Daytona aluminum wing

[BigBlockSam]

6 yrs, thats a long time

[hotrod98]

I think Dane was taking his wing to the foundry today. Not sure when the cutoff is for ordering.

I went over to my buddy's shop and fired my charger up last night and drove it a little. It's looking awfully sad in primer and those primered up slotted wheels. Man those have got to go and soon. As soon as the wing arrives, I'm going to take my bee over and store it and bring the Charger back to the shop at the house. Too many projects to finish now, shouldn't even be thinking about this car right now. 

This car is much nicer than the pictures show. With the multicolor primer and no bumpers it looks like a beater.

[Charger_Fan]

6 yrs, thats a long time

I know, but I really can't afford it right now. I'd have to float a mortgage payment to do it & I hate doing that...I'm trying to be good here.


Hey Hotrod, if you don't want those slotted wheels, you should list them in the classifieds here...members here are looking for those.

[hemigeno]

I disagree with the conclusion that the wing did not produce significant downforce.   It did.   The theory that drag from the wing would completely offset the downforce created does not quantify the amounts of each respective force applied.   I'm sure that the wing uprights did have some lessening impact on the downforce via drag, but that would have been far outweighed by the upside-down airfoil downforce effect.

Incidentally, the NASCAR wing braces were far more substantial than the street versions.   I believe there was a pic on www.aerowarriors.com at one time that showed the racing version.   Chrysler was worried that Bill France & Co. wouldn't let them use braces on the track if they weren't also in the street cars.   Similar deal with the fender scoops and holes, front chin spoiler, A-pillar covers, etc. etc.  

You guys are right, the quarterpanels can carry a fairly substantial load, without the braces.   The wings are mounted near the outer edge of the panel itself, and the rear mounting point of the wing upright is close to the tail panel which would have greatly added to its inherent ridgidity.   Wing washers help to spread the load over a larger area as well.   By pointing out that the wings can be installed (and sat on) without the need for bracing helps to prove the point that no need for a massive support existed.  

I have heard numbers about the amount of downforce created by the wing ranging from 500# to 700#.   Over two uprights, that is a very manageable amount of weight to handle, even with the bracing method employed.  

If someone can calculate the amount of downforce generated by the horizontal stabilizer, and compare that to the amount of drag imposed by the vertical uprights and show that the latter number is greater than the first number, then the situation might be viewed differently.   I seriously doubt that the engineers back in 1968-69 forgot to consider this fact.

The Superbird uprights were raked back even farther than the Daytona's.   Both wings may have created a "lever" situation where the front of the horizontal stabilizer was held in place (through tension) by the bracing, but the back edge of the horizontal stabilizer took the downforce from the wing and applied it not only to the back part of the bracing, but to the whole back corner of the quarterpanel.   If the downforce applied exceeded the drag/tension, then the net effect is to push the back end of the car down.

Either way, it worked.   No Daytona or Superbird ever rolled over in a race that I know of, including ARCA.   They spun out because there are still limits of traction, but the drivers from the day all remarked how stable the wing cars were in high-speed cornering.

Interesting discussion though.

I'm not actually an engineer, but I play one on TV.   Or was it that I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.   Or was it...   Aww, nevermind...

[hotrod98]

Very interesting information.
Many years ago, I always had wings on my dragsters. I read several articles by areonautical engineers that stated that wings don't actually start to work as designed until you reach around 150 to 200 mph and at any slower speeds they actually cause parasitic drag. Since my super comp dragster generally ran slightly slower at around 145 mph, I quit paying for the extra cost of the wing setup. The car actually went a little faster , but I did have problems on two seperate occasions where the car seemed to lose traction and would start moving around in the lights. I almost ended up rolling the car over after it started bouncing on the slicks.   
As for the Daytona wing, whether they work or not is not important to me, they're downright awesome looking. The wing is the driving force behind wanting to build the car to begin with.  My wife wants a wing car now. Great...I can't even get my other projects finished.

[Old Moparz]

The appearance of the wing is what first hooked me as well. I can't recall any other cars, except for a few exotic hand builts, that leave such a dramatic impression when you see it. I do recall reading that it was speeds of 70 mph & above, where it improved handling. Wasn't the huge down force also the reason for the front fender scoops? They needed tire clearance on the NASCAR versions because they rubbed the top underside. (That's what I had read somewhere.)

If they made them today, they'd probably make them out of carbon fiber & shove a DOT brake light in it.

[hotrod98]

Maybe 170 mph.
Remember these cars ran at 200 mph.
70 mph would be rather slow for anything to work aerodynamically I would think.
I know that at 70 mph, wind will pick parts up and send them flying around, but they're not connected to a 3000+ lb car.

[Daytona Guy]

<<<I disagree with the conclusion that the wing did not produce significant downforce.  It did.  The theory that drag from the wing would completely offset the downforce created does not quantify the amounts of each respective force applied.  I'm sure that the wing uprights did have some lessening impact on the downforce via drag, but that would have been far outweighed by the upside-down airfoil downforce effect.>>>

Totally agree. Just a misunderstanding. My focus was on the adjustable L bracket. Like I said ----" The down force (500 + lbs) is distributed throughout the whole back of the quarter panel and the trunk by neutralizing the energy created." The point was that the reinforcements do not necessarily bear the load, they true up the whole quarter. If all the adjustable L bracket did was bear the load that adjustable L bracket is a joke, but that was not the purpose of it. The weakness of that bracket proves my point. I mean, does it really make sense to transfer 500 lbs from one thin sheet metal to another, by putting all the theoretical load to one point on the flimsy un-reinforced thin sheet metal of the
trunk?

[hemigeno]

I agree that the bracket setup they have is not adequate to transfer any kind of major load to the frame.   However, there are two things to keep in mind.   First, the brackets in the street cars are a light-weight version of what they put in the racecars.   They put something that resembled the real (racecar) brackets in the street cars so NASCAR couldn't use that as an excuse to outlaw the wing.   IIRC, they may have added some reinforcements to the trunk floor on race-versions too.  Second, the total downforce load is spread over two brackets, halving the effective load they must bear.   When you look at it like that, the system is probably adequate, but is certainly not over-built.

Remember this parable to understand how an engineer thinks:

To an optimist, the glass is half full

To a pessimist, the glass is half empty

To an engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be...

[Daytona Guy]

<<<To an optimist, the glass is half full

To a pessimist, the glass is half empty

To an engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be...>>>

I love it. Actually the NASCAR's did not do anything to the trunk that I can see other than make the trunk even weaker by cutting away more metal. I will post a pic later that show it. The L bracket don't fasten to the frame, but to just the sheet metal of the trunk. Keep in mind that the drag on the wing would pull the front base of the wing up away from the quarters. The bracing holds the wing down in the front, as well as help to distribute the load that the back of the base bears.

[Daytona R/T SE]

I think Dane was taking his wing to the foundry today. Not sure when the cutoff is for ordering.

I went over to my buddy's shop and fired my charger up last night and drove it a little. It's looking awfully sad in primer and those primered up slotted wheels. Man those have got to go and soon. As soon as the wing arrives, I'm going to take my bee over and store it and bring the Charger back to the shop at the house. Too many projects to finish now, shouldn't even be thinking about this car right now.  

This car is much nicer than the pictures show. With the multicolor primer and no bumpers it looks like a beater.

So, Hotrod-what are yoyu going to do with the slotted wheels when you take them off your car-they'd look really cool on my '68    What size are they?

[hotrod98]

Hadn't really thought about it. I'll probably leave them on to roll the car around until it's finished, sometime late next year. I don't buy wheels and tires until the car is completely finished. I've had a couple of guys that worked for me that would run out and buy their rims and tires before they even started on their body work. By the time they were finshed (if they finished) they would either have changed their minds, gotten crap all over the rims and tires or they're out of style. In this case, I'm pretty set on 15" magnum 500's with the magnum 500 spinners. Undecided on tires. I have another set of those slotted wheels that belong on my 63 Belvedere. The fronts and backs are slightly different styles though. What I need to do is find someone to buy the 63 hardtop. I'm never going to get around to it. I have a 4 door 63 belvedere to go with it. Some very nice parts between the two. I also have a 65 model 413 motor out of a big car and an early 4 speed. I would sell all of it for $1500 just to get it out of my back yard. A guy could build a pretty awesome car with this stuff.
I need to list my 71 Scamp at the same time. It's a 318 car and pretty solid with a little rust in the lower quarters and no where else. Runs and drives, but reverse is out.

[Daytona Guy]

A beautiful wheel - WOW

[Daytona Guy]

Here is the pics I promised. I know that these are the braces that nascar used. I wander if any of the race cars used the stock bracing? They were engineered for high speeds. I think, just my guess, that by the looks of the stock bracing nobody trusted them. I can understand that. Both are good designs. This pic shows that even the stock cars, by looking at this bracing, did not have the best engineering when it came to trunk reinforcements. They just went from the quarter panel skin to this trunk floor. Look how mush of the supports that we have under our cars have been removed.

[Daytona Guy]

<< Wasn't the huge down force also the reason for the front fender scoops? They needed tire clearance on the NASCAR versions because they rubbed the top underside. (That's what I had read somewhere.>>>

They have a whole article on this on the aero warriors web page. I believe it has the most realistic answer for the fender scoops. If you see the tires on the race cars they do not appear to be rubbing the top of the fenders. The tires do not line up with the holes if the tire would come up. Plus that little round holes would be the wrong shape, for a tires surface is relatively square when it makes contact. I believe, as this article states, that the shape of the scoops drew air out of the fender well, that relieved some of the turbulence that is created by the tires chewing up the air. The theory also believed it would help keep the brakes cooler. If you saw one of these stock car Daytona's I do not think that the tires clearance argument has much credibility. Just my opinion. They cannot find any definitive thought on this from the engineers who designed the Daytona, at least that is what the aero warriors article states. Cool stuff.

[BigBlockSam]

I do not think that the tires clearance argument has much credibility   

[hotrod98]

The nascar bracing has a lot cleaner look than the stock setup, and much simpler. I wonder why they made such a complicated brace for the street version?

[Old Moparz]

<< Wasn't the huge down force also the reason for the front fender scoops? They needed tire clearance on the NASCAR versions because they rubbed the top underside. (That's what I had read somewhere.>>>

They have a whole article on this on the aero warriors web page. I believe it has the most realistic answer for the fender scoops. If you see the tires on the race cars they do not appear to be rubbing the top of the fenders. The tires do not line up with the holes if the tire would come up. Plus that little round holes would be the wrong shape, for a tires surface is relatively square when it makes contact. I believe, as this article states, that the shape of the scoops drew air out of the fender well, that relieved some of the turbulence that is created by the tires chewing up the air. The theory also believed it would help keep the brakes cooler. If you saw one of these stock car Daytona's I do not think that the tires clearance argument has much credibility. Just my opinion. They cannot find any definitive thought on this from the engineers who designed the Daytona, at least that is what the aero warriors article states. Cool stuff.

That makes more sense (brakes & turbulence) than what I had read years ago, but it's been so many years I don't recall where I read it. It was long before internet info & web pages.

[hemigeno]

<< Wasn't the huge down force also the reason for the front fender scoops? They needed tire clearance on the NASCAR versions because they rubbed the top underside. (That's what I had read somewhere.>>>

They have a whole article on this on the aero warriors web page. I believe it has the most realistic answer for the fender scoops. If you see the tires on the race cars they do not appear to be rubbing the top of the fenders. The tires do not line up with the holes if the tire would come up. Plus that little round holes would be the wrong shape, for a tires surface is relatively square when it makes contact. I believe, as this article states, that the shape of the scoops drew air out of the fender well, that relieved some of the turbulence that is created by the tires chewing up the air. The theory also believed it would help keep the brakes cooler. If you saw one of these stock car Daytona's I do not think that the tires clearance argument has much credibility. Just my opinion. They cannot find any definitive thought on this from the engineers who designed the Daytona, at least that is what the aero warriors article states. Cool stuff.

Absolutely right, Absolutely right...

I find the tire clearance explanation somewhat humorous.  There's no way that's what they were added for, just like you stated.  If they needed tire clearance, why didn't they just change the shape of the fender or add fiberglass bump, instead of a reverse scoop?  They just didn't want to tell the real reason IMHO.

Also - I remember seeing that picture (or one like it) of Petty's Superbird wing bracing.  That's still not the bracing arrangement I was thinking of.  Each race team probably came up with their own way to brace the wing.  I can probably ask Cotton Owens about what he did sometime soon.  He pulled the #6 Daytona out of the Darlington Raceway Museum, and started it up for the first time in 35 years just 2 weeks ago (I passed up my opportunity to be there for the startup    ).  He might be able to send me a pic of the bracing they used.

[G-Series]

Hi all.  Some of the literature in Greg Kwaitkowski's collection indicates that the real reason for the scoops was to reduce drag.  They accomplished this by reducing the pressure in the engine bay. Think about how a race car is set up, not with inner fenders like our street cars.  If I remember right, they reduce overall drag by either 3 or 5%.

[Charger_Fan]

They just didn't want to tell the real reason IMHO.

That's kinda what I was thinking. The clearance story may have just bled down from the answers given to reporters during the racing days, to help keep the competition from using their ideas.

That #6 Daytona story is pretty cool, what are they going to be doing with it? Are they going to be driving it a bit now?

[hemigeno]

They just didn't want to tell the real reason IMHO.

That's kinda what I was thinking. The clearance story may have just bled down from the answers given to reporters during the racing days, to help keep the competition from using their ideas.

That #6 Daytona story is pretty cool, what are they going to be doing with it? Are they going to be driving it a bit now?

Cotton last year just finished a replica of the '64 Dodge he owned (and I believe he drove it a little bit too back in the day), and he takes it around to do parade laps at races, etc.  I wish he would put that Daytona out on the track to do some REAL laps, but I can understand why they wouldn't do that.  Some other guys might know more, but I'm only aware of a few original Daytona racecars still left... Cotton's #6, the #71 Isaac, and the #88 in the Talladega Museum that isn't the real #88 car...  There are a few chassis still around (Greg Kwiatkowski's original #88 comes to mind), but I don't think those have much (if any) of their sheet metal left.  Irreplaceable pieces of history...

Here's a quick story Cotton told me last year:  Buddy Baker had nearly a one-lap lead on the field at a race in 1970.  He comes in for fuel/tires very late in the race, and Cotton tells him to take it easy, and bring home a winner.  Buddy hammers the throttle coming out of the pits, and knocks the nose off the car by running into the back of an also-ran.  Cotton was so mad, he said he took a torch and saw to that car and cut it up into pieces...

I'm with you on their lame excuses for the scoops - they had to be trying to throw the competition (pretty much just Ford back then) off the trail.

G-Series (Gary), I remember that same % reduction in drag from somewhere too.  Way too many tidbits of information floating around between my ears to remember exactly where I read that, or exactly why it was, but that rings a bell w/ me.

[hemigeno]

I dug through my piles of paperwork and found a 40 page thesis written by R.P. Marcell & G.F. Romberg, entitled "The Aerodynamic Development of the Charger Daytona for Stock Car Competition".  I had read through this a while back, and there is a whole lot of engineering jargon to wade through.

Some of the more interesting tidbits from that document are:

The Vertical Stabilizers were just as much a part of the handling package as the Horizontal Stabilizer.

At a given yaw angle, the aerodynamic side force acting on the Daytona is higher than on the 1969 race car (Charger 500).  The higher side force, opposing the inertia forces, reduces the "pushing" tendencies.  Of course, the largest influence on aerodynamic directional stability is due to the vertical stabilizers.

The Vertical Stabilizers were intended to be aerodynamic by themselves. 

"These aerodynamic surfaces are 1.71 sq. Ft. each in area and have a geometric aspect ratio of 2.34.  The cross-sectional shape is an NACA 0012 symmetrical airfoil section."

The undesirable forces from the wing and stabilizer were far outweighed by the desirable rear downforce and added stability in corners.
(sorry I can't replicate the symbols in the following passage correctly)

Effects of Rear Deck Stabilizers - Figure 11 shows the minor axial force penalty resulting from the rear deck stabilizers.  At a horizontal stabilizer angle ("lambda" subscript "G") of -10 degrees, the axial force is increased by 7% at zero yaw angle.  Figure 11 also presents the front axle and rear axle lift coefficients as a function of yaw angle.  These data indicate the wide range of rear axle lift coefficients available with the horizontal stabilizer (approximately .14 for a 10 degree change in "lambda" subscript "G").  Note that as the Horizontal stabilizer angle is increased negatively, the front axle lift increases slightly.  This, of course, is due to the horizontal stabilizer being positioned behind the rear wheels.  A more optimum position for the horizontal stabilizer would be directly over the rear wheels.
     However, the vertical stabilizer effectiveness demands a very rearward location.  Coupling the vertical stabilizer requirements with the practical aspects of mounting the horizontal stabilizer resulted in the compromise that is on the car today.
     Also shown in Figure 11, for comparative purposes, are the aerodynamic characteristics of a 1" high, 45degree rear deck lip spoiler.  The comparison indicates that the horizontal stabilizer is a much more effective and efficient aerodynamic system than the rear deck lip spoiler.  Lift to axial force ratio is a time-honored method of measuring aerodynamic efficiency.  The lift to axial force ratio of the rear deck lip spoiler is 7 while the ratio is 19 for the horizontal stabilizer.

I found it interesting that by having the rear wing so far back on the car, they actually created lift on the front end since the rear wing was pushing down on the back end of the car, well beyond the centerline of the rear axle.  They needed the wing on the back to take full advantage of the horizontal stabilizer effect though, so it made the most sense to keep it where it was.

DaytonaGuy, if you want, I'll be happy to run off a copy of this Thesis and send it to you.  If a few other guys want a copy, I could probably do the same.  It's too long to scan and post though.

Geno

[Daytona Guy]

<<<DaytonaGuy, if you want, I'll be happy to run off a copy of this Thesis and send it to you.  If a few other guys want a copy, I could probably do the same.  It's too long to scan and post though.>>>


Sounds good. I have some of this in my book from Frank Moriarty called "Suppercars". More is good. Tell me what it cost - I will pay you for it.

This is just good stuff. Thanks man.

[hemigeno]

Sounds good. I have some of this in my book from Frank Moriarty called "Suppercars". More is good. Tell me what it cost - I will pay you for it.

This is just good stuff. Thanks man.

No problem, no cost either.  I have a copy machine here at the office.  I won't be able to send it out until next week after the 'Nats, though.

PM or email me with your mailing address and I'll take care of it.