Look at Mr. Pointer's first drawing.  No extractors.   They extractors were not played with till after Pointer was asked to work on the fender.  I personally asked   Wallace if there was any perwork or memos on that.    He said there are many times the engineers go back and forth with ideas with out writing them down.      Wallace's comment is.    "After Pointer showed McCurry the drawing he came to us (engineering.)   We looked at the drawing and asked him to work on the fender tops for clearance."   After that, almost every Daytona image has them and they are extractors......      HemiViper here on DC.COM personally asked Gary Romberg last year about the issue.   Mr. Romberg said..  Tire Clearance.      I don't know who else to ask.   Rombert, Rathgab, Pointer and Wallace all say the same thing.      Pointer didn't make the extractor and take it to engineering they said we will call it for tire clearance....      Wallace has said,    Grand National and Ford called them extractors and so did we.  But it was really for that right front tire.   We would chuckle over that...     Quotes about using the 3/8 car only are in the G-Series Test Documents.   Aero website.  Sorry I can't dig them up.  The 3/8 car has been in my possession and now is at a good friends in FL.  There are no holes in fender tops.     At the moment I am packing for a trip to NW Washington tomorrow morning.   So digging up stuff will be tough.      Quotes from Wallace are from my personal time with him and asking questions over the years about the issue.     Also over the years at various wing car meets the engineers would come out and do some Q and A.   This topic comes up at every event.  And I mean at every single event.     When you talk to the engineers on the side they go deeper into what was going on at the time than what they talk about at the Q and A parts of the meetings.....      I am not ruling out the 3% but I am ruling it out as being tested on the E-Series car prior to the build.  That document states Features Tested.  We have all the test but on the extractors.  They had to of been tested.  But on what?    Until any prior dated build documents show up.  It just didn't happened to the E-Series 3/8s car.  And that is what that Features Tested note with the 3% is about.     The 3/8 car proves that.    Now Pointer did design them..  I am 100% sure of that.  But with what, where and when I have no idea.   As in the aero documents.  They can be added with ZERO aero affect.  So where does this 3% test come from?

Quote from: Stevearino on June 25, 2013, 08:20:48 PM
If they were simply a tire clearance device. why open them on the back side?Why not just put closed bubbles on the fenders? Why not shape them in an arc to match the contour of the tire?
Why on the low speed first version of the car in the above picture were they wedge shaped?

Yes, they could of just bumped the fender.  But Pointer made an Extractor.  Best of both.  The engineers got what they wanted and Pointed made it aero.   Those are defiantly extractors on the low speed car.   Maybe that is what Pointer was testing on.   But is it still after the clearance issue from the drawing.

We need to sort out what engineering we are talking about; Mechanical engineers or Aero engineers as to people named. The Aero guys that I have read that were interview admitted they were not car guys. So when you talk about Wallace, Rombert, Rathgab, and Pointer, what are their credentials, and their place on the team with time frames?

My Dad is a mechanical engineer, and let me tell you, coming from a family of these guys, 40 years later and misconceptions are not uncommon. You can't get two of them to agree on anything. Let me set out a scenarios; one of a hundred that I could come up with. Some engineers know of a fender issue that they want to make sure of gets addressed. Yet in a meeting with Aero engineers, the topic is addressed but dismissed because the issue had been corrected. They later may have been pacified (can you say big egos?) The Aero guys in their studies and research realize the amount of air going under the car and out the fender wells, and believe venting the air out extractors (using their understanding – physics – airflow – size of hole – compartment pressure – etc.) will gain 3% less drag (computer simulation is all math that engineers program into software – it does not mean that it was not in use). There is no way, in my mind, fender clearance was in the picture at all by the time the test mule was enlisted K&K. Anyone concerned about the issue of tire clearance at the time of the K&K test mule, would have crapped his pants looking at those extractors – they scream – we are ignoring your input. Those premature extractor are good for venting air, but not so good for their aero effect, and were later given a proper balance between airflow and drag. 

That first drawing is what it is, first drawing, and to me proves nothing either way, other than the fender scoops were added later. Look, the first ones we see have nothing to do with tire clearance.

2 factual very early documentation says and shows nothing about tire clearance, and says everything about airflow and gain in the aero department.... And we are still having fun :)

We still need dates for the K&K test mule runs and the "extractor" test document. We need a timeline to somehow get a perspective of our investigation  :scratchchin:

Dane 

I just need answers...

(http://imageshack.us/a/img209/2554/u7nm.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img441/8901/6avg.jpg)

Quote from: Daytona Guy on June 26, 2013, 01:01:44 AM
I just need answers...

(http://imageshack.us/a/img209/2554/u7nm.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img441/8901/6avg.jpg)

:lol:   We have to look at a 69/8 Charger for the answer on why Engineering wanted the fender pushed up.   This is the finished product. 

Quote from: Daytona Guy on June 26, 2013, 12:34:23 AM
We need to sort out what engineering we are talking about; Mechanical engineers or Aero engineers as to people named. The Aero guys that I have read that were interview admitted they were not car guys. So when you talk about Wallace, Rombert, Rathgab, and Pointer, what are their credentials, and their place on the team with time frames?

My Dad is a mechanical engineer, and let me tell you, coming from a family of these guys, 40 years later and misconceptions are not uncommon. You can't get two of them to agree on anything. Let me set out a scenarios; one of a hundred that I could come up with. Some engineers know of a fender issue that they want to make sure of gets addressed. Yet in a meeting with Aero engineers, the topic is addressed but dismissed because the issue had been corrected. They later may have been pacified (can you say big egos?) The Aero guys in their studies and research realize the amount of air going under the car and out the fender wells, and believe venting the air out extractors (using their understanding – physics – airflow – size of hole – compartment pressure – etc.) will gain 3% less drag (computer simulation is all math that engineers program into software – it does not mean that it was not in use). There is no way, in my mind, fender clearance was in the picture at all by the time the test mule was enlisted K&K. Anyone concerned about the issue of tire clearance at the time of the K&K test mule, would have crapped his pants looking at those extractors – they scream – we are ignoring your input. Those premature extractor are good for venting air, but not so good for their aero effect, and were later given a proper balance between airflow and drag.  

That first drawing is what it is, first drawing, and to me proves nothing either way, other than the fender scoops were added later. Look, the first ones we see have nothing to do with tire clearance.

2 factual very early documentation says and shows nothing about tire clearance, and says everything about airflow and gain in the aero department.... And we are still having fun :)

We still need dates for the K&K test mule runs and the "extractor" test document. We need a timeline to somehow get a perspective of our investigation  :scratchchin:

Dane  

I agree 100% about misconceptions.   I went out road racing with Bob Tarozzi last month.   He was amongst many things.....  On the Charger 500 Project for Dodge, one of the top dogs for the Trans Am AAR race program for Chrysler and he is the guy who worked with Keith Black and my dads neighbor Swede to cast the Aluminum Keith Black Hemis way way back.   He is also the one who buillt and shipped Mario Rossi 2,  305 CI motors for the 1971 Daytona 500.   Now, while we are eating dinner he tells me about the 2 305 CI motors he built for Cotton Owens with the #6 car for the 1971 Daytona 500.   I pulled out my phone and pull up a picture of the 305 Rossi Daytona.   He just said...WOW.   I thought it was for Cotton.   LOL    So I know what you mean.   But all the engineers have the same story since day one on the extractors.    We the public are the one who keeps changing it.    

Back to the fender.  The Daytona was built for one thing.  To beat Ford at a new track that was going to be faster than Daytona...  Talladega.        They were having tire issues with the top of the RF fender in 68-9 on a test Charger.    Wallace said we could not modify the fender top on the regular Charger so we worked on bigger bars/shock package.   So to say there is no proof of a tire clearance problem is false.   This IS the reason Wallace (engineering) wanted the fender pushed up.  They could with the new car.       If they could of pushed up the fender in 68.. They would of Wallace has said.    Now with the Daytona we could work on the fender as per the Grand National rules.    They have said this over and over.  We wanted the room.   Pointer was asked to work on the fender and he made an extractor.   As you know being in a family of over 40 years of engineering.  Not everything is written down.  There is verbal communication between engineers.    The Daytona was not a car that 20 guys designed and there was no blame game.  It was only a very few.   And again.   They all say the same thing.   Only Joe public says different.

I hope they tested the extractor even though there is no documents on it.   There is on everything else on the car.   See how many times the nose, spoiler, window plug and wing were played with?     Even an electric motor with a fan was installed to simulate moving air through the grill.  Which disproved the under hood pressure problem.   They didn't have that problem on the Daytona.  Wallace said the fan made no difference on the aero package.     They had just enough air to keep the engine cool at speed.  Any bigger grill opening and the car would slow down (under hood pressure) and any smaller and the engine would overheat.       Pointer was to move up the fender the best way he thought possible.   He made an extractor..   Why not?   That was his expertise.  

This is the time line as I understand it from Mr. Wallace.,,,,,,,,    Pointer draws car...    Shows McCurry the drawing...(McCurry pukes)    Pointer shows Wallace and others in engineering the drawing....   The engineers knowing they are close to hitting the fender and Talladega is going to be a faster track with more down force and see the problem coming with the added down force ask Pointer to push up the fender.   I am sure they had other conversation about the body, springs, shocks etc. but that is how Wallace says it went down on the extractor..    I don't know what else to add Dane.    Pointer went nuts making sure it didn't affect the aero.    Pointer worked "feverishly"  Wallace's has quoted.    What ever test happened on the #71 was after Pointer was told to work on it to make sure it didn't affect the aero.    It sure was not done on the 3/8s car as Dodge insisted all the work was to be done on.  The 3/8s model is the car the aero package was built on.  And that is the car that was put in the wind tunnel and the test documents and pictures are documented on.      No aero test were done on the #71 mule that I am aware of.   But it's still after the fact to the why they are there.   Even if they gave the car 5 mph they were not thought of till Wallace (engineering) asked for the clearance.  

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on June 25, 2013, 09:45:12 PM

Quote from: odcics2 on June 25, 2013, 09:11:35 PM

Quote from: C5X DAYTONA on June 25, 2013, 07:54:19 PM

Quote from: odcics2 on June 25, 2013, 03:23:45 PM
With hood closed it's the inner hood brace. The dimpling you see by Fred Schrandt's head was done that day, as the car progressed nearer 200 mph lap speeds.
And, there is a slight indent on the driver side inner hood, too.

Who gets the honers of putting the dimples back into the hood? :lol:  

The entire ORIGINAL front end of the Chrysler Engineering #88 Daytona has been restored.    
 

Dimples removed?  Nooooo.     As with race cars.   At what stage of it's history do you chose to restore the car to?   Can't wait to see it done.  Next is to fix the #71 mule.

Funny you mention that. The 88 is being restored to the day it appeared March 24th. 1970.  The pinnacle of that car's life, IMO.

I have vintage photos from that day with the hood up that shows it arrived there without the extra tire clearance under the hood brace and left with it. 


I gave Tim Wellborn pics of the #71 low speed car back in the 1990s.  I talked to John Pointer and he was willing to help get that car back to the original long nosed, short winged, mini-exhaustered configuration.   Obviously - never happened...   Too bad, since that car is the FIRST Daytona mule car and should be preserved for history.

In favor of the tire clearance argument is the fact that back when we were building the Generation 4 or Common template cars tire clearance became a critical issue when shaping the fenders. This problem was usually right side related on cars going to intermediate tracks because of the high degree of camber and camber gain in those set ups.
The tire being on such and angle sent the upper leading edge into the top of the fender. Each set up for each track presented different issues as you were trying to optimize the fender shape for aero and clearance. This meant that the tire would hit in different spots with different set ups  so I can see where a Charger with a particular set up might have issues while another might not.

Quote from: odcics2 on June 26, 2013, 04:33:03 AM

Funny you mention that. The 88 is being restored to the day it appeared March 24th. 1970.  The pinnacle of that car's life, IMO.

You could have restored it to its last win on 8/24/75 at the Indy Mile.   Would have been a heck of a lot less work.     :nana:

 :smilielol: :smilielol: :smilielol:    Certainly would have!    :smilielol: :smilielol: :smilielol:

 :popcrn:

Quote from: Stevearino on June 26, 2013, 03:49:41 PM
In favor of the tire clearance argument is the fact that back when we were building the Generation 4 or Common template cars tire clearance became a critical issue when shaping the fenders. This problem was usually right side related on cars going to intermediate tracks because of the high degree of camber and camber gain in those set ups.
The tire being on such and angle sent the upper leading edge into the top of the fender. Each set up for each track presented different issues as you were trying to optimize the fender shape for aero and clearance. This meant that the tire would hit in different spots with different set ups  so I can see where a Charger with a particular set up might have issues while another might not.

I do get that, but would you leave the open sharp edge of the inside fender facing down that could slice the tire up?

Dane

Quote from: Daytona Guy on June 27, 2013, 02:07:54 PM

Quote from: Stevearino on June 26, 2013, 03:49:41 PM
In favor of the tire clearance argument is the fact that back when we were building the Generation 4 or Common template cars tire clearance became a critical issue when shaping the fenders. This problem was usually right side related on cars going to intermediate tracks because of the high degree of camber and camber gain in those set ups.
The tire being on such and angle sent the upper leading edge into the top of the fender. Each set up for each track presented different issues as you were trying to optimize the fender shape for aero and clearance. This meant that the tire would hit in different spots with different set ups  so I can see where a Charger with a particular set up might have issues while another might not.

I do get that, but would you leave the open sharp edge of the inside fender facing down that could slice the tire up?

Dane

Your right about that. Certainly nothing we would build into a fender today unless the hole is so much bigger than the amount of tire protruding in that area.

Quote from: Daytona Guy on June 26, 2013, 01:01:44 AM
I just need answers...

(http://imageshack.us/a/img209/2554/u7nm.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img441/8901/6avg.jpg)

Inner hood bracing sits about 1/2" lower then the edge of the trimmed, and reinforced, fender.   Even with 3.5 degrees of negative camber on the pass side, it hits the hood inner first.  

I already made that point early on. Knowing that it rubbed the hood that is not documented or proven, why in the world would you not be terrified of this fender "if" it is hitting both fender and hood? There could have been evidence in support of all this if they addressed this fender issue. How many of us, if you had a tire rubbing in the back tub, would let a raw edge of sharp steal be exposed to a rub mark two inches away and in the path of the tire just going down the street, and I'm not even talking about 200mph? If they could have shown someone at least bending up that area I would start to consider it. All we have is a dinged support, that is right in the location where the hood could have needed some loving to go down to fit the surface of the nose better - remember fitment was just being addressed. We have no pics of the other side (I might be wrong but everyone is in the way of the pics I have) that may or may not have the persuasion given to it :)

Dane

All of our fender to hood transitions today are flat straps. Putting a vertical strip of metal pointing directly at the tire would be suicide at best. I can't imagine they would not have flattened out the fender/hood near the tire location if rubbing was a real issue.

Quote from: Daytona Guy on June 28, 2013, 06:18:35 PM
I already made that point early on. Knowing that it rubbed the hood that is not documented or proven, why in the world would you not be terrified of this fender "if" it is hitting both fender and hood? There could have been evidence in support of all this if they addressed this fender issue. How many of us, if you had a tire rubbing in the back tub, would let a raw edge of sharp steal be exposed to a rub mark two inches away and in the path of the tire just going down the street, and I'm not even talking about 200mph? If they could have shown someone at least bending up that area I would start to consider it. All we have is a dinged support, that is right in the location where the hood could have needed some loving to go down to fit the surface of the nose better - remember fitment was just being addressed. We have no pics of the other side (I might be wrong but everyone is in the way of the pics I have) that may or may not have the persuasion given to it :)

Dane

Driver side "persuasion"...  Very slight, hard to see...

OK, then this is my point. If there was only one side dinged - my point would be weaker - I'm wondering if this is more of a fitment issue, by dinging in that area allows for the support to be persuaded to fit or bend, for if you look on the top of the hood closed, it seems to be creased across (cupped) to allow the hood to fit better at the nose. The hood should be slightly lower than the nose so as to not suck in air. They were adding a new 70 charger hood and fenders to this car.  

Dane

Two things going on here.

First, with most of the inner hood structure cut out, any of the stock car hoods can bend easier.
The hood springs are pushing up and wanting to flex the hood.  On the '70 AAR and T/A fiberglass hoods, they used weaker springs to
prevent that.  During the restoration of the original 88 front end, it was found that intact, rust free areas were in fact thinner than production.
Yes, the entire front end was acid dipped for lightness. That also accounts for the hood being more 'flexible', to a point.

Secondly, the original 200 mph front end is 'drooped' around 2" at the front edge of the fenders.  (Another reason to
save it and restore it, no matter what.)    At the leading edge of the nose, it's about 4.5" lower than a production fender/nose assy.
Each front end on these old race Daytonas is like a finger print, no two alike. On the 88, even the cut out areas and flaring for tire clearance is
different from side to side.    So, you have a drooped fender and a hood tweaked down to match.   

Look at various race Daytonas in '69. Look at them in '70. Even between the various teams, the front ends look
different - some appear more stock than others.     The Don Tarr #37 Daytona looks like it came off the show room floor. 
That's because it's a wet sump '67 Ray Fox Charger re-skinned.