Sooooo... What was the purpose of fender scoops...? ***VOTE in added Poll***

[xs29j8Bullitt]

That is a photograph I took of the McCoy front end.   I put it on my scanner and copied it.   Is there a better way?    Remember,  I am using rotary phone technology here   .. 

Most scanners can be adjusted for image resolution, i.e. 300 dpi, 600 dpi, 1200 dpi, etc.   A setting of 600 dpi would be fine for a large good quality scan, and virtually any file format would be fine (.jpg, .bmp, etc...).  As a .jpg file the file size would probably be about 1 Mb, while a .bmp might be 3-4 Mb.

If you call me, I will try to walk you through the scanning...  I will PM my cell no.

My Internet connection will probably croak in the next few hours...

One more pic showing final assembly of the instrumented prototype test article...

[xs29j8Bullitt]

Well, this thread has about run it's course... so it is probably time to bury the "dead horse" we have been 

When I started the thread, I expected a debate based on the technical merit of each "theory", with pictures and sketches being exchanged.

I appreciate everyone's input, especially Sean's & Dane's... and thanks to everyone who participated it the poll.

So, unless new information comes to light, or someone posts something that I feel compelled to respond to, the sketch below may be my final input on the matter.  It is based on Sean's picture and description of the "McCoy" Daytona front end...

Below it are the Interim Poll results...

[Aero426]

In an attempt to load the right front suspension, I jacked the left rear of the #7 car up in the air.    This transfers that weight to the right front corner.     The result of this is that by looking at the lower control arm (bottom photo) being within one inch of the unibody the right front suspension is "not far" from being maxed out.   

[Aero426]

Look at the angle of the upper control arm.   I have some weight on that corner.

[Aero426]

The result of this is that with the suspension loaded, there are three inches between the top of the tire and the closest piece of metal (inner fender and hood).    It's not even close to factoring into tire clearance relative to the scoop.     The outer portion of the tire has one inch between itself and the inside of the fender lip.

[A383Wing]

I thought the scoops were put there so people at car shows can look inside there and see if they can find Waldo or hidden treasure...every time we take our car to a show....everyone who passes looks inside the scoops

[xs29j8Bullitt]

I thought the scoops were put there so people at car shows can look inside there and see if they can find Waldo or hidden treasure...every time we take our car to a show....everyone who passes looks inside the scoops

Show spectators find scoops fascinating... 

[xs29j8Bullitt]

I have searched extensively for wing cars in hard cornering situations and had very little luck...  Anyone have a source for such photos...?

[hemi68charger]

I thought the scoops were put there so people at car shows can look inside there and see if they can find Waldo or hidden treasure...every time we take our car to a show....everyone who passes looks inside the scoops

Show spectators find scoops fascinating... 

Either that, or he's looking for that Budweiser six pack...... 

[xs29j8Bullitt]

I thought the scoops were put there so people at car shows can look inside there and see if they can find Waldo or hidden treasure...every time we take our car to a show....everyone who passes looks inside the scoops

Show spectators find scoops fascinating... 

Either that, or he's looking for that Budweiser six pack...... 

Only the real Budweiser... Budweiser Budvar!!!   

[Daytona Guy]

This was my point earlier. Is this a real actual race car with original framing? My point was that the lower control arm will hit the frame. I thought that these race cars, if they bottomed out on the ground would leave the oil pan on the track -  I know mine did:) Can you show a pick of this car's oil pan - clearance to the ground? If this car had one inch before the lower control arm hit the frame - then the K frame should be on the ground.



Also, I know this would mess up your car, but if you torque the bars down you could allow the lower control are to hit the frame  - and see where the tire is. Are these the same tires. The K & K car looks like it used bigger tires.





The question I have is if this is the same framing - and suspension - how did they get the K & K car so low? It looks as if they ran this car with only once inch left on the lower control arms range ?

So what are we saying now? If this tire is 1" from the fender and 1" from the lower control arm hitting the frame, that would give the builders the assurance they need that the tire can't shred or go too far. Is the bird fender taller than the Daytona? Are there holes in this Bird's fenders? - what did the tire location look like through the scoop?

Dane

[C5X DAYTONA]

This is killing me...       Doug,  Is your car aligned for Talladega?  Vintage 69 Tires?  When you say, one inch from the fender lip, I assume you are talking about the top of the fender since the (lip on the side) was not an issue.   Doug, please just put some 800 pound weights on each corner for this test..  Please, in the name of Science...          Dane,  The tire hit the fender top in testing in 68.  The oil pan (sump) was OK..    1 inch between the frame rail and the control arm is good.  Not good if it hits but they have that figured (hopefully) out in the torsion bar rate for each track.  They had what is called a Cook Book for the chassis set ups at each track.    I run 3/8 between the bumper on the control arm and the frame on my street car.     That is enough room.  Thanks to a bumper.   Look at the bump stop on a stock B-body.  (yes I know race cars don't have them) but if you drop the car 1/4 inch at the bumpstop that's about 5/8 inch at the tire.    Measure from the top outer side of the tire to the lower top lip of the fender on a street car.   You can see how much travel there is for so little movement at the frame.    Please don't make me mess up my alignment..           I am not sure but is the Grand National lower control arm longer?  If so the drop is more.    If shorter it will be less.     Now Doug.  Here is the crazy thing.  The engineers just wanted the extra room for cheep insurance before testing.   You more than most have talked with all of the engineers many times.  I know just about every time we see them this comes up..   Did they wink at you?    Rumor has it not to believe everything you hear but they really are adamant about this clearance issue concern before the car was built.       One more time, No matter what happened in the end, they wanted it NOT to be an issue in the beginning...

[Aero426]

This was my point earlier. Is this a real actual race car with original framing? My point was that the lower control arm will hit the frame. I thought that these race cars, if they bottomed out on the ground would leave the oil pan on the track -  I know mine did:) Can you show a pick of this car's oil pan - clearance to the ground? If this car had one inch before the lower control arm hit the frame - then the K frame should be on the ground.

Before doing anything, the oil pan is 4" from the ground.   This is a wet sump car.  If anything, the car is sitting too low in the front.

Also, I know this would mess up your car, but if you torque the bars down you could allow the lower control are to hit the frame  - and see where the tire is. Are these the same tires. The K & K car looks like it used bigger tires.

The tires on the car are 80's era tires, and are somewhat larger than the ones raced in 1970.   In fact, they look like big balloons to me.

The question I have is if this is the same framing - and suspension - how did they get the K & K car so low? It looks as if they ran this car with only once inch left on the lower control arms range ?

Bodies were positioned differently over time.      K & K is a dry sump car, so without that huge wet sump pan, it allows more freedom in getting the engine (and everything else) a little lower.   You can't compare suspensions by looking at the body.

So what are we saying now? If this tire is 1" from the fender and 1" from the lower control arm hitting the frame, that would give the builders the assurance they need that the tire can't shred or go too far. Is the bird fender taller than the Daytona? Are there holes in this Bird's fenders? - what did the tire location look like through the scoop?

Yes there are full holes in the fender directly above the tire.   The side edges are turned up to rivet the scoops on.     It's all smooth and bondoed on the bottom side.  

There is no doubt that there was a problem on the 1968 1/2 race car with clearance.   The 68 1/2 was also deemed illegal because of the way that body was positioned (dropped in the front) on the chassis.     This opened the door for a scoop to be placed on the car "just in case".     Again, for either purpose (extractor or tire) , they could not go back after production and add it.     I have never any of the heard of the scoops being actually necessary on a Superbird or Daytona for interference on the TOP of the fender.     None of the engineering guys have ever claimed that the wing cars had the tire to fender problem of the 68 1/2.    They have always stated the scoop was "just in case".

[Aero426]

It can be debated as to whether side of the fender is an interference issue, or not.  Assuming there was enough travel, it's my belief that the tire would also hit the outside of the fender before it got to the scoop area.  

BTW, this is what Chrysler referred to as a bubbled fender.  Bubbled fenders refer to the SIDE, not the top.     They did not recommend this treatment as shown on the #6 car for aero purposes.   Look how smooth the Petty cars are on the sides of the fenders.  Same for the #88.     They wanted the airflow to stay attached on the side of the car.  

[pettybird]

Didn't NASCAR have rules about how large a fender opening you could run?  Your fenders, the #6 and the #71 are all shaped differently...

[Daytona Guy]

There is no doubt that there was a problem on the 1968 1/2 race car with clearance.   The 68 1/2 was also deemed illegal because of the way that body was positioned (dropped in the front) on the chassis.     This opened the door for a scoop to be placed on the car "just in case".     Again, for either purpose (extractor or tire) , they could not go back after production and add it.     I have never any of the heard of the scoops being actually necessary on a Superbird or Daytona for interference on the TOP of the fender.     None of the engineering guys have ever claimed that the wing cars had the tire to fender problem of the 68 1/2.    They have always stated the scoop was "just in case".

Now - who are we to believe? Here it says "None of the engineering guys have ever claimed" it was for tire clearance like the 68.5 problems.

My issue was that if the tire has that much movement you would want to fix that because of the haddling issues it creates.

[Aero426]

The claim has ALWAYS been that the scoops were for tire clearance.  That is not in doubt.      

What I said was that "I know of no documented experiences of tire rubs / failures on TOPS of fenders on wing cars with or without scoops".    

I also said that to my knowledge, "the engineering people (Wallace, Rathgeb, et al) have never cited fender rubs on tops of wing car fenders with or without scoops".  

The engineering guys have said the scoops were placed on the cars "in case they were needed".   They ALL will tell you they had trouble with the 68 1/2 which was a special program just predating the C500 and wing programs.   That car was radical and built to the extreme, which is why they got busted.

I believe that tire clearance to the top of the fender was NOT a factor in wing car performance.   So then, what creedence should be given to Pointer's "exhauster" claim?    Why did he call it that?    
The bottom line was he came clean on it.  He gave GK the proverbial "wink-wink" when confronted on it.    At the very least, that is a chink in the armor that there is more to the story.      

[Aero426]

One more time...

This is a car that never ran with fender scoops.  It ran at Michigan on the high banks with NO fender scoops.    

Apparently there were no problems with tire rubs except on the REAR quarter panels  

[Aero426]

Just a little pounding on the rear wheel arches.   Changing the rear tires must have been fun.

No scoops and look how LOW that stinkin' car sits.    Terry Nichels says this was the ultimate cheater Bird.   In USAC you could get away with a little more.



photo stolen from someone who stole it from someone, who stole it from aerowarriors.com[/size]

[Aero426]

Didn't NASCAR have rules about how large a fender opening you could run?  Your fenders, the #6 and the #71 are all shaped differently...

The rule book sez...

"Fenders may not be cut or altered except for wheel or tire clearance which must be approved by NASCAR technical inspector."

Translation of that to me means "reasonable and customary" alterations are OK.       In other words, "we'll tell you if it's not OK".

[hemi68charger]

I thought the scoops were put there so people at car shows can look inside there and see if they can find Waldo or hidden treasure...every time we take our car to a show....everyone who passes looks inside the scoops

Show spectators find scoops fascinating... 

Either that, or he's looking for that Budweiser six pack...... 

Only the real Budweiser... Budweiser Budvar!!!   

Good for you Allen...   I have one of those beer cans from Europe; the original and first Budweiser...  Along with mopars, I have about 500 different beer cans on display...       

[xs29j8Bullitt]

Didn't NASCAR have rules about how large a fender opening you could run?  Your fenders, the #6 and the #71 are all shaped differently...

The rule book sez...

"Fenders may not be cut or altered except for wheel or tire clearance which must be approved by NASCAR technical inspector."

Translation of that to me means "reasonable and customary" alterations are OK.       In other words, "we'll tell you if it's not OK".

Templates?!?... Don't need no stinkin' templates!!!   The NASCAR rule...suggestion book sez safety first! 

Note the variety of wheel openings... dome shaped, bell shaped, semi-flat top, and check out the No. 88 Engineering Daytona which appears to have a secondary trim at the top of the opening.   

[Aero426]

On the fake #88, it's just the cut of the wheel opening, or that particular spot on the forward part of the wheel lip is pushed in a little bit.    The angle of the photo makes it look less concentric.

No templates in that area of the car back then - just the one going over the top center for the length profile, and I believe one over the top of the front clip for width at top of the fenders. 

[Daytona Guy]

The claim has ALWAYS been that the scoops were for tire clearance.  That is not in doubt.      

What I said was that "I know of no documented experiences of tire rubs / failures on TOPS of fenders on wing cars with or without scoops".    

I also said that to my knowledge, "the engineering people (Wallace, Rathgeb, et al) have never cited fender rubs on tops of wing car fenders with or without scoops".  

The engineering guys have said the scoops were placed on the cars "in case they were needed".   They ALL will tell you they had trouble with the 68 1/2 which was a special program just predating the C500 and wing programs.   That car was radical and built to the extreme, which is why they got busted.

I believe that tire clearance to the top of the fender was NOT a factor in wing car performance.   So then, what creedence should be given to Pointer's "exhauster" claim?    Why did he call it that?    
The bottom line was he came clean on it.  He gave GK the proverbial "wink-wink" when confronted on it.    At the very least, that is a chink in the armor that there is more to the story.      

After everything I have read this makes the most sense.

[Aero426]

Ten years ago in 2001, we had all the guys in the same room.    Rathgeb, Pointer, George, Bill Wright,  John Vaughn - ALL of them at the same time!    At that moment, we probably did not have enough information to come back to them with the exhauster document to ask about it.    And then we never said, "OK, come out to the parking lot and look at this car (the #7 car - which was present)".  And then we did not ask, "What are the potential contact points for the tire?"   And lastly, "Can you explain how the heck the tire can even get close to the scoop area?"      The answers would have been interesting to listen to.    Sadly, this was a missed opportunity.       Like the old saying goes, hindsight is 20/20.