Air Extractors - it's a done deal for me - listen to this

[Ghoste]

I like that we still discuss it though, I still firmly hold my opinion but my mind is open.

[rnjump]

I could see that the initial idea on the Daytona may have been air, but the real world practicality was clearance.

read through previous threads on this topic and look at the pictures of the Isaac and Stott cars and show us how the tires would fit any better in the fenders with the cutouts.  the tire wouldn't fit in the hole...even part of it.

I have to agree. How wide are the race tires and what is the largest hole?

[Stevearino]

I can see where the tire rub issue might have been the impetus for the scoops and it may just have been incident specific. Meaning will the lowered bodies in 68 and different camber angles at different tracks there may have been times when the right front outer edge was rubbing the top of the fender in that area. Back before 2006 when we were hanging Gen 4 bodies in the Cup series tire rub on the out side right was track specific and the area that it rubbed was not always the same. Some cars would come back from some tracks like Charlotte where the tire was almost burning through the fender and at other tracks the same shape fender was plenty clear. The fact that in 69 their might not have been any more need for it just means they were fighting the last war.
But whether intended or not there would be an aero affect from them being open.

[pettybird]

I could see that the initial idea on the Daytona may have been air, but the real world practicality was clearance.

read through previous threads on this topic and look at the pictures of the Isaac and Stott cars and show us how the tires would fit any better in the fenders with the cutouts.  the tire wouldn't fit in the hole...even part of it.

I have to agree. How wide are the race tires and what is the largest hole?

The tires are wide, but that's not the problem.  Nearly half the tire is under the hood, and there's the fender bracing that hangs down on its edge.  Even if you imagined that the tires ballooned up like top fuel slicks the metal above would cut it to pieces.

[pettybird]

I like that we still discuss it though, I still firmly hold my opinion but my mind is open.

This topic is like someone constantly asking whether horses or hawks fly faster.  "Keeping an open mind" doesn't make sense.

[Ghoste]

Hey, there are people who have supplied evidence to the tire clearance side of it, if someone can provide sure proof that was the original intent then there you go.
If you want to have a closed mind to it, its all good with me.   

[Daytona Guy]

One thing is for sure, the tire can't both rub the hood and the fender because fenders inside edge sticks down. If a tire was even coming close the that edge the team would have been turning that over.

Next, one of the references to rubbing is referring to the tire when "turning" - most likely that is an outer fender issue that was solved by flaring the fenders.

In this picture, and at least with this test car, I see no way this tire will reach the top of the fender without taking out the fender.

I am also open to changing my mind as well, but the circumstantial evidence points to air flow and down force for me. If it was as some of the builders say, that it was tire clearance from start to finish, someone really was a loan ranger and got away with it, and the builders that insist on it to be such, must have been on a winter vacation at the most imported testing of their car. The test mule is about 100% air flow and ZERO tire clearance concerns.  

Another statement that was made when watching that video for the aero page, if they were so careful to make the street version the same as the race version, why did they make such a little hole?

Could both views be 100% true at the same time? Many times with engineers they work on their concerns. So we may have one old concern on the one hand, then an aero concern with another set of engineers (the aero guys brought into the team - when did they come in?) on the other hand that dealt with down air flow. I specifically remember reading an article about an outside aero non-car guy stating that the biggest issue with cars is air being "chewed up" passing under car.

Dane


upload a picture

[C5X DAYTONA]

Guys,   Think of it as you are in late 1968.    George Wallace's exact comment was,   When Pointer showed me (Wallace) the drawing after he got the ok to build the "ugly" car from McCurry, Wallace told Pointer to make some room above the RF tire.   Wallace stated that with the 68 we hit there on the RF and could not modify the existing fender top as per Grand National Rules.   Wallace then stated that with the new car "We could modify the fender top."   Wallace said what Pointer did with the fender top was up to him,  we didn't care.  Just so we had the room.  "It was his expertise" as Wallace says.   Everyone involved says Pointer worked on them "feverishly" not to mess up the aero.     It keeps getting brought up about the tire hitting the inner fender lip and hood.   That was after the fact.   

[C5X DAYTONA]

Wallace also talked about to why they didn't modify the hood but it had something to do with the production car and wheel well he said.  Production line problems.      Remember the race Daytona had to mimic the street version.       Also the 3% note in Pointers note was after the fact.    I truly believe that the fender vent was 1st discussed for clearance and made for clearance and ventelation.    Even though the Daytona's didn't have a lot of air going under the hood.  Big front spoiler, small grill and fenders were pulled out in front of the tires.   Were talking RACE version....

[Daytona Guy]

C5X, Where were these concerns on the low speed test mule? If they were real concerns, and it sounds like they were at some point, the only thing we should see on this test mule is no cut outs at all, or something that looks like tire clearance was their purpose. We have neither. If my concern was about tire clearance, and I'm an engineer in charge of this, I would have never let this mule go 1 MPH till I fixed it.  

I would expect to see this (below), or nothing on top of the fenders, because this was an aero low speed test (120).


Dane

[C5X DAYTONA]

 Hello Dane,   Listen to the video on the Aero Warrior's page.   Gary Romberg talks about the extractors.   He is an aeronautical engineer.     Also, Wallace and Pointer said the exact thing over and over again.     Wallace's quote,  "we wanted the RF fender top pushed up and told Pointer to work on it. What ever Pointer did was up to him,  that was his expertise."       

We also have to remember that Talladega was not built when the Daytona program started.   The original tire issue was at Daytona.  Daytona is not as fast as Talladega (the track) where the 200mph run was and the #88 RF tire hit the hood.   They had to build a car looking at the future and the short time they had.   They could NOT re-engineer the production chassis.

[C5X DAYTONA]

I truly don't think any of the engineers from Chrysler would still be trying to cover up something after 40 years.   Wallace has said on many occasions,  It was really funny to watch people from NASCAR and Ford try to figure out what we were doing.   I mean,  it looks like an exhauster, it worked like an exhauster,  we even called it an exhauster, but it was there for tire clearance.    It was really that simple......


This was a Q and A from Hot Rod Magazine, June 29, 2005.    Article called,    From NASA to NASCAR,  Chrysler Wing Car Development Interviews

Q: Gary, tell us about your background.
A: I graduated from Cal State Poly, San Luis Obisbo in 1957 and immediately took a job at Boeing where I was a wind tunnel aerodynamicist until 1962. I was a flight test engineer on the KC-135 tanker aircraft, which was essentially a converted 707 jet passenger airliner. In 1961 I was hired by Chrysler Space Division in Huntsville, AL. They farmed me out to NASA and I did aerodynamics on the Saturn 1 booster rocket, fore runner to the Saturn 5 that put us on the moon in 1969. I worked there until Chrysler won the contract to build the Saturn 1 booster in 1963 and I was reassigned to just outside of New Orleans, LA. I stayed there doing aerodynamic work on launch vehicles until 1969. The Saturn program was winding down, we hadn't landed on the moon yet, but we were getting close, and I saw an opening at Chrysler Detroit doing race car aerodynamics. So I came to Chrysler Detroit in the spring of 1969

[C5X DAYTONA]

I like that we still discuss it though, I still firmly hold my opinion but my mind is open.

This topic is like someone constantly asking whether horses or hawks fly faster.  "Keeping an open mind" doesn't make sense.

So your saying Doug, that horses fly?   

[C5X DAYTONA]

Odd thing is the 3/8 scale wind tunnel car has never been fitted with "Exhausters." 

I would think it would be difficult to show airflow through a thick clay shell in a way that sheetmetal could. 

Did the full scale test cars have them?

There were no full sized wind tunnel test cars prior to the build per Gary Romberg.   And is would not be difficult to show airflow through the 3/8 car Doug.   They could of attached a thing metal exhauster if they wanted too.     

[C5X DAYTONA]

"Exhausters"  =   3% drag reduction.   

That's what it says on the John Pointer authored vintage documentation. 

From NASA to NASCAR,  Chrysler Wing Car Development Interviews, Hot Rod Magazine, June 29, 2005

Hot Rod asking Gary Romberg about is they tested full size Daytona.   I am assuming Gary's reply is prior to the car going into production.

Q: Did you guys ever make and test a full scale G-Series wing car mock up?
A: No, it only got as far as those 3/8 scale models we had in the Wichita State facility

[Mike DC]

  
The tire clearance issue looks implausible because it didn't happen on most cars.  

They also didn't need the "bathtub" Hemi intake manifold (to lower the carb for hood clearance) on most 2nd-gen Chargers either.  But for some reason in '68 they built several of them.  



It was the lowered "2x2" 1968 cars.  They were banned by NASCAR soon after they debuted.  The wing cars that hit the tracks in finished form didn't need extra clearance.  




As for the hood & fender inner edge - negative camber, remember?  The body is leaning in the corners.  The outer shoulder of the tire is where it would have rubbed worst/first.  

There is at least one surviving pic I've see around here where the hood & fender bracing had been clearanced for the RF tire on a 2nd-gen NASCAR Charger.  It was a hood-up shot from the track during a pit stop, I think.    

[odcics2]

Dented inner hood structure at the 200 mph run. (yellow arrow)
There was one bump at Talladega where it would rub.
The car ran with 5" of oil pan to track clearance. (static set up)
The hood inner is the lowest part, being almost twice as low
compared to the fender bracing next to it.

[Daytona Guy]

Yes, I said I listened to it. The question I would ask him, and what no one seems to have an answer for this the exhauster used on the test mule. He said their are no aero purpose for them, yet the facts go against his "statement". They says 3% - and they are aero designed with no purpose of tire clearance on the test mule.

Then, he said that he wanted to make sure the street car was the same and the fender scoops "covered up the holes that were for tire clearance". If this is true, the original holes as designed were for tire clearance on the track?? those little holes? I can do some calculations on surface area for that hole relative to a tire - moving left and right a degree or two and how close what would come to that hole's edge. The way he is talking it seems as if he does not know what he is talking about. I know that sounds presumptuous, but those holes, if they were for tire clearance, I would rather my tire hit a smooth surface than coming near a sharp edge. He was not talking about the hole getting bigger, but being exactly the same - race car to street car. Next, he got there in the spring of 69 he says - so there were more aero guys than him? That makes him the newbie at the time. His credentials are amazing.  

If what he is saying is true (and I believe he is not covering anything up), he has at least some questions to answer that do not add up. Don't worry, I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, but did I see black helicopters in the back on the test track


upload an image

[Mike DC]

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that the street production fender holes (aside from the added scoops on top) were exactly what the NASCARS were going to have.  I think they just put holes & screens in the fenders to legitimize the idea of the GN cars having holes under the fenders.  The street production fender holes were probably done in whatever way was cheap & practical for that purpose.  


I don't see the big mystery here.  The idea got started for tire clearance, both on the existing '68 lowered cars and the unknown questions about the future.  They were leaving themselves some "clearance" for unknowns with the unprecedented speeds of the Talladega track and just the car's abilities in general.  

Guy #1 said, "As long as we're custom-tailoring a NASCAR body here, it wouldn't hurt to give ourselves some extra tire clearance on the RF."  

Guy #2 said, "Okay.  But we might as well see if there's any way to squeeze an aero gain from those things while we're at it."  





All this does beg the question  . . . .  Why didn't they also give the Daytonas a subtle hood bulge to solve the clearance problems which had prompted the bathtub intake?  There might even have been some additional horsepower to be had with a bulge for that matter.

I guess the answer is that 45 years of hindsight is a lot of time to dream up better ways to do something.  

[C5X DAYTONA]

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that the street production fender holes (aside from the added scoops on top) were exactly what the NASCARS were going to have.  I think they just put holes & screens in the fenders to legitimize the idea of the GN cars having holes under the fenders.  The street production fender holes were probably done in whatever way was cheap & practical for that purpose.  

I asked George the question to why the street versions Daytona had the holes and the Superbird's didn't.    George says, they put the holes in all the street Daytona's because they thought they would have too and with a short window of time to get the cars legal for competition they didn't want to chance it.    Come to find out the production car didn't have to have the holes.     That is why the Superbird doesn't have them.







.  

[C5X DAYTONA]

 
I don't see the big mystery here.  The idea got started for tire clearance, both on the existing '68 lowered cars and the unknown questions about the future.  They were leaving themselves some "clearance" for unknowns with the unprecedented speeds of the Talladega track and just the car's abilities in general.  

Guy #1 said, "As long as we're custom-tailoring a NASCAR body here, it wouldn't hurt to give ourselves some extra tire clearance on the RF."  

Guy #2 said, "Okay.  But we might as well see if there's any way to squeeze an aero gain from those things while we're at it."  

That is 100% the same way I understood it.

[C5X DAYTONA]

All this does beg the question  . . . .  Why didn't they also give the Daytona's a subtle hood bulge to solve the clearance problems which had prompted the bathtub intake?  There might even have been some additional horsepower to be had with a bulge for that matter.

I guess the answer is that 45 years of hindsight is a lot of time to dream up better ways to do something.  

You got it Mike,    Took me 10,000 words to say what you said in 200.    Probably why I am not on the internet much..              Wallace said the production hood and fender were already done for the 1970 Charger.       He did elaborate on how much more costly it would of been to re-engineer the hood and inner structure of the hood so that was off limits.   Then he went on how they would of loved to lay that darn flat windshield back for more aero but you have to draw the line somewhere.

[C5X DAYTONA]

Dented inner hood structure at the 200 mph run. (yellow arrow)
There was one bump at Talladega where it would rub.
The car ran with 5" of oil pan to track clearance. (static set up)
The hood inner is the lowest part, being almost twice as low
compared to the fender bracing next to it.

For the record, this shot was 1 year after the birth of the Daytona.    When the Daytona was already for production, Talladega Superspeedway was not even finished to know what "bumps" they would discover.     Also,  Greg,   I have the rear window plug, rear window and the 4 piece rear window straps out of the #99 Glotzbach Daytona.   I don't know what all you got with the car but if you need 100% original Nichels parts to copy just let me know.  Also, how the plug and trim clips were installed were different than the production cars.  I'm certain you know this stuff but just incase..

[C5X DAYTONA]

Yes, I said I listened to it. The question I would ask him, and what no one seems to have an answer for this the exhauster used on the test mule. He said their are no aero purpose for them, yet the facts go against his "statement". They says 3% - and they are aero designed with no purpose of tire clearance on the test mule.

Then, he said that he wanted to make sure the street car was the same and the fender scoops "covered up the holes that were for tire clearance". If this is true, the original holes as designed were for tire clearance on the track?? those little holes? I can do some calculations on surface area for that hole relative to a tire - moving left and right a degree or two and how close what would come to that hole's edge. The way he is talking it seems as if he does not know what he is talking about. I know that sounds presumptuous, but those holes, if they were for tire clearance, I would rather my tire hit a smooth surface than coming near a sharp edge. He was not talking about the hole getting bigger, but being exactly the same - race car to street car. Next, he got there in the spring of 69 he says - so there were more aero guys than him? That makes him the newbie at the time. His credentials are amazing.  

If what he is saying is true (and I believe he is not covering anything up), he has at least some questions to answer that do not add up. Don't worry, I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, but did I see black helicopters in the back on the test track


upload an image

I don't know the answer to why the slow speed mule had the exhausters.     Would be a good question but it's still after how it came to be.   There is no doubt it's an exhauster.   I understand Gary says it for tire clearance only but George has said many times that they didn't care what Pointer did.  Just so it didn't mess up the aero.     So I take it as they really didn't care, just so he made room with no negative affect. 

The 3% paperwork is odd.   3% is HUGE.     I can't find any test date, test data or even a test number on that issue.   There is absolutely nothing prior to production that I have seen.  Everything else and with multiple designs but ZERO on the extractor.  All the wind tunnel test were done on the 3/8 car prior to production as I understand it.  The fender tops have never been modified on that 3/8s car.  So I just have no idea where the 3% is coming from.

On how small the street hole is.  They knew they could make the hole huge on the race car.   They just didn't know if the production car had to have it.  So they just made a hole.  No science to why the hole is that size.  Just wanted a hole to show the street car had it to avoid a problem to make the body legal to race.     

When Doug S. has them come to the meets, it's lets just say...magical....     Absolutely a fantastic group of car guys.  Very approachable.

[tan top]

 interesting , debate guys , good info & pictures !!  love reading this kind stuff !! thanks for sharing