Does anyone know how does car aerodynamics (Ford, Chevy,...) influence
on your car?
> Does anyone know how does car aerodynamics (Ford, Chevy,...) influence
> on your car?
Chevys are better on superspeedways, because of nose design. Ford
Thunderbirds are better on the short tracks due to their slightly
shorter wheelbase.
> > Does anyone know how does car aerodynamics (Ford, Chevy,...) influence
> > on your car?
> Chevys are better on superspeedways, because of nose design. Ford
> Thunderbirds are better on the short tracks due to their slightly
> shorter wheelbase.
In Winston Cup racing, all the cars have the same wheelbase, which
is 110 inches.
Nick
--
______________________________________________________________
#6 & #94 in the quest for the Cup!
My home away from home... http://www.mindspring.com/~ntotoro/
______________________________________________________________
Quoted text (17 lines)
> : > Does anyone know how does car aerodynamics (Ford, Chevy,...) influence > : > on your car? > : Chevys are better on superspeedways, because of nose design. Ford > : Thunderbirds are better on the short tracks due to their slightly > : shorter wheelbase. > After tweaking my Chevy Monte Carlo for Taladega, I tried the same set up > with the Pontiac. Immediately I gained close to 1 mile an hour at that > track. Quite a difference, but not sure exactly why. I certainly don't > slide up the banking when going into turn 3 at 206 as easily as in the > Chevy. It's like the Pontiacs have some extra down force without > sacrificing as much speed. I don't think it would hurt the game if > Papyrus would explain exactly how they designed the differences into the > cars. Or maybe Jim S. already talked about it and I missed it. Something > to add to the FAQ for sure. Anybody else? > Matt: > Does anyone know how does car aerodynamics (Ford, Chevy,...) influence
: > on your car?
: Chevys are better on superspeedways, because of nose design. Ford
: Thunderbirds are better on the short tracks due to their slightly
: shorter wheelbase.
After tweaking my Chevy Monte Carlo for Taladega, I tried the same set up
with the Pontiac. Immediately I gained close to 1 mile an hour at that
track. Quite a difference, but not sure exactly why. I certainly don't
slide up the banking when going into turn 3 at 206 as easily as in the
Chevy. It's like the Pontiacs have some extra down force without
sacrificing as much speed. I don't think it would hurt the game if
Papyrus would explain exactly how they designed the differences into the
cars. Or maybe Jim S. already talked about it and I missed it. Something
to add to the FAQ for sure. Anybody else?
Matt
On Tue, 07 Jan 1997 23:22:09 -0500, Mike Marshall
>> [Question about aerodynamics of the cars in N2]
>I second this notion. Let's hear it!
I wasn't ignoring this thread, I just didn't know the answer off the
top of my head. (And I *sometimes* like to find out the answer before
I spout off... Sometimes.)
The engines are all identical.
The aerodynamic "efficiencies" are all identical.
The differences in aerodynamics are solely in regards to the balance
of downforce front vs rear. Ford has the most aerodynamic front
downforce, Chevy the most aerodynamic rear downforce, and Pontiac is a
more balanced downforce body.
The reason some setups will work better on some chassis is the
combination of suspension settings and aerodynamics. (A suspension
setup which might be a little tight and bind the car up too much on a
Chevy might loosen up just enough on one of the other makes to be
faster. Likewise, a Ford setup that works well at Martinsville might
push too badly on a Chevy...)
The car makes are close enough in the game that a driver could win
with any of them. (I won't get into whether that's really the case on
Sunday Winston Cup racing in this newsgroup... ;-) )
---Jim Sokoloff, Papyrus
Jim responded, so I won't add more, but I did add this information to the
FAQ a few days ago. I wasn't sure about the info on drag efficiencies at
the time, but I've added that since.
Dave Sparks
IWCCCARS Project: http://www.theuspits.com/iwcccars/index.html
Late Night League: http://www.sequoia-dev.com/Hawaii/latenite.html
Hawaii Handle: davids
Regarding different chassis in Nascar2
Do you know if this is also true in Nascar1. Since NRO won't be out for a
while I'm still looking for speed on Hawaii. Guess I could just try it :-)
Mike Radler
Quoted text (11 lines)
>Regarding different chassis in Nascar2 >>The engines are all identical. >>The aerodynamic "efficiencies" are all identical. >>The differences in aerodynamics are solely in regards to the balance >>of downforce front vs rear. Ford has the most aerodynamic front >>downforce, Chevy the most aerodynamic rear downforce, and Pontiac is a >>more balanced downforce body. >Do you know if this is also true in Nascar1. Since NRO won't be out for a >while I'm still looking for speed on Hawaii. Guess I could just try it :-)<another excellent response snipped>
I once again want to thank Jim for taking the time to keep us a*** on
NASCAR2. It's not often that one finds this kind of attention from
someone attached to a software or hardware company. It think it adds to
the enjoyment of their product and shows those who don't have the product
what kind of support they can expect. Also, it's just a delight to get
some insights from someone who worked on the "inside" of a product.
Thanks Jim, and don't let the turkeys get you down...
--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>The aerodynamic "efficiencies" are all identical.
>The differences in aerodynamics are solely in regards to the balance
>of downforce front vs rear. Ford has the most aerodynamic front
>downforce, Chevy the most aerodynamic rear downforce, and Pontiac is a
>more balanced downforce body.
Sorry to be the slow one.... But I do not understand this at all.
Can you please re-phrase this and use more words and maybe an example?
"Ford has the most aerodynamic front downforce"
Does a more "aerodynamic" front mean it flows through the air with the
least resistance and therefore provides the least amount of downforce?
If I am using a ford setup and I have maximized the rear spoiler, will
moving to a chevy setup give me more rear downforce?
If I am using a chevy setup and I have maximized the rear spoiler,
will moving to a ford setup give me more rear downforce?
If I am using a ford setup and I have all the weight to the rear, will
moving to a chevy setup give me more rear "weight?"
If I am using a chevy setup and I have all the weight to the rear,
will moving to a ford setup give me more rear "weight?"
I suspect I am confusing terms here, so please explain.
I also want to thank Jim for all the informative posts!
--
Best Wishes!!!
Robert Huggins
Raleigh, NC
Yes...
using AOL because of school vacation!
>Sorry to be the slow one.... But I do not understand this at all.
>Can you please re-phrase this and use more words and maybe an example?
Sure.
This means that the Ford body shape has more downforce due to the
airflow over the car than the other body shapes.
No, pretty much the exact opposite.
Moving from a Ford body style (chassis) to a Chevy body style will do
that (at the expense of less front downforce)
No, it will give you less, but it will give you more front downforce.
Doesn't have anything to do with mass, but it will place more aero
load on the rear tires than you had with the Ford setup.
In general, all other things being exactly equal, and the car running
at a decent speed (so that aerodynamic flow is important), a Ford will
be the "loosest", the Pontiac middle, and the Chevy tightest. However,
changing car body styles is not an alternative to learning how to use
the garage... :-)
---Jim Sokoloff, Papyrus
