So..... What's the difference?

[dpkimmel2001]

Are you seeing a huge difference with the wing -vs- the spoiler? I find it kinda funny that so many callers to NASCAR radio could see such a huge difference in the way the car handled. At the same time, almost every driver that I heard interviewed, when asked about the spoiler said the difference is nothing more than cosmetic. I guess we all see what we want to see. :idunno:

I can remember that when the COT debuted, all of the announcers were so quick to point out quickly the car would snap back into shape when it got sideways with that wing. Now they talk about the added down-force that the spoiler has -vs- the wing. Which is it? It can't go both ways.

At least we don't have to worry about cars becoming airborne any more. We all know that was a direct result of the wing. I only say this as the proud graduate of the School of Aeronautics, Class of 92'. How about you? They can probably add a little more to the diameter of that restrictor plate now that that's been resolved. I wonder what will get the blame the next time it happens. :scratch:

Now, if we could just do something about that damn splitter. :ignore:

 

[semipenguin]

Racing is racing to me. I'm guessing it might have more to do with the sudden about-face going 190 :shock:
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Snoozer]

I think it was more cosmetic to please a large group of fans.

And I know we disagree on this but I still believe that the wing had something to do with some of the recent cars getting airborne when they got turned around.
I'm not saying it wouldn't have happend in some instances but the way the wing was tilted down (and therefore up backwards) air would get under it and help lift the car up. It had to have helped, no?

 

[Sirius01_8]

I still think that if the wing was used correctly it would have been better in the long run.

 

[semipenguin]

IF is the key word :right:

IF...the wing was higher, the drivers could see thru the car in front of them & maybe avoid more wrecks.

IF...the wing was at more of an angle, the cars would not have gotten airbourn when they got turned around going 180.

Maybe a Super Bird wing would have been better. One that sits 3ft (0.95M) above the deck lid :shock:
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[dpkimmel2001]

I think it was more cosmetic to please a large group of fans.

And I know we disagree on this but I still believe that the wing had something to do with some of the recent cars getting airborne when they got turned around.
I'm not saying it wouldn't have happend in some instances but the way the wing was tilted down (and therefore up backwards) air would get under it and help lift the car up. It had to have helped, no?

Yes, there were a large group of fans that apparently felt that wing simply made the car look bad or unlike a race-car. Personally, I could care less about the wing or spoiler and how it makes the cars look. I like the sport for the racing, not the cars.

I can't say for any certainty how the wing affected the car. I find it extremely hard to believe that the wing, when reversed, it wasn't tested for lift. I'd think that is one of the first things that they would have checked. I think it is how it's been described. It's not that the wing is creating lift on the car when reversed. It's that the wing is not doing anything to displace the air and slow the car down at a faster rate of speed when traveling backwards. The car is allowed to travel at a higher rate of speed for a longer distance giving more time for the car to catch the air and create lift. Cars at high rates of speeds, wings or no wings, forwards or backwards, sideways or diagonal can become airborne. That's something that I do know.

IF...the wing was higher, the drivers could see thru the car in front of them the wreck they're about to get into.

Fixed that for you semi.

 

[Snoozer]

Yes, there were a large group of fans that apparently felt that wing simply made the car look bad or unlike a race-car. Personally, I could care less about the wing or spoiler and how it makes the cars look. I like the sport for the racing, not the cars.

I can't say for any certainty how the wing affected the car. I find it extremely hard to believe that the wing, when reversed, it wasn't tested for lift. I'd think that is one of the first things that they would have checked. I think it is how it's been described. It's not that the wing is creating lift on the car when reversed. It's that the wing is not doing anything to displace the air and slow the car down at a faster rate of speed when traveling backwards. The car is allowed to travel at a higher rate of speed for a longer distance giving more time for the car to catch the air and create lift. Cars at high rates of speeds, wings or no wings, forwards or backwards, sideways or diagonal can become airborne. That's something that I do know.



Fixed that for you semi.

Like you I could care less what the car looks like. And you're explaination of the wing not displacing the air when turned around makes sense to some one like me who knows nothing about aero. I'm going to go with that from now on.

 

[dpkimmel2001]

Like you I could care less what the car looks like. And you're explaination of the wing not displacing the air when turned around makes sense to some one like me who knows nothing about aero. I'm going to go with that from now on.

Again, I don't know anything when it comes to aeronautics. I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night but I did stay @ the Uncomfort Inn, err ahh, Comfort Inn.

I had heard this explained by some engineer that I believe Moody had on his show a while back when talking about the change from the wing to the spoiler. It could have been a different show. It was explained that there was a rapid deceleration of the car with the spoiler -vs- the wing as the wing did nothing to deflect the air when traveling rearward. I think that the so called magic number is somewhere around the 190 mark and that's why NASCAR strives to keep them below those speeds. Anything above that tends to take flight when allowed to continue at speed.