Aerodynamics (1 Viewer)

mick

Nitro Member
the basic shape of FC's and TF'rs hasn't changed much for quite a while.
Funny Car:
- rear spoiler became less and less
- side spill plates became larger
- i think it was lee beard who first introduced center spill plates on rear deck lid with whit's matco FC?
- full side windows and windshield gave way to modern 'greenhouses' with first rounded body edge, now square body edge
- leading edge of front fender flares wide
Top Fuel:
- duel element front wings either side of chassis gave way to single element wing
- experiments by ornsby, amato, and others gave way to the sideplates we see today.
- dsr's R&D lead to enclosed canopy, others with tall polycarbonate shield
- multi element rear wing unchanged for quite a while. mono wing tried, but no advantage
in recent article on complus about t. delago joining mike green on davis/justin TF'r, it mentions mike talking about R&D project/s he would like assistance.
i started thinking whether that could be engine/hp r&d, or something else?
a few years back, i believe paul romine ran a car quest sponsored TF'r that was a spitzer chassis? i think it had vorticy generating shapes on body just behind driver? pretty sure it was disallowed?
i'm not sure what the rules would allow, but it sure would be great to see someone in nitro ranks try something completely different, whether visual or not,
and one of those areas i always wonder about is if something else could be tried in area of aerodynamics? ground effects or other.
 

Cliff

Nitro Member
There were a few T/F cars with a "tunnel" under the engine; supposed to help downforce. Garlits had that mono wing. I always thought that would help "stabalize" the air. I think DSR tried a version of that some years ago. I like the enclosed canopy. Wonder if someone could make a rear enclosure of the engine area to help streamline the car. Jim Head tried that some years ago. Seems to me that all these ideas could be tried on a computer to see what works. Same with F/C. The current F/C bodies are so streamlined that they don't even look like a real car. But they sure work! F/C is faster in MPH than T/F.
 

Ramjet

Nitro Member
There were a few T/F cars with a "tunnel" under the engine; supposed to help downforce. Garlits had that mono wing. I always thought that would help "stabalize" the air. I think DSR tried a version of that some years ago. I like the enclosed canopy. Wonder if someone could make a rear enclosure of the engine area to help streamline the car. Jim Head tried that some years ago. Seems to me that all these ideas could be tried on a computer to see what works. Same with F/C. The current F/C bodies are so streamlined that they don't even look like a real car. But they sure work! F/C is faster in MPH than T/F.
Not as much with the last rules change for F/C. Besides the angle of the headers a very important change was the closeness to the body which took the surface tension (Drag) off the body picking up the speed. Unfortunatly it was burning the paint off and gave a chance for a catastrophic fire. That is why they had to allow (Mandate) the overall width of the car including the headers to be wider. We are back to those D-mned Mandates again ;). Vortex generators would possibly bring speeds up again, but don't hold your breath, Goodyear is adamant about not wanting these cars any faster with the tires they have. A basically two ply tire with a severe cord angle on a car that feels that much weight with the down force is past it's limits now which is another reason for 1000 feet. You give Drag Racers enough leeway they will figure out how to blow up - destroy or disintegrate stuff - BUT they will go faster and quicker!
 

jimbo

Nitro Member
Not as much with the last rules change for F/C. Besides the angle of the headers a very important change was the closeness to the body which took the surface tension (Drag) off the body picking up the speed. Unfortunatly it was burning the paint off and gave a chance for a catastrophic fire. That is why they had to allow (Mandate) the overall width of the car including the headers to be wider. We are back to those D-mned Mandates again ;). Vortex generators would possibly bring speeds up again, but don't hold your breath, Goodyear is adamant about not wanting these cars any faster with the tires they have. A basically two ply tire with a severe cord angle on a car that feels that much weight with the down force is past it's limits now which is another reason for 1000 feet. You give Drag Racers enough leeway they will figure out how to blow up - destroy or disintegrate stuff - BUT they will go faster and quicker!
Those last 3 lines says it all! Forget the AA/FC or AA/TF cars ever going back to 1320! Never going to happen! NHRA is not leading that charge, Goodyear is. And for those talking about 660', I've said it before "they will just shorten the wick" and "they will figure out how to blow up - destroy or disintegrate stuff!"
 

T.Smith

Nitro Member
Those last 3 lines says it all! Forget the AA/FC or AA/TF cars ever going back to 1320! Never going to happen! NHRA is not leading that charge, Goodyear is. And for those talking about 660', I've said it before "they will just shorten the wick" and "they will figure out how to blow up - destroy or disintegrate stuff!"
PRO is the reason why you have 1000 foot and will remain having 1000 foot.
 

sammi

Nitro Member
I often wonder what Adrian Newey(Red Bull F1 technical wizard) and a couple of Honda F1 engine guys could do to or for our sport. I have always thought a lot is left on the table in terms of aerodynamics and engine development, particularly in the area of parts reliability.
 

flapjack

Staff member
Nitro Member
I often wonder what Adrian Newey(Red Bull F1 technical wizard) and a couple of Honda F1 engine guys could do to or for our sport. I have always thought a lot is left on the table in terms of aerodynamics and engine development, particularly in the area of parts reliability.
That depends on how far down the rabbit hole of computer aided engineering (finite element analysis and computational fluid dynamics) you want to go. The big players in FEA ands CFD don't come cheap, and that's just the software. Takes immense compute power to run these programs for meaningful models, which adds yet another dimension to the cost.
 
Last edited:

Cliff

Nitro Member
Would be interesting to see what a hi-tech DOHC, 4 valve per cyl, electronic FI, etc etc do on nitro. Those itty bitty 140 CI engines can run around 220 MPH on the back stretch, so what if they had a 300 CI motor? I'm just thinking what if, cuz I know it would never happen in the real world. So we're stuck with engine design that is almost 70 years old & still can run 339 MPH in 1000'.
 

HEMI6point1

Nitro Member
What I am curious on is why do Top Fuel cars still rely on a rear wing support system that is decades old while things like the "monostrut" were eventually disallowed?
 

Nunz

Nitro Member
There's probably an endless list of things that could be pursued, including aerodynamics and engine design, but to what end? We aren't going back to 1320, Goodyear doesn't want 350 MPH cars, and the biggest challenge facing the fuel categories is the cost of running them. So while everybody complains about the lack of new developments or significant changes within these classes, remember, removing limitations at this point would just take the expenses to a whole new level. Just like in PS, the low hanging fruit for experimentation and performance gains was eaten years ago. I think for the fuel cars, R&D at this point would be more about consistency, longevity, and safety.
 

mick

Nitro Member
not really thinking faster or quicker, just imagining something like bernstein's '87 lesabre that was a completely different solution to the same problem.
to break the cookie cutter mold so to speak. i know it's wishful thinking. all the motorsports series are essentially cookie cutters, and those like F1 who have room to play with aero,
also have budgets over and above anything any american series will ever see (see tom k. post above).......not that i think the aero on todays cars is not amazing.
 

jimbo

Nitro Member
not really thinking faster or quicker, just imagining something like bernstein's '87 lesabre that was a completely different solution to the same problem.
to break the cookie cutter mold so to speak. i know it's wishful thinking. all the motorsports series are essentially cookie cutters, and those like F1 who have room to play with aero,
also have budgets over and above anything any american series will ever see (see tom k. post above).......not that i think the aero on todays cars is not amazing.
Just MHO - but Bersteins '87 Lesabre was the biggest reason of the escalation of $$$$$ in the AA/FC ranks. Sure alot of money was spent in engine development - blocks, heads, blowers, ect. but everyone else followed suite shortly after. Everybody had computers! Most everybody could not afford the reported $300.000.00 + the Lesabre cost to develop. And from my memory Berstein was'nt sharing. Sure the factories upped the ante with more intense wind tunnel design work and development, but who could really afford to really make the cars look like a real Camaro, Mustang, Charger or whatever. Vinyl is cheaper! Question is if some put those same Camoros, Mustangs and Chargers next to one another with the graphics,could you really see any thing more than subtle differences?
 
Ways To Support Nitromater

Users who are viewing this thread


Top