Sooooo... What was the purpose of fender scoops...? ***VOTE in added Poll***

[C5X DAYTONA]

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.

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. 

[Daytona Guy]

:   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.

[Stevearino]

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?

[odcics2]

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?  

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

[C5X DAYTONA]

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?  

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.

[C5X DAYTONA]

:   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.

I agree. This is fun.       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?

[C5X DAYTONA]

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.

[Daytona Guy]

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 

Dane 

[Daytona Guy]

I just need answers...

[C5X DAYTONA]

I just need answers...

   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. 

[C5X DAYTONA]

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  

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.  

[odcics2]

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?  

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.

[Stevearino]

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.

[Aero426]

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.     

[odcics2]

      Certainly would have!   

[moparstuart]

 

[Daytona Guy]

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

[Stevearino]

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.

[odcics2]

I just need answers...

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.  

[Daytona Guy]

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

[Stevearino]

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.

[odcics2]

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...

[Daytona Guy]

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

[odcics2]

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.