Why wouldn't this work? (1 Viewer)

[Sandman]

I've been a fan of fuel drag racing for many, many years, and a reader of this forum for the past couple years, but this is my first post, so please excuse me if it's not in the right spot or is an inappropriate question, but I've never seen it anywhere else, so here goes: with all the talk about slowing the nitro cars by using zillions of dollars in electronics, smaller motors, etc, why not just cut out some of the downforce? Before anyone starts jumping on the "they need aero" or whatever, look at where the best races are run these days. When the traction's not perfect, then all of a sudden it's not so lop-sided. Sketchy track conditions make everyone think a little rather than just throw the checkbook at the car and teams like Jim Dunn's and Gary Densham's are magically on par with the the other half of the field (DSR and JFR) What would be so wrong with taking the tailgates off of the funny cars or at least cutting it in half? Nostalgia f/c's are every bit as exciting, yet run sane speeds with virtually no wing, as do alcohol cars. Let 'em make all the power they want then, same motors could be used, they'd just have to be able to make 'em work with less available traction on the big end. Downforce has nothing to do with the launch, so they'd still be just as awesome off the line. Same with the T/F cars, start taking some wing away and let's see how it affects the finishes.
I've been a drag racing fan since the late '60's and love the sport, but I am so sick of seeing only one or two teams have a true shot at any given event that I could just puke. It should not be about who has the biggest budget, but it is now. I've thought about this for years and no matter how I slice it, I cannot see a downside, but there must be one, because nobody else says anything like it. I believe it would save money for all teams, it would make racing safer and would at least give lesser-funded teams a half a shot at a good finish. Sorry for the long first post, but I'm hoping someone here can explain why it won't work. Thanks, Jim

 

[Huge]

Welcome to the mater. You have a good question, but to qoute Coil. "Messing with the aero package would be dangerous". Look what happened with the pro stock cars when they took a little track prep away on the top end. Because of the lack of downforce they were skating around and crashing, and they are only running around 200 mph. Add another 120 mph and all that extra horsepower for the nitro cars and it would not be very safe. Even the nostalgia cars are starting to become who has the most money. I know of a few that are going to be parked this year due to lack the of money. The more money, the harder you can step on it.

 

[FC138fan]

I had / have similar thoughts - just take the wedge body off and place a more nostalgic style body on - with newer model cars of course, and less wing. But as Eugene mentioned Coil's quote -which stuck out to me too- "Messing with the aero package would be dangerous" can't be ignored. I'd think Coil knows what he's talking about.

Then the whole argument about slowing them down - then alcohol cars suddenly are going faster then the nitro cars, and thats just wrong... I suppose you could force the alcohol cars to run nostalgic bodies too... which I also wouldn't have an issue with.

My personal (uneducated) preference would be for them to do the body swap thing. Wouldn't it be cool to see a nostalgic style body for a newer camaro, mustang, or whatever... and without that huge box on the back. They did it in the mid 80's, Id think they could do it again.

But then you miss out on the whole star wars speeds and times, and the appeal of seeing the quickest and fastest runs of all time... Some fans would rather see wedge bodies going 320 in the 1000', some fans would rather see nostalgic bodies going 300.. I guess Id be in the latter.

I remember seeing a fuel altered car run in Columbus about 10 years ago. It looked like a funnycar frame with a small top fuel wing on the back. Both runs it crossed the centerline, and it looked incredibly difficult to control, but man it sure kept me on the edge of my seat. Sure taking away the aero package would be dangerous, but from my POV (Im not a driver) it would keep me on the edge of my seat. I could go for seeing 8 pairs run, and only having two pairs go the full pull with stellar numbers, a couple having middle of the road runs, and a couple that are in and out of it. It just makes those stellar runs more spectacular. To me thats more interesting then having 8 runs that are full pulls straight down the middle.. But thats just me and Im probably in the minority there.

 

[Sandman]

You guys have excellent points, and nobody wants to see unsafe cars, but if they skate around a little, so be it. Reducing rear downforce would not make the cars any less safe, since most serious crashes happen when air gets under the front at speed. Loss of rear downforce just causes traction loss. Besides that, I see huge amounts of downforce as a safety risk, because if a car is making (for example) 7,000 lbs of downforce with a wing, then a rear tire blows out or a strut fails, both of which have happened, then the car is uncontrollable. But if the car can't build such huge mid-track speeds then the potential for disaster simply isn't there. I mean, today's cars are running about as fast at the 1/8 mile as they were at the 1/4 mile in the mid '90's and nobody felt those cars were boring to watch! I think we've all been to a race in person and seen a pedal-fest. Ever see anyone sitting down then? Hell no! It's the most exciting part of the day!
My opinion is that aero-generated downforce is a main reason for parts failures because it allows more. More traction means more horsepower, more clutch, stronger parts to make all that power, and on and on. It costs money to go racing, no matter what. But I don't feel I'm the only one who feels that money is ruining racing, and if more teams actually had a real shot to win, maybe a sponsor wouldn't feel like he was wasting money by sponsoring a car that will make one run every weekend before being stuffed back in the trailer.
Thanks for the welcome to the 'mater, I wish I'd registered a long time ago!

 

[none]

I liked what Alan Johnson said. He said basically that if you have more traction than power you will break stuff because you have to push the engine as hard as you can, but if you have more power than traction you have to back it down to get it down, and you don't break near as much stuff.

Alan

 

[rollingthunder]

I liked what Alan Johnson said. He said basically that if you have more traction than power you will break stuff because you have to push the engine as hard as you can, but if you have more power than traction you have to back it down to get it down, and you don't break near as much stuff.

Alan

If I remember right Alan. You talked to Alan Johnson and Austin Coil when the change over to 1000ft started. You said they told you we would never
see the cars running quicker in 1000 ft like 1320 ft. I think we are knocking on that door now. If it hasn't already been opened.

 

[MM]

The problem with taking downforce away is the learning curve. Like Eugene said, it is dangerous. It would ultimately slow them down, but there would be a few racecar sacrifices to get there. I agree with what Alan posted. If you want them to slow down, do it with less track prep. Then we can make as horsepower as we want, but we'll have to figure out how to get it to the track.

 

[Rat]

If I remember right Alan. You talked to Alan Johnson and Austin Coil when the change over to 1000ft started. You said they told you we would never
see the cars running quicker in 1000 ft like 1320 ft. I think we are knocking on that door now. If it hasn't already been opened.

The door was knocked on, then it wasn't opened it was kicked down, and this year their taking the frame of the door, but that's just in top fuel. Funny car still has a door and it shows you the 3.95 prock ran in I believe 2006, it just shows you how good that was

 

[Toejam]

If you took Downforce away incrementally, very slowly! It might work wouldn't it?

 

[mick]

so look at this from an another perspective.
nitro fc's and dragsters have always run spoilers/wings, even when they
went the same speeds as today's alcohol class cars are running.
at what speed are the alcohol funny cars going to start to demand more
downforce? or are they already? are they safe with a flat deck and side
spill plates in their current configuration?
or...with current alcohol FC horsepower, they are just not turning the tire
nearly as much on the top end as a nitro FC is, hence less downforce needed?

what is safer?
- a mid 80's nitro FC or a present day alcohol FC
- both similar speeds and et's, but did the horsepower of a mid 80's blown
nitro motor cause more tire spin on the top end (hence rear spoiler) than
a present day blown alcohol motor with a flat deck w/side spill plates?

 

[none]

Hey Mike,

What would be the difference if they went with less track prep, or took some downforce? Both would equate to less down track traction and the tuners would have to earn their keep. If you know how to get down a 145 degree track, (less available down track traction) then you should be able to adapt to less downforce which is going to give you the same result. Right or wrong?

Alan

 

[TooTall999]

I agree with the idea of making the bodies less aero. Take away some spoiler, return to full width cockpits with closer to stock windshield angles. Yes these bodies would be dangerous at 300...but this would force the tuners to slow the cars down. They'd be tripping over themselves to find a competitive 250-260 mph tune up. And maybe if the speeds were controlled we could go back to 1320...just sayin'...

 

[TooTall999]

I also wonder why the NHRA doesn't allow an injected nitro motor in TA/FC? It would be the same as running injected nitro cars in TA/D. You'd think it would make the transition from TA/FC to AA/FC easier...and would make the TA/FC class more fun to watch...

 

[mick]

alan, not sure which mike you're referring too.

is there a difference between a 3000hp alcohol 2-speed FC
and a 3000hp nitro 1-speed FC?
will the nitro car tend to have more wheel slippage on the top end
than the alcohol car?
seems to me that the nitro cars need the added downforce to keep the
tires planted for safety whereas the alcohol cars not so much?
i may be waaay wrong on this.

 

[Just Paul]

I also wonder why the NHRA doesn't allow an injected nitro motor in TA/FC? It would be the same as running injected nitro cars in TA/D. You'd think it would make the transition from TA/FC to AA/FC easier...and would make the TA/FC class more fun to watch...

They have a hard enough time keeping the TAD guys on a level playing field, and keeping the drivers happy with ongoing changes. Same with Pro Mod. They don't need another headache.

 

[BrianT]

I've said this before but why not just stop applying all the traction compound (VHT)? Leave the down-force, HP, everything else, wouldn't that be easy and cheap?

 

[FC138fan]

will the nitro car tend to have more wheel slippage on the top end
than the alcohol car?

This brings up a question that I've never been able to get answered.

Ive heard a TF car goes from 0-100 mph in 0.8 seconds. That equates to about 5.7G.

In that first 0.8 seconds, I assumed that there's no down force coming from the wing, but the down force instead comes from the re-distribution of weight onto the rear tires (pull a wheelie to load the back tires and keep them planted - in scientific terms, the center of gravity gets shifted to the rear tires). At some point, the front end always comes down and by that point the rear wing is necessary to keep the rear tires planted because the weight gets re-distributed (center of gravity moves forward thus providing less down force on the tires).

My issue was why is the front end dropping? Why can they only maintain that 5.7 G load for a certain period of time because theoretically, if they could maintain that 5.7G they would not need a rear wing for down force purposes (however, once they lift, the thing would probably go nuts - picture a TF car at speed on a grass field -- nevermind that though)

I ran some more numbers just now... if they could maintain that 5.7G I projected it out to a 3.30 ET at 412 mi/h in the 1000'. The best run of the weekend was a 3.75 indicating that they (as expected) not pulling 5.7G the whole run.

Which raises a possible answer to my why can't they maintain 5.7G - we know they cannot run 412 mi/h due to the speed limit (rev limiter) (due to the limitations of the tire).. Does this mean that if the rev limiter were removed perhaps they can maintain that 5.7G and get away with not using a wing?

This post is another reason I love to go to the drags, the engineering and science involved with the whole thing...

Other factors to consider - if they ran the whole 1000' with the front tires off the ground (like they can get away with in the first 0.8 seconds) they couldn't steer the thing. Which is why they have a front wing... which is intended to plant the front tires, which would start to make things difficult when figuring out how many G's you need to get the same down force on the rear tires you can get with the front wheels off the ground (i'd guess that its a whole lot more then 5.7)

And as I mentioned, the whole stability thing... But when applying the above thoughts to an alcohol car, is that flat deck and spill plates on a alcohol car purely for stability? Meaning that most of their rear tire traction is coming from the shift in center of gravity? Meaning that if you took the gigantic box off the back of a fuel car you'd pretty much have a nitro car running at alcohol funnycar speeds. The current box adding the extra downforce that allows for the application of that extra horsepower to get the extra ET & speed...

If I remember the old interviews in my head on people making that transition from alcohol to fuel, they say the big difference is from half track on... the continued acceleration. Is this ability to continue the acceleration due to the wing and added downforce... or the added power? What could you get out of an alcohol car with a fuel car wing? Would you get the same thing because all the power of the alcohol engine can be applied to the track without the wing's downforce?

My guess its a combination of both downforce and power... the extra power in a fuel car gets them going faster... and the wing with power allows them to keep accelerating the entire length of track. If you take off the wing, they'll have to back the things down (to around the power level of an alcohol car I bet) as soon as the front tires touch the ground. At that point it will turn into a fuel car running at the performance level of an alcohol car.

So confusing... I guess now that I think about it... I don't know what I'd rather see. Whats the point of having all that power if you can't apply it to the track?

Dammit... someone just invent an indestructible tire and car so we can go back to simpler times.

 

[Sandman]

If I remember the old interviews in my head on people making that transition from alcohol to fuel, they say the big difference is from half track on... the continued acceleration. Is this ability to continue the acceleration due to the wing and added downforce... or the added power? What could you get out of an alcohol car with a fuel car wing?

My guess its a combination of both downforce and power... the extra power in a fuel car gets them going faster... and the wing with power allows them to keep accelerating the entire length of track.

Now THIS is EXACTLY what I mean! I just think that if the NHRA came out and told all the fuel teams that starting right now, they will lose (just for example) 1" of rear spoiler each season, that would give all the teams ample time to adjust incrementally, plus it should stop all the naysayers who claim nitro cars with less downforce would cause the earth to shift from it's axis and plunge into the sun, etc.
Also, as was mentioned earlier, why is it that in the late '80s, nitro f/c's "needed" a wing to run the same speeds that alcohol cars run now without a wing? That's an excellent point and one well worth bringing up. I would think that racers would certainly be more willing to saw off an inch of wing waaay before they'd like to toss all their high-dollar engines into the dumpster just to buy smaller motors that'll need to be wrung out to the limit just to keep up.
I think Austin Coil is one of the smartest men on the planet, but when he says that you shouldn't fool with the aero of current floppers, I personally feel he's not 100% right. I agree that haphazardly doing things just for the sake of change is asking for trouble with cars exceeding 300 mph. But is there anyone who honestly feels that maybe if NHRA took some of the proceeds from the $10 a beer sales and spend a little time in the wind tunnel they might find a good solution? This sport was founded on innovation, yet now we're being told it's unwise to at least experiment? I don't see how that's right. But I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again.
I guess what really started this tirade for me was when Prudhomme was unable to continue due to lack of money. Now it's Bernstein. Whos' next? This sport is losing it's identity to guys who bought their seat because money is the only thing that matters. If money was all I cared about I'd watch friggin' financial shows and hang out at my local bank rather than the dragstrip. But I care about guys who have history in the sport. Densham, Dunn, Dixon and the like should not be shoved aside for "the next big thing" fresh out a daddy-bought junior dragster. I personally feel the sport would be much less expensive (although it will never be cheap) if the cars weren't able to use all the horsepower on the planet like they can now. I personally believe that if NHRA doesn't do something soon, there might not be nitro cars in the future.

 

[Mooseman]

The sport was founded on innovation, innovation gave us what runs today, what you guys want is not innovation it is a reversal of ideas to go back to a the way things were run in a previous time.

 

[Bullet]

Hey ....What would be the difference if they went with less track prep.....

Alan,

Run that by WJ next time you cruise through the PS pits.....

Cheers,

Paul

PS. Thanks for a quick chat at the Museum on Wednesday in Pomona