It appears that the upgrade forces a login and many, many of you have forgotten your passwords and didn't set up any reminders. Contact me directly through email@example.com and I'll help sort it out.
Started by Daytona Guy, August 03, 2005, 11:40:13 PM
Quote from: BigBlockSam on August 05, 2005, 10:20:38 AM6 yrs, thats a long time
Quote from: hotrod98 on August 05, 2005, 10:49:30 AMI think Dane was taking his wing to the foundry today. Not sure when the cutoff is for ordering. I went over to my buddy's shop and fired my charger up last night and drove it a little. It's looking awfully sad in primer and those primered up slotted wheels. Man those have got to go and soon. As soon as the wing arrives, I'm going to take my bee over and store it and bring the Charger back to the shop at the house. Too many projects to finish now, shouldn't even be thinking about this car right now. This car is much nicer than the pictures show. With the multicolor primer and no bumpers it looks like a beater.
QuoteI do not think that the tires clearance argument has much credibility
Quote from: Daytona Guy on August 06, 2005, 02:20:50 AM<< Wasn't the huge down force also the reason for the front fender scoops? They needed tire clearance on the NASCAR versions because they rubbed the top underside. (That's what I had read somewhere.>>>They have a whole article on this on the aero warriors web page. I believe it has the most realistic answer for the fender scoops. If you see the tires on the race cars they do not appear to be rubbing the top of the fenders. The tires do not line up with the holes if the tire would come up. Plus that little round holes would be the wrong shape, for a tires surface is relatively square when it makes contact. I believe, as this article states, that the shape of the scoops drew air out of the fender well, that relieved some of the turbulence that is created by the tires chewing up the air. The theory also believed it would help keep the brakes cooler. If you saw one of these stock car Daytona's I do not think that the tires clearance argument has much credibility. Just my opinion. They cannot find any definitive thought on this from the engineers who designed the Daytona, at least that is what the aero warriors article states. Cool stuff.
Quote from: hemigeno on August 07, 2005, 09:51:15 PM They just didn't want to tell the real reason IMHO.
Quote from: CHARGER_FAN on August 08, 2005, 01:27:35 PMQuote from: hemigeno on August 07, 2005, 09:51:15 PM They just didn't want to tell the real reason IMHO.That's kinda what I was thinking. The clearance story may have just bled down from the answers given to reporters during the racing days, to help keep the competition from using their ideas.That #6 Daytona story is pretty cool, what are they going to be doing with it? Are they going to be driving it a bit now?
QuoteAt a given yaw angle, the aerodynamic side force acting on the Daytona is higher than on the 1969 race car (Charger 500). The higher side force, opposing the inertia forces, reduces the "pushing" tendencies. Of course, the largest influence on aerodynamic directional stability is due to the vertical stabilizers.
Quote"These aerodynamic surfaces are 1.71 sq. Ft. each in area and have a geometric aspect ratio of 2.34. The cross-sectional shape is an NACA 0012 symmetrical airfoil section."
QuoteEffects of Rear Deck Stabilizers - Figure 11 shows the minor axial force penalty resulting from the rear deck stabilizers. At a horizontal stabilizer angle ("lambda" subscript "G") of -10 degrees, the axial force is increased by 7% at zero yaw angle. Figure 11 also presents the front axle and rear axle lift coefficients as a function of yaw angle. These data indicate the wide range of rear axle lift coefficients available with the horizontal stabilizer (approximately .14 for a 10 degree change in "lambda" subscript "G"). Note that as the Horizontal stabilizer angle is increased negatively, the front axle lift increases slightly. This, of course, is due to the horizontal stabilizer being positioned behind the rear wheels. A more optimum position for the horizontal stabilizer would be directly over the rear wheels. However, the vertical stabilizer effectiveness demands a very rearward location. Coupling the vertical stabilizer requirements with the practical aspects of mounting the horizontal stabilizer resulted in the compromise that is on the car today. Also shown in Figure 11, for comparative purposes, are the aerodynamic characteristics of a 1" high, 45degree rear deck lip spoiler. The comparison indicates that the horizontal stabilizer is a much more effective and efficient aerodynamic system than the rear deck lip spoiler. Lift to axial force ratio is a time-honored method of measuring aerodynamic efficiency. The lift to axial force ratio of the rear deck lip spoiler is 7 while the ratio is 19 for the horizontal stabilizer.
Quote from: Daytona Guy on August 10, 2005, 08:00:55 PMSounds good. I have some of this in my book from Frank Moriarty called "Suppercars". More is good. Tell me what it cost - I will pay you for it. This is just good stuff. Thanks man.
Page created in 0.287 seconds with 21 queries.