"armpit" <armarmpitpit (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in
news:9Y2dnQW-Toh4NG_XnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com:

How ya gonna do that? Remember, the amount of mechanical grip you
need decreases as the banking angle increases, and you have to have
a large enough tire to carry the weight of the car, including the
dynamic loading in the turns. I don't think you could make tire
small enough to decrease mechanical grip enough with Dega's banking,
without ending up with something that would make the Indy tire
from a year ago look durable.

John

"deadguy3" <mpv (AT) sakha (DOT) net> wrote

Yup - that would be exciting. Mom's Mini Van series, running around the
track at 90 mph. Hang on to your seats folks...

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:53:07 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

140mph v8 4dr sedans would be much better than 90mph v6 minivans, which
would be much better than plate razin.

"John McCoy" <igopogo (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote

They used to race 4000 lb. big-block behemoths ay Daytona & 'Dega on tires
narrower than what they use now. The tires *can* be narrower and harder as
well. If they took off the wing & splitter too, then they'd be a lot closer
to being able to run without plates.

They could put limits on carbs, valves, cams, etc. Hell, they could make 'em
mount a 4x8 sheet of lexan on the front of the car. There's a bunch of ways
to make race cars slower. Restrictor plates is just about the worst way to
do it.

Nascar likes the pack racing, and the big crashes that it brings. It puts
them on every sports highlight show all across the country.

"armpit" <armarmpitpit (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in
news:e-6dnfwMJbD4_W7XnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com:

Well, I was specifically referring to the mechanical grip part of
it. Definately you have a lot of options if you start looking at
aero grip (altho that's a tricky area, you have to keep enough
downforce that the overall force on the car is positive, and enough
so for the car to be stable in a straight line. No wing and
splitter at all, and the cars would lift the rear wheels off the
ground long before they hit 190 in a straight line).

Anyway, an answer did occur to me, but I was curious to see what
other folks would come up with. To reduce mechanical grip all we
need is some shallow rumblestrips, maybe 1", in turns 1 and 3.

John

John McCoy wrote:
Do you mean a stock road car shape would flip like Newman if it turned
backward at that speed?

Surely it would need to be producing some downforce from the shape or that
reversal of direction wouldn't automatically lift the rear would it?


--
Chad

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:04:07 +1100, Chad wrote:

"Chad" <cbstun (AT) safemail (DOT) com> wrote in news:4af39232 (AT) news (DOT) x-privat.org:

No, I mean a real stock car generates enough aero lift going
_forwards_ to lift the rear tires off the ground at that speed.

That, of course, puts a limit on how fast you can go, but the
controlability of the car also tends to suffer when the tires
aren't really touching the ground.

That's based on a wind tunnel test of a Taurus a few years back,
but I suspect all the cars in that general class are about the
same, as they have similar outlines. Obviously it's not an issue
for a stock Taurus (Camry or whatever), because they can't go that
fast anyway.

Obviously sports and performance cars which are intended to be
capable of higher speeds have more attention paid to developing
downforce - but even there you can get surprised. Car & Driver
rolled a Camaro at Bonneville at ~200mph a couple of years ago,
when they discovered that modifying the engine alone wasn't a
wise plan for a land speed record attempt.

John

John McCoy wrote:
Sheesh, you're full of interesting tidbits. Never heard that before.





--
Chad

"John McCoy" <igopogo (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote

Interesting that Cup cars (then Grand National) were running nearly 200
without spoilers in the early 70's.

I find it hard to believe that a car body could generate nearly 2000 lbs. of
lift at the rear.