When Don Garlits ran his Mono wing the car was built to be run as a mono wing, so maybe the balance and stability was better than if it was just stuck on a car built to run a regular strut design. Don likenend it to the rear stabilizer on an airplane, or the feathers on an arrow, without which neither would fly stright. If you see pictures of Top Fuelers from the 80's, the rear wing was much smaller and lower, it has been an ongoing development for them, and the same would be expected for mono wings to be perfected.
What happened to all the hype about monoS (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Doug in the woods
- Start date
Jay
Nitro Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 312
- Age
- 51
- Location
- Miami, Florida
My understanding from Brad Hadman is that it is ready to go if someone wants to use it...It cleared the NHRA hurdles earlier this year...
And regarding the Mono, other than additional real estate for the sponsors, why can't all the C/F panels come off and it just be engineered as a series of struts to eliminate the cross-wind issue (a real concern from what I understand)?
Actually it could Martin. That might take care of the stability problems right there. But at that point I don't know how much benefit they would get over the current design. Would have to take a closer look at the mounting structure and see if it offered any advantages.
blackbeard
Nitro Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2006
- Messages
- 191
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Houma, LA
one advantage is that it would be less likely to be taken out by a peice of tire
yoda
Nitro Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2006
- Messages
- 4,139
- Age
- 63
- Location
- Some Tour Bus or Plane Somewhere
Lance... You are F****in Hillarious... Scott, you have been PC'd!!!!!!
I don't see it as being LESS material to be taken out -most wing incidents start with the main wing element being compromised by a tire, and the strut structure fails afterwards. There are the occasional strut failure that brings on a catastropic series of events.
If anything, with all the additional C/F to disintergrate and potentially catch BOTH tires, I would assume that a rigid strut mono configuration, with minimal bodywork- would be the most efficient way to increase safety.
I don't see it as being LESS material to be taken out -most wing incidents start with the main wing element being compromised by a tire, and the strut structure fails afterwards. There are the occasional strut failure that brings on a catastropic series of events.
If anything, with all the additional C/F to disintergrate and potentially catch BOTH tires, I would assume that a rigid strut mono configuration, with minimal bodywork- would be the most efficient way to increase safety.
Last edited:
The monopost wing has almostbecome an emotional issue.
Mike Kloeber (or his team) spent Lotsa money on its development.
It isn't the saving grace to whatever folks think it should be- even though, particulary Garlits' it looks *****en!
Wngmaker Mike Mageira had a LOT to do with the calcs on the monostrut-
I conversations I've had with him, as currently configured, he's opposed to its implementation.
To put things to bed,maybe statements from Kloeberand Mageira would be appropriate!
Mike Kloeber (or his team) spent Lotsa money on its development.
It isn't the saving grace to whatever folks think it should be- even though, particulary Garlits' it looks *****en!
Wngmaker Mike Mageira had a LOT to do with the calcs on the monostrut-
I conversations I've had with him, as currently configured, he's opposed to its implementation.
To put things to bed,maybe statements from Kloeberand Mageira would be appropriate!
