CompetitionPlus.com Forum  

Go Back   CompetitionPlus.com Forum > NHRA

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 01-09-2012
Mike Johnson Mike Johnson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39
Default

A GM Aero Lab Engineer once told me that the drag numbers in funny car bodies were more relative to how long it took to slow down.
"Having a slick body is important for fuel economy, and in drag racing we just convert it to negative lift as best we can."
IMO There might be a slightly cleaner flow to the injector but I think the safety of a containment "capsule" is really the objective.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-09-2012
HEMI_guy HEMI_guy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Johnson View Post
A GM Aero Lab Engineer once told me that the drag numbers in funny car bodies were more relative to how long it took to slow down.
"Having a slick body is important for fuel economy, and in drag racing we just convert it to negative lift as best we can."
IMO There might be a slightly cleaner flow to the injector but I think the safety of a containment "capsule" is really the objective.
I agree the objective/intent was indeed safety. But the performance advantage would be more about just plain slicing through the air more than directing air to the injector. Those blowers are so efficient and working so hard you could probably turn the hats backwards and not see much difference.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-09-2012
kb301 kb301 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Katy, TX
Posts: 1,381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HEMI_guy View Post
Seriously? Look again at the thing and tell me it won't slice through the wind better than what current rules dictate. and I'm betting your way wrong about Garlits' canopy. I don't think he ever did a single thing to a car unless it gained performance. I remember him saying it was his noticing rice ash being moved 15' ahead of a cars that made him start focusing on aero.
I agree it looks slick, but that doesn't always translate that way on the track.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-09-2012
dave207's Avatar
dave207 dave207 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: wherever nitro fumes are burning
Posts: 111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HEMI_guy View Post
Seriously? Look again at the thing and tell me it won't slice through the wind better than what current rules dictate. and I'm betting your way wrong about Garlits' canopy. I don't think he ever did a single thing to a car unless it gained performance. I remember him saying it was his noticing rice ash being moved 15' ahead of a cars that made him start focusing on aero.
Spoon front end,rubberband wheels, canopy,mono wing (IHRA), wheel discs and that was just one car all in one year. Or how about Eddie Hills snorkel injector, tell me ,would that now be considered a performance advantage?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-09-2012
GolfRacer GolfRacer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 656
Default

I really disagree about all this "even playing field " stuff - it feels like NASCAR and ALMS. "oh no! Somebody is winning too much, they're too good!" Yuck. As others have commented - this is where drag racing used to be - innovative engineering and pushing the limits. This is what not only racing is all about (obviously staying within the "real rules") but also business. If it's worth 2mph..good for them. If it's safer - I'm really all for it. Innovation is how we invented the Funny Car.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-09-2012
twintownterror's Avatar
twintownterror twintownterror is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,708
Default

The NHRA should ban rear engine dragsters... Garlits had an unfair advantage in 1971...

He also had an unfair aero advantage with Swamp Rat 17 in '72 with the Jocko Liner and with Swamp Rat 30 with the canopy and nose cone...

Did Gary Ormsby have an unfair advantage with his streamliner???

High rear wings too. Joe Amato had an unfair advantage with his in '84...

Aluminum blocks... John Weibe had an unfair advantage when he got the first Donovan...

Nitro also. Cook and Bedwell had a performance advantage over the competition...

Timed and pneumatically controlled multi-disc lock up clutches should've been banned too!!! Bernstein had an unfair advantage back in the '80's.

300" wheelbases Darrell Gwynn...

Carbon fiber bodies in FC because of KB in '84...

In house billet heads, blowers, and chassis...



Those injector hats are designed to streamline the air being SUCKED in by the blower. If they were trying to optimize air being PUSHED in by car speed or streamlining they would look different.
__________________
If winning was easy losers would do it.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-09-2012
Mike Johnson Mike Johnson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39
Default

Great Chronology of innovation but I always like to include:
Candies and Hughes first Kieth Black aluminum block
Reversers required in TF 1978
Brisette and his dual fuel pumps in 79,
Armstrong's lock up clutch, Data Recorders, 2 speed blower trans, 3 magnetos, wind tunnel designed bodies and too many more to recall.
Frank Bradley fielded the first 300 inch car (Pomona 88) and immediately lobbied Gibbs to instrument a 300 inch limit rule.
Pete Jackson's metering valve
Gene Snow's resurrection of high gear only.
Dave Settle's Nuclear Pump initiating the arms race in big pumps
Bob Stange's adaptation of F16 carbon brake materials to fuel drag racing
Norm Drazey's rotor construction technique.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-09-2012
HEMI_guy HEMI_guy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,454
Default

You're all referring to far, far simpler times before the big mega teams with absurdly large budgets could afford to spend gobs of money to develop one little gizmo or widget the equivelant to one small team's entire season budget. You're referring to times before any teams had the ability to collect 3 and 4 times the data as their competitors. Not only has NHRA changed in the way they write and enforce rules, but the entire sport has changed as well. It's evolution - oh wait... there's probably a lot of you that don't believe in such a thing.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-10-2012
Ronnie Ronnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 238
Default

I'm not a DSR fan but that is one bads ass looking piece.If it's aloud all teams will have them before years end.Although I can see NHRA requiring cockpit fire suppression in case of wiring or any other type of fire
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-10-2012
Twostep Twostep is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,855
Default

I'll bet anyone here a dollar to a donut that Schumacher's shroud MIGHT have a 1-2 MPH speed advantage and that's about it. I've seen Tony run high 3.70s into a 20MPH headwind, speed high 3-teens. He also runs high 3.70s with a 20MPH tailwind. He'll pick up 7 or 8 MPH with the wind at his back, but that ET is bought and paid for on the part of the track where that shroud won't amount to a hill of beans.

Other than possible safety considerations, I'd say one of the biggest advantages is knowing Schumacher's face shield won't be impacting a 2-inch beetle at 320MPH, which is precisely the reason Garlits first installed his cockpit - a great big bug nearly knocked him unconscious while he was going through the lights at about 260.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
canopy, dsr, shroud, top fuel

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.