thought on the COT
- Thread starter Myhaikeal
- Start date
I thought the wing was a cool idea, but it turned out to be too dangerous if the car got spun around. Also it was just another incarnation of making NASCAR into a GT series, which to be fair needs to happen to some degree to keep the sport alive, but it isn't easy accepting that transition.
I think that the rear wing was unjustly maligned and that the number of flips for Gen-4 and Gen-6 are about comparable.
CoT had a front splitter which was better at providing front end downforce than Gen-4. However, that splitter had no end plates and thus no way to channel or contain the air which met the nose; thus, the closer you get to the car in front and the lower the air pressure that the following car sits in, the worse that the front splitter did.
Gen-6 has a big dumb brick face meeting the air; which is why they perform better when drafting.
I think that the rear wings on CoT just looked plain gumby.
Current V8Supercars, LMP cars, the Aero Warriors of the 1970s, cars of the late 1950s and the Jaguar D-Type, all track straighter because of fins. Current cup cars have one deck fin down the left hand side; which CoT sort of hand (not really) when it came out.
The wing was just sooo out of place. Such a thing had no business being on any of the three national series vehicles let alone Cup. I echoed DWs disgust while BF was talking about it while they were showing it beign mounted on a car during I believe it was a Raceday broadcast. Was glad when they finally did the right thing and replaced that monstrosity with a proper spoiler. The final version of the CoT is how it should of looked from day 1. Carl doesn't go over. Newman doesn't go over. Brad doesn't go over.
IMO if the 2011 COT was the version introduced in 2007, I'd bet there would have been FAR less backlash.
I think that the Road Runners and Superbirds look pretty wild.
Likewise you can buy a Toyobaru with a wild looking rear wing on the back. TRD could fit that to a Camry if they wanted to.
I thought that the CoT wing looked really dorky but if they wanted to style it so that it looked better, that wouldn't have been an insurmountable problem.
I thought that the CoT wing looked really dorky but if they wanted to style it so that it looked better, that wouldn't have been an insurmountable problem.
ok judging from all of the relpy i got most nascar fan here like the spoiler better then the wings
excuse me while i stared an argument
i really like the cot with WINGS because for me it look just cool for me which in know is a bit dangerous because of the flat side of the wings causing the air to easily push the car into a flip but i really think the wings look much better then the spoiler
Sources:
Link 1
Link 2
Gen 1: 1948-1966 - 72 (3.78py)
Gen 2: 1967-1980 - 20 (1.53py)
Gen 3: 1981-1991 - 32 (2.90py)
Gen 4: 1992-2006 - 70 (5.00py)
Gen 5: 2007-2012 - 25 (4.16py)
Gen 6: 2012-2020 - 12 (0.75py)
There are actually only 10 flips with the weird rear wing and of those, only 2 could be considered as the direct result of air getting under the wing.
I think that the data suggests that the CoT was unjustly maligned.
I am thinking even more that the CoT's rear wing was not the issue, but rather the inability of CoT part 1 to deploy the flaps.
www.sae.org
We also review the same conditions when the car is traveling backwards as it might during a crash. This paper highlights the differences and similarities between the two devices, providing insights into the advantages and disadvantages of the new design. The data suggest that the ineffectiveness of the wing in preventing lift when traveling in reverse is due to the fluid stream traveling underneath the wing. This flow may cause a decrease in downforce on the wing and allow the mean stream fluid to reattach to the roof earlier than on the car fitted with a spoiler.
I suspect that the lifiting force was actually under the car which is a a much bigger presenting plane to the laminar flow.
Gen-6 has flaps on the bonnet, which directs air through the car; which means that the lifitng force is diffused.
Even at 210mph, I just don't see how that ickle rear wing is enough to cause enough of a change in the moment of momentum by itself to flip a car.
Gen 5: 2007-2012 - 25 (4.16py)
fpr w wing = 14/156 = 0.0897fpr
fpr w/o wing = 11/115 = 0.0956fpr
There was actually a weak tendency for cars to flip more after they changed the rear wing.
I still think that big fins like the V8Supercars or the Aero Warriors would make the cars more stable in a straight line and act as a vane to stop them turning unexpectedly.
PIV Analysis Comparing Flow Past NASCAR COT Rear Wing and Spoiler Traveling Forward and Backwards
There have been claims that the rear wing on the NASCAR Car of Tomorrow (COT) race car causes lift in the condition where the car spins during a crash and is traveling backwards down the track at high speed [1,2]. When enough lift is generated, the race car can lose control and even become airborne
I suspect that the lifiting force was actually under the car which is a a much bigger presenting plane to the laminar flow.
Gen-6 has flaps on the bonnet, which directs air through the car; which means that the lifitng force is diffused.
Even at 210mph, I just don't see how that ickle rear wing is enough to cause enough of a change in the moment of momentum by itself to flip a car.
Gen 5: 2007-2012 - 25 (4.16py)
fpr w wing = 14/156 = 0.0897fpr
fpr w/o wing = 11/115 = 0.0956fpr
There was actually a weak tendency for cars to flip more after they changed the rear wing.
I still think that big fins like the V8Supercars or the Aero Warriors would make the cars more stable in a straight line and act as a vane to stop them turning unexpectedly.
Hot Links
