Stockcar Engineering - Feb 2014

Issue 11 • Spring 2014 • www.racecar-engineering.com/stockcar

NASCAR 2014:

New rules new challenges

• Coughlan brings F1 to Sprint Cup • The state of the art in aero testing • Super modifieds

FROM THE PUBLISHERS OF

Stockcar EnginEEring – Spring 2014

W

This may all sound like fantasy, but the reality is that there are indeed new nameplates waiting in the wings

CoNTENTS 4

NEWS New-look bodywork for NASCAR’s Truck Series, plus problems at Windshear, and News Shorts

6

TEchNical rEgulaTioNS NASCAR’s vice president of innovation and racing development on how new rules will provide better racing

10

SPorTiNg rEgulaTioNS A convoluted and controversial new Chase format aims to spice things up and to attract a younger audience

16

FroM F1 To NaScar Engineer and designer Mike Coughlan moved from Williams F1 to RCR – and thinks simulation might benefit Sprint Cup teams

22

aEroDYNaMicS Some of the world’s best wind tunnel facilities are in the US – but could CFD also find favour with Cup teams?

26

SuPErMoDiFiEDS These short track speed monsters with a relatively open rulebook are one of racing’s best kept secrets

28

hen Dodge left NASCAR I was a bit surprised, but a lot of guys I share the odd beer with in various establishments around Mooresville, NC were not. They told me ‘of course they have quit – they do not have a decent team to work with any more.’

At the time, the world economy had turned into a form of soft cheese. Nobody had any confidence in its resilience or long-term prospects, but today things look very different. Dodge now has works cars running in the United Sportscar Series, and a decent GT3 programme. But its absence in NASCAR is conspicuous. The company has developed a Generation 6 Sprint Cup car and has never ruled out returning, but it is clear that there is no suitable partner for the brand.

It is not just Dodge – many people within the NASCAR organisation have hinted to me that there are other companies looking at entering Cup, with Jaguar, VW, Honda and Nissan all names that have done the rounds in the last 12 months. But who could they work with?

RCR, Ganassi and Hendrick are all with Chevrolet for the foreseeable future, Penske and Roush are with Ford and Gibbs is with Toyota.

The last big new team in Sprint Cup was Red Bull Racing, but perhaps they were too English. As I see it, as someone who visits every major series in the world in a given year, NASCAR needs at least one new big team – something akin to Penske, Gibbs or Hendrick. A team perhaps with new ideas and new ways of working. I thought that Red Bull would fit the bill, but they did not last the course – and the shop they used probably wasn’t up to it anyway.

Such a team would need its own engine shop, chassis build and R&D programme and should be able to supply other teams, as Gibbs and Hendrick do. This would at least let Dodge back in the door as well as others, and that is what I think the sport needs – more nameplates are bound to improve the show for fans.

V8 Supercars in Australia is a good clue with what could be done.

A rulebook that is not a million miles away from Cup has seen Nissan, Mercedes and Volvo all join Ford and GM. In Cup, perhaps Mercedes and Volvo are not such a good fit but there are other brands like VW and Jaguar which both seem perfect. Both have good US markets and no major racing programme.

This may all sound like fantasy, but the reality is that there are indeed new nameplates waiting in the wings. NASCAR has suggested as much in the past – perhaps they are holding on for the arrival of the new Generation 7 Sprint Cup cars, but right now they have nobody to partner up with, and that will have to change.

I think it would be a great if a new team set itself up in North Carolina, running Jaguars in Sprint Cup, Nationwide and Land Rovers in the Truck series. NASCAR could even cast the team as the baddies (in true WWE style) because we Brits are always cast as the bad guys and we all drive Jaguars. At least thats what the commercial says.

ProDucTS Moment of Inertia test rigs, how CRP USA and DCE used Windform to collaborate on a new electrical enclosure, plus viscosity index analysis of Driven’s new SHX shock oil

Sam Collins Editor

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

STOCKCAR NEWS

NEWS Truck Series joins the new generation

NASCAR’s Truck series has joined the Sprint Cup and Nationwide series in adopting newlook bodywork with greater manufacturer identity. The revamped trucks were shown off at Daytona in Speedweeks, shortly before they took to the track for practice.

‘Each manufacturer has designed distinctly different trucks that they can use to promote their showroom models through their involvement with NASCAR racing,’ said Robin Pemberton, NASCAR vice president of competition and racing development.

‘We have worked closely with all three manufacturers for the past several years, and we’re excited to unveil a new truck body

that will make one of NASCAR’s most exciting series even better.’

Extensive research and testing went into the development of the new bodies, which feature much more upright front ends, with the goal of continued close competition while allowing specific features from each model. ‘The truck has a new look that fans can relate to with their own truck at home,’ said Chad Little, NASCAR Camping World Truck Series managing director. ‘The competitors have been happy with the new trucks in testing in January, and we expect to continue to have some of the best racing in NASCAR for our fans at Daytona.’

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

The new trucks carry over the majority of mechanical components from the 2013 cars, including the 5.9-litre carburetted V8 engines and 2845mm (112 inch) wheelbase.

Overall, the Truck series bodies are taller and narrower compared to those in Nationwide or Cup, as well as being slightly longer. These dimensions are something that many feel provide better racing than that found in the two senior classes.

To ease the financial burden on the teams, NASCAR will allow teams to run their choice of either 2013 or the newly introduced 2014 body designs at speedways measuring 1.25 miles or less.

STOCKCAR NEWS

Windshear recovers after shutdown

The full scale Windshear tunnel in Concord suffered an unscheduled shutdown late last year after a technical failure crippled the facility. ‘We hit a rough spot in October with two catastrophic failures,’ admitted Windshear site manager Brian

Nelson. ‘The second was the failure of the transformer that powers the wind tunnel fan. We were able to expedite the build of a new transformer from 16 weeks down to four weeks. The repairs were completed and we re-opened for business on November 15.’

There may be an increase in availability at the facility in 2014, as a result of a new rule which bans Formula 1 teams from using full-scale facilities.

Previously, a number of F1 teams – including Lotus – had used the tunnel.

SHORTS Kevin Ray left his position as team manager at NASCAR Truck Series team Red Horse Racing, and has joined Truck and Nationwide Series operation Turner Scott Motorsport as director of business operations.

Ray has been replaced at Red Horse by Randy Usher, who vacated the general manager position at Nationwide team Tri-Star Motorsports.

Jeff Hensley has been named as crew chief at NASCAR Truck Series team CTS Motorsports, Hensley was one of 29 employees released from Turner Scott Motorsports following the default of payments by a sponsor that caused the closure of one of its Truck teams in January.

The NASCAR Sprint Cup team Phoenix Racing, purchased from James Finch in the last quarter of 2013 by Harry Scott, has been re-named HScott Motorsports. Scott is part-owner of Nationwide and Truck team Turner Scott Motorsports.

Three-time NASCAR Sprint Cup crew chief Ray Evernham has left his position in the TV booth with ESPN and returned to Hendrick Motorsports in an undisclosed position within the competition department, where he will attend around half of the series races in 2014.

Veteran crew chief Todd Parrott, who was recently reinstated

by NASCAR under their road to recovery substance abuse

programme, has been hired as crew chief for one of two Sprint Cup teams at Tommy Baldwin Racing. Kevin ‘Bono’ Manion, who departed his position as NASCAR Sprint Cup crew chief at Ganassi Racing over the winter, has also joined TBR as the second crew chief.

Veteran NASCAR Truck Series crew chief Bryan Berry has joined Young Motorsport as crew chief for rookie driver Tyler Young this year.

NASCAR has reinstated Ty Norris, general manager with Sprint Cup team Michael Waltrip Racing. Norris had been indefinitely suspended last September as part of the

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

penalties assessed to MWR following ‘Richmond gate’ race altering scandal at Richmond Raceway last September, the final race in The Chase for the Sprint Cup. ML Motorsports, a NASCAR Nationwide Series team based in Indiana,has shut it doors after 15 years in business.

2013 NASCAR Truck Series champions ThorSport Racing based in Ohio away from ‘NASCAR Valley’ in North Carolina announced that engineer Gene Wachtel will replace Dennis Connor as crew chief for one of their two Truck Series teams. Series veteran Connor will remain with the team in an advisory position.

STOCKCAR TECHNICAL REGULATIONS

IMPROVING THE STANDARD OF RACING A new Sprint Cup rules package marks the first in a series of changes which aim to provide a more exciting spectacle SAM COLLINS

Left: all the configurations saw the cars running four inch skirts on both sides, as well as a new front splitter Main picture: the #11 FedEx Toyota and #4 Stewart Haas Chevrolet lead testing at Charlotte Motor Speedway last December

J

ust over a year ago NASCAR tried to put the stock back into stockcar racing with the arrival of its new Generation 6 Sprint Cup Car. Many of the changes were made to improve the look and manufacturer identity of the car, but other alterations were also introduced in an effort to spice up the racing. However, in 2013 there were fewer lead changes than there were in 2012, suggesting that the racing was not as good with the Gen-6 cars as it was with the old ‘CoT’.

‘Obviously we want to get more lead changes and we want to get closer, tighter competition,’ Brian France said towards the end of the 2013 season. ‘I’d love a photo finish every weekend if I could pull a lever up in the tower

to create that! The point is that we’re going to be working all the time on getting the competition, and lead changes are going to be a huge part. I think that is a big measuring stick.’

It was clear that the Generation 6 cars would have to be tweaked to improve the show, especially on the 1.5-mile tracks like Charlotte Motor Speedway.

Former General Motors engineer Gene Stefanyshyn joined NASCAR during the 2013 season as vice president, innovation and racing development, and was tasked with driving continual improvements in racing performance. One his first tasks was to improve the racing in Sprint Cup. ‘Really what we’re attempting to do here is to get

closer competition and more passing,’ he says. ‘We want closer competition, the cars running closer in the pack, and passing more with an eye for the fans.

We’re focusing on 1.5 mile tracks, but obviously any of the learning can be applied to other tracks.’

But before Stefanyshyn and his team could work out what to do with the cars themselves, they had to understand the problem. And while many in the garage had their own opinions, they needed something more scientific. ‘We’re using various metrics to understand where we are, like the first-to-fifth time differentials, the time differentials between the 10 fastest laps, those types of things,’ he says. ‘We also have

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

subjective data – we view it with our eyes on the Jumbotron and we also capture that video. Then we have objective data, hard data, which we measure and then put that in the mix. We have to take all that, triangulate it, try to find the alliance and what makes sense. It’s not a perfect science and you will never get 100 per cent agreement on everything. So really you’re kind of looking for the 70 per cent answer here that kind of leads you in the right direction.’

After analysing all of the various areas of data gathered during the latter half of the 2013 season, a range of concepts were developed at the NASCAR R&D centre in Concord. They were initially tested in October

GETTY GETTY

at Charlotte with just six cars, but in early December new parts were fitted to 30 cars, and a set of mock races was held at the same track.

Four basic configurations were tested, all of which featured a significant change to the chassis setup, as Stenanyshyn explains.

‘The difference there is that in the past before and after the race the car has to have a front ground clearance of four and one quarter inches [108mm] between the splitter and the road. To get around that, the teams use a spring that allows them to pass that inspection, and then when the car goes out it allows the car to run much lower. We just looked at it and realised that there was a lot of engineering

“We let the teams set the car at race height, and go out and race” going into something just to bring the car back up to pass tech inspection. We decided to let the teams set the car at race height and let them go out and race, rather than engineer the springs to pass tech inspection.

‘That has taken some of the complexity out and allows us to get back to the rudimentary concepts of racing. The old springs also had a behaviour that at times when a car got into dirty air there would be some instability, so the simple spring allows that stability to come back in traffic and maybe lets them be more aggressive on track.’

All four configurations also featured a new front splitter with a square leading edge, four inch skirts (101.6mm) on both sides, and a rear fascia trimmed 1.375 inches (35mm) higher in the scallop region.

Three of the configurations also featured a much larger 9 inch (228mm) rear spoiler, while another included a 8.375 inch (213mm) spoiler and a larger radiator pan. Two configurations included a spoiler across the roof.

The final and most controversial addition was the use of a so-called ‘tapered spacer’, or as NASCAR put it:

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

‘an intake manifold to throttle body plate’.

‘The reason we are doing that is that we have increased speed, and what we want to see is how much horsepower can we take out to maintain the same speed we have today,’ says Stefanyshyn.

‘With the new rules, the cars gain speed, so it’s just a question of keeping it under control.’

The space cuts the horsepower of the cars down to about 750bhp, but some have questioned why the reduction of power was not done with the McLaren ECU, which according to its makers is more than capable or making restrictor plates totally redundant.

The final component on test only appeared on just a single car

STOCKCAR TECHNICAL REGULATIONS

The envisaged dashes could include a yellow light if there is a caution,

Charlotte test to try to get a step ahead when the new rules are introduced

something that drivers currently learn about via radio

A roof strip was trialled on the car in an attempt to improve the racing –

The multicoloured analogue clocks on the dash look likely to become a thing

but it did not make it into the final rules package

of the past, as new digital dashes are set to be introduced in their place

at the test, and not many people noticed it. It was a new digital dashboard supplied by Cosworth.

NASCAR has long contemplated using production car-style digital dashes, but has yet to implement them.

‘They are coming and we have a plan for the introduction,’ says Stefanyshyn. ‘We were kind of thinking of doing it this year, but there was some other stuff to come too. We did not want to give it to the teams and then change it, so we want the whole package to arrive complete and final.

‘The dash will be something that is not there for the fans so much, but for the driver and maybe one day it could have direct communication, so a yellow light flashing if there is a caution, let them know if they have a penalty and let them know where they have to be at the restart.

introduced. The changes being announced so late has left some suppliers with a race against time to get the parts ready for the first race using the new rules, the Profit on CNBC 500 at the Phoenix International Raceway at the beginning of March.

‘The dials or the things we could do for the 14 race season were somewhat limited by timing,’ Stefanyshyn says. ‘So it shouldn’t be construed that this is the final solution. The amount of flexibility we had given in terms of timing was not as great as we have, say, working on the 2015 season when we’ve got a whole year ahead of us. This is really the first instalment in a journey towards a continual improvement process with regards to our race product.’

The controversial spacer was not adopted, and the increases in speed – some of which are part

GETTY

Teams took the chance to run extensive monitoring equipment during the

Right now thats all done by radio, but we want to allow the driver to visualise it so they are more informed and better prepared.’

But with Generation 7 already on the minds of many, Stefanyshyn has another consideration to take into account. ‘I can’t keep layering on costs for the teams. If I put in an electronic dash, it has to be a similar price as the teams spend now and give more value. If I let the costs escalate, we will end up like F1 where nobody can afford it. We are in the situation where we have 43 cars on the track and make sure it is affordable and sustainable.’

In the end a new rule package was announced in mid-December.

The post-race ride height check was abandoned, allowing teams to use conventional springs.

The new splitter, skirts, rear fascia and radiator pan were also

of the evolution of the Gen-6 car, and some that are the result of the new package – will likely be dealt with through gear changes.

‘The RPMs have been creeping up,’ says Stefanyshyn. ‘So we’ll take this opportunity given with the package we introduce here to bring the RPM ranges back down.

That will attenuate some of the speed we’re dealing with.’

The tapered spacer could still be implemented at a later date, however. ‘This is definitely something that we are entertaining for 2015, but we want to take a more holistic approach to when we solve it,’ added Stefanyshyn. ‘We’d like to be able to do perhaps three things at once, and come up with a more robust solution that can serve us better in the longer run.’

The new rules will not be used at the restrictor plate tracks like Daytona and Talladega. u

“This is really the first instalment in a journey towards a continual improvement process with regards to our race product” www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

18 0 m p h w i t h o u t m o v i n g a n i n c h

Take cutting-edge wind tunnel technology. Add a 180 mph rolling road.

And build in the best in precision data acquisition capabilities. When we created the world’s first and finest commercially available full-scale testing environment of its kind, we did much more than create a new wind tunnel.

We created a new standard in aerodynamics.

+1 704 788 9463

info@windshearinc.com

w i n d s h e a r i n c .c o m

NEW RULEBOOK

SpoRting Regulation ChangeS

Radical alterations to the regs aim to spice up matters on the track, but the new Chase format has appalled many purists GEORGE BOLT Jnr

The #7 JR Motorsports Chevrolet goes through the NASCAR laser inspection during NASCAR Preseason Thunder

N

ASCAR made three huge changes to its penalty, qualifying and final 10 Chase championship races all announced at the end of January. The new format in qualifying will add some spice and has been widely accepted in the sport. The changes to the Chase format, however, less so – and have left many purists disgusted. But the latter, like the qualifying, aims to lure a much-needed younger fanbase and fresh interest to the sport with a knockout system for the championship.

NEW PENALTIES ‘NASCAR’s Deterrence System is designed to help maintain

the integrity and competitive balance of our sport while sending a clear message that rules violations will not be tolerated,’ said Steve O’Donnell, NASCAR executive vice president of racing operations. ‘This is a more transparent and effective model that specifically spells out that “X” infraction equals “X” penalty for technical infractions.’

The deterrence system lays out exactly what disciplinary action will be taken depending on the type of technical infraction listed, from warnings to six penalty levels. Some of the Deterrence System elements include: The new system starts with warnings (W) issued for very minor or first-time infractions,

then are grouped into six levels – P1 (least significant) to P6 (most significant). Lower P levels list penalty options from which NASCAR may select (fines or points), while higher P levels are an all-inclusive combination of multiple penalty elements (points and fine and suspension, etc).

At the highest three levels of the system, if a rules infraction is discovered in post-race inspection, the one or more additional penalty elements are added on top of the standard prescribed penalty.

Repeat offences by the same car are addressed via a ‘recurrence multiplier’ – so, if a P4 penalty was received and a second P4 or higher

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

infraction occurs in the same season, the subsequent penalty increases 50 per cent above the normal standard.

The 2014 rulebook will explain how and why penalties are issues, along with the factors considered when determining a penalty. The rulebook will also detail the types of infractions that fall within each level by citing examples that are included but not limited to: • P1 penalties may result from multiple warnings to the same team.

• P2 penalties may include but are not limited to violations such as hollow components, expiration of certain safety certification or improper installation of a safety

GETTY

At tracks measuring 1.25 miles in length or more, qualifying will now consist of three rounds, with a five minute break between each round

Danica Patrick in the #10 GoDaddy Chevrolet in the garage area during practice for Sprint Unlimited at Daytona International Speedway in February

feature, or minor bracket and fasteners violations.

• P3 penalty options may include but are not limited to violations such as unauthorised parts, measurement failures, parts that fail their intended use, or coil spring violation.

• P4 level infractions may include but are not limited to violations such as devices that circumvent NASCAR templates and measuring equipment, or unapproved added weight.

• P5 level may include but are not limited to violations such as combustion-enhancing additives in the oil, oil filter, air filter element or devices, systems, omissions, etc, that affect the normal airflow over the body.

• P6 level may include but are not limited to violations such as affecting the internal workings and performance of the engine, modifying the pre-certified chassis, traction control or affecting EFI or the ECU. Suspensions are explained in greater detail in the rulebook, while behavioural infractions are still handled on case-by-case basis and are not built into the W, P1-P6 structure.

The newly named National Motorsports Appeals Panel will continue to provide two tiers for resolving disputes. On the first level before a three-member appeals panel, NASCAR has the burden of showing that a penalty

violation has occurred. On the second and final level, only a NASCAR Member is allowed to appeal and they have the burden of showing the Final Appeals Officer that the panel decision was incorrect. Bryan Moss, former president of Gulfstream Aerospace, has been selected as the Final Appeals Officer. Moss will hear matters on appeal from the lower three-member appeals panel and serve as the last decision on penalty disputes.

Some changes to the appeals procedure include: • Clearly identifying the rights of NASCAR members.

• Detailing responsibilities of parties throughout the process.

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

• Allowing parties the option to submit summaries on issues before the Appeals Panel.

• Allowing NASCAR Members named in the penalty to be present during the entire hearing.

• The Appeals Administrator is not allowed to be present during panel deliberations.

• Creating a clear Expedited Appeals Procedure when needed.

QUALIFYING With the exception of the Daytona 500 at tracks measuring 1.25 miles in length or more, qualifying will now consist of three rounds with a five minute break between each round: The first qualifying elimination round will be 25 minutes in duration

GETTY

NEW RULEBOOK

For rules infractions discovered in post-race inspection under the new system, additional penalty elements are added on top of the standard prescribed penalty

and includes all cars. The 24 cars that post the fastest single lap from the first qualifying round will advance to the second round.

The remaining cars/trucks will be sorted based on their times posted in the first round of qualifying in descending order.

The second qualifying elimination round will be 10 minutes in duration, and the 12 cars that post the fastest single lap time will advance to the third and final round. The fastest remaining cars earn positions 13 through 24 based on their times posted in qualifying in descending order.

The third and final qualifying round will be five minutes in duration and the fastest single lap time will determine positions 1 through 12 in descending order.

At tracks measuring less than 1.25 miles, qualifying for the Coors Light Pole Award will consist of two rounds with a 10 minute break between the two rounds. The first qualifying elimination round will be 30 minutes in duration and includes all cars. The 12 cars that post the fastest single lap time from the first qualifying round will

“This style of group qualifying has all the makings of being highly competitive and much more engaging to our fans” advance to the second and final round. The remaining cars will be sorted based on their times posted in the first round of qualifying in descending order. The second and final qualifying round will be 10 minutes in duration, and then the fastest single lap time posted will determine positions 1st through 12th in descending order.

‘We believe the timing is right for a new qualifying format across our three national series,’ said Robin Pemberton, vice president for competition and racing development. ‘This style of group qualifying has all the makings of being highly competitive and more engaging to our fans in the stands and those watching on television and online. For the drivers and teams, we believe this new qualifying will fuel even greater competition leading into the events.’

FORMAT CHANGE ‘We have arrived at a format that makes every race matter even more, diminishes points racing, puts a premium on winning races and concludes with a best-ofthe-best, first-to-the-finish line showdown race – all of which is exactly what fans want,’ said Brian France, NASCAR chairman and CEO. ‘We have looked at a number of concepts for the last three years through fan research, models and simulations, and also maintained extensive dialogue with our drivers, teams and partners. The new Chase for the NASCAR Sprint Cup will be thrilling, easy to understand and will help drive our sport’s competition to a whole new level.’

Changes to the format announced by France include: • A win in the first 26 nonChase races all but guarantees

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

a place in the 10-race Chase for the Sprint Cup. This change will put more emphasis on winning a Sprint Cup race all season long.

• Expanding the Chase field from 12 to 16 drivers, with those drivers advancing to what now will be known as the NASCAR Chase Grid.

• The number of championship drivers in contention for the NASCAR Sprint Cup championship will decrease after every three of the 10 Chase races – from 16 to start in the Chase Grid, 12 after Chase race three, eight after Chase race six, and four after Chase race nine.

• The first three races of the Chase (27-29) will be known as the Challenger Round; races 30-32 will be known as the Contender Round; races 33-35 will be the Eliminator Round and race No 36 will be the NASCAR Sprint Cup Championship.

A win by a championshipeligible driver in any Chase race automatically clinches the winning driver a spot in the next Chase round. Four drivers will enter the NASCAR Sprint Cup

Driven SHX Shock Fluid utilizes next generation synthetic oil technology to provide consistent, fade-free dampening performance. This unique, competition proven formulation utilizes a proprietary additive package to reduce seal drag, improve air release during fluid handling and maintian viscosity under high temperatures and high shear forces. SHX outperforms conventional formulations and delivers consistent dampening in demanding applications like off-road trucks, motorcycles, rally cars and asphalt race cars.

Driven SHX does not lose viscosity even after repeated heat and shearing cycles.

Part Number 50040

www.DrivenRacingOil.com + 1-866-611-1820 UK & Europe:+44 929 551557

GETTY

NEW RULEBOOK

Jamie McMurray’s #1 McDonald’s Chevrolet goes through inspection following practice in Daytona in February

Championship with a chance at the title, with the highest finisher among those four capturing the prestigious NASCAR Sprint Cup Series championship.

The top 15 drivers with the most wins over the first 26 races will earn a spot in the NASCAR Chase Grid – provided they have finished in the top 30 in points and attempted to qualify for every race (except in rare instances).

The 16th Chase position will go to the points leader after race 26, if they do not have a victory. In the event that there are 16 or more different winners over 26 races, the only winless driver who can earn a Chase Grid spot would be the points leader after 26 races.

If there are fewer than 16 different winners in the first 26 races, the remaining Chase Grid positions will go to those winless drivers highest in points.

If there are 16 or more winners in the first 26 races, the ties will first be broken by the number of wins, followed by NASCAR Sprint Cup Series driver points.

If there are 16 or more winners over 26 races, the only winless driver who can earn a Chase Grid spot would be points leader As was implemented in 2011, prior to the start of the Chase, all Chase Grid drivers will have their points adjusted to 2000, with three additional bonus points added to their total for each win in the first 26 races.

After the third Chase race, the Chase Grid will be left with 12 drivers. After the sixth Chase race, the field will drop to eight drivers, and following the ninth Chase race, only four drivers will remain in championship contention for the NASCAR Sprint Cup title.

The first round (races 27-29) will be called the Challenger Round. If a driver in the Chase Grid wins a Challenger Round race, the driver automatically advances to the next round. The remaining available positions 1-12 that have not been filled

based upon wins will be based on points. Each will then have their points reset to 3000.

The second round (races 30-32) will be called the Contender Round. Likewise, if a driver in the top 12 in points wins a race in the Contender Round, the driver automatically advances to the next round. The remaining available positions 1-8 that have not been filled based upon wins will be based on points. Each will then have their points reset to 4000.

The third round (races 33-35) will be called the Eliminator Round. If a driver in the top eight in points wins a race in the Eliminator Round, the driver automatically advances to the next round. The remaining available positions 1-4 that have not been filled based

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

upon wins will be based on points. Each will then have their points reset to 5000.

Additionally, drivers who are eliminated in the Contender and Eliminator Rounds will have their points readjusted. Each eliminated driver will return to the Chase-start base of 2000 (plus any regular season wins bonus points), with their accumulated points starting with race No 27 added. This will allow all drivers not in contention for the NASCAR Sprint Cup title to continue to race for the best possible season-long standing, with final positions fifth-through16th still up for grabs.

The 36th and final race of the season will be the NASCAR Sprint Cup Championship.

Simply stated, the highest finisher in that race among the remaining four eligible drivers will win the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series title.

Bonus points for laps led will not apply in the season finale, so the official finishing position alone will decide the champion. u

facebook.com/goodridgeltd twitter.com/goodridgeltd

Trusted by the best in the world for the most demanding environments in the world.

The world’s leading supplier of light weight PTFE hose and fittings

www.goodridge.net

UK

•

USA

•

GERMANY

•

FRANCE

•

HOLLAND

•

J A PA N

•

low drag hub components RACECAR ENGINEERING_DIGITAL_MAGAZINE.indd 1

S PA I N

27/02/2014 09:35

We design and manufacture the components and tools to reduce rolling resistance and increase performance. Premium quality. Satisfaction guaranteed.

adjustable bearing spacers

Our patented, adjustable bearing spacers will make the single biggest difference in free spin verses any other component. Threaded adjustment allows quick and precise setting of hub bearing pre-load or end play. Available for most hub and bearing styles. Custom spacers available. US PATENT No. 6,312,162

Ultra low Drag hub seals

A hub seal designed and manufactured specifically for race applications. Our seals incorporate full PTFE sealing elements in lightweight aluminum housings.

Over 1100% free spin increase in coast down testing verses standard seal.

Reusable. Made in the U.S.A.

REM® finished timken® bearing kits

We take quality U.S.A. made Timken bearings and REM® Superfinish them for 6-8 hours to produce a mirror finished low drag bearing for years of use. Bearing kits available for most applications.

Ultra low drag grease

In our lab testing, Kluber ISOFLEX TOPAS was the unquestionable best for low resistance in high speed roller bearings. Available in 390g cartridge or 35g syringes.

DRP Performance Products, Inc. Rocky Mount, VA U.S.A. DRPperformance.com 888-399-6074

Precision Bearing Packers, Seal Drivers & Hub End Play Gauges © 2014 DRP Performance Products, Inc.

“...let us run with endurance the race that is set before us...” Hebrews 12:1

F1-TO-NASCAR

ThE big SwiTCh

As recent RCR recruit Mike Coughlan explains, differences in thinking between Europe and the US – particularly in simulation – make the recruitment of F1 engineering talent to Sprint Cup incredibly worthwhile SAM COLLINS

W

hen NASCAR introduced its Generation 5 concept into the Cup series, it heralded the widespread arrival of a new breed of engineer, coming directly from F1 teams in Europe.

To the outsider, the differences between Formula 1 and NASCAR Sprint Cup are gigantic – one seems packed full of exotic technology and post-space age materials, and the other seems firmly stuck in the 1950s. But according to the latest arrival from the grand prix paddock, things are not that far apart at all.

‘People say it’s a big change, but in reality the calibre of people is no different,’ says Mike Coughlan. The Englishman joined Richard Childress Racing (RCR) at the end of the 2013 Sprint Cup season, having left his previous role as chief technical officer at the Williams F1 team in the summer.

‘The guys in NASCAR are as bright as those in F1 – and just as dedicated,’ he says. ‘They are just dealing with different tools and a different product. But I don’t think the philosophy is any different – you are looking

at what other people are doing, you are ensuring that you understand your vehicle, and you try to understand the weather too. While we don’t deal with rain, we do have big variation in temperature with day and night races like Daytona. There are smaller margins in some areas and bigger ones in others, but overall the culture is very similar.’

Coughlan first dipped his toe in the water with Michael Waltrip Racing a few years ago, but was tempted back into Formula 1 in 2011 by the Williams team. It led to a strange legal dispute which

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

saw a NASCAR team attempting to sue a Formula 1 team, but that was settled amicably and even saw Frank Williams attend his first Cup race. Coughlan has now returned to North Carolina as technical director of RCR. ‘Eric Warren still oversees engineering and Mark McArdle oversees the production of the cars, so I guess my role is to develop the potential of the vehicle,’ adds Coughlan. ‘Then the race team has to deliver that potential. I’m looking at all areas of the car – its aerodynamics, weight saving and all of the

JAMES MOY/XPB

Ex-Williams man Mike Coughlan

While simulators are a fixture among the armoury of F1 and Le Mans teams, they are yet to make a major impact in NASCAR

other things that make your car have more speed. It’s very similar to my job at Williams F1, though there I was technical director responsible for everything including the race team.’

The most noticeable difference between 2013-spec Formula 1 and Cup comes with the tyres, according to Coughlan.

‘Here you do have the ability to change and tune the car during the race, whereas in Formula 1 essentially all you do is arrive and make sure you understand the tyre for that track. The two are very different.

‘Here in NASCAR the tyre is safer in terms of the number of laps you can do, whereas Formula 1 is still trying to get a tyre that gives good racing and has a performance limit to reach, so it’s hard to compare. In 2012, everyone thought the Pirelli tyre was great, but in 2013 – with only minor changes – it was perceived as a disaster.

‘NASCAR does not sail so close to the limit, even though some of the circuits here are very abrasive and the lodgings are high with the weight, speeds and downforce.’

While Formula 1 is seen as cutting-edge in all areas of motorsport, the troubles the teams had with tyres in 2013 suggests that there are some areas where the Europeans could learn from their counterparts in North Carolina. The chat in Iron Thunder, Concord at one point was all about how the Lotus F1 Team (which was testing at Windshear) learned a few tyre management tricks from Hendrick engineers, which was how they managed to make them last so much better than other teams in 2012. Whether that tale is

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

true or not, Coughlan believes that F1 could indeed learn from stockcar racing. ‘F1 is very much aero-dominated these days, and NASCAR too is improving in that area,’ he says. ‘But the vehicle dynamics are understood much more in NASCAR, because in Cup the determining factors are grip and suspension travel.’

But that is not to say that there is nothing that NASCAR teams can learn from those racing in F1 and LMP1. In fact, for an organisation like RCR, the big benefit to having an engineer like Coughlan involved is the knowledge of techniques and methodologies that they can bring, knowledge that’s in fact considered mainstream in Europe.

‘Some of the simulation software in F1, and the tools they use, will be coming here,’ says Coughlan. ‘It’s things like the design process – you can feed target parameters into a computer, tell it that you have an upright that has to weigh under 1kg, and take a certain loading via fixed points. Then it can design the perfect structure.

The computers can tell you how to improve performance, and we are gradually moving away from guessing, educated or otherwise.’

Indeed, Coughlan highlights one area as something that will change NASCAR racing in Cup, Nationwide and even the Truck series.

JAMES MOY/XPB

F1-TO-NASCAR

Despite the different tech used, engineering expertise carries over from F1 to NASCAR, with Mike Coughlan making the move from Williams (above) to RCR

‘If I could take anything from F1 and drop it into RCR, it would be a simulator, because it is a very powerful tool – you can use it to answer lots of engineering questions. A simulator that is powerful for the driver will make a big difference.

‘Driver-in-the-loop simulation is not big in Cup now, but it will be coming. Hardware-in-the-loop too.

If you take a Formula 1 simulator now, it actually runs all the standard processors; the McLaren ECU is used in-the-loop, so if you want to develop code you can use the simulator. So, not only is the simulator used for driver education, it’s also used to prove code.’

Every F1 team has its own simulator (at least one) these

days, as do the works Porsche and Toyota LMP1 teams, but even some junior series outfits like Arden International – which runs in GP2 and GP3 – have them too. Most of these use motion platforms, which offer six degrees of freedom, but Coughlan is uncertain whether this is the best approach.

‘Simulators are not hard to come by now, and they are also not unduly expensive any more,’ he says. ‘Even in F1 there are constant questions over whether to use a hexapod or a dart-type simulator, but in NASCAR I think you can get away with a dart-type.

‘I want to get more scientific about things like that, but

don’t forget that a F1 car is a very transient thing – always braking and turning. Only for a very short period is it at full throttle for any amount of time.

In NASCAR, almost the reverse is true. Generally, the intermediate circuits are steady state. In some ways, that makes the simulation easier as you do not have to look at very many states, but in other ways it makes it harder.

‘The car has a single yaw value and a single ride height, but in F1 it all changes with high yaw angles and steer angles. In NASCAR you may get 3deg, but in F1 it can be 11deg of yaw. You don’t have those transient states in NASCAR, so you could probably get away with a McLaren-type

simulator, or a fixed-floor type simulator, because you don’t have the big braking or the big turning events that you have in F1 with things like chicanes. There are no kerbs – the tracks are relatively smooth and there are no big changes of direction.’

But putting the driver in-theloop has changed Formula 1 in a subtle but important way. Today, with very strict testing limits, the driver needs to be able to make progress on the simulator to be consistently competitive in the races, and to get the best out of the car. This is something that requires a slightly different skill-set, from both driver and engineer. ‘You do need cueing.

If you did a simulator version of

“The vehicle dynamics are understood much more in NASCAR, because in Cup the determining factors are grip and suspension travel” www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

Coughlan says that the appeal of Sprint Cup is that NASCAR has moved to make the series ‘more technically challenging’, allowing more engineering input

Charlotte Motor Speedway in a Cup car, there would not be a lot of movement, even on a six degrees of freedom machine.

Here, the car is driven with a lot of feel, so perhaps you just need to get the cues correct.’

However, understanding the cues that a driver reacts to is more than just looking at G loading and corner shape. It seems to be an inexact or not fully understood science based on the smallest things that even the driver may not understand. ‘3D was a big step at McLaren – you can see this in the consistency of lap times from a driver on the simulator. the consistency can go from tenths to hundredths just from using 3D. You soon

realise that the visual cueing is so important. When Fernando Alonso arrived at McLaren, there was a small lag in the simulator visually at the time. When he was driving at Barcelona, there is this house by the side of the track that flashes past, but it did it slightly at the wrong moment and it caused problems. He had driven so many laps of Barcelona over the years, he knew that house and when it flashed past he lifted, but now it passed after he turned – a matter of fraction of a second – but it made a difference.

You have to get the visual cues perfect or get rid of them all together – you just do the track and not the big visual things. He used this house on the horizon, it

is some way off the track. Nobody had thought about that before, and why would they?’

For NASCAR teams, they will primarily be dealing with 1.5-mile oval tracks, like the ones in Charlotte, Atlanta and Las Vegas. These present very different challenges to the simulation experts in comparison to a road course like Barcelona, but it also challenges the drivers.

Some cannot get the best out of the simulator, while others are exceptionally good on them.

Famously, Michael Schumacher could not get the best out of the Mercedes facility as it made him feel sick.

‘You will start to see the same thing happening now – you get

a phase as the teams start to understand the science and you will start to find drivers who can react to the cues properly,’ says Coughlan. ‘In NASCAR they will be different though, there will be no house flying by at Barcelona – there is just a wall. It’s not going to have the big movement that the F1 drivers can react to either. I don’t know enough about NASCAR yet to know the answer to what it is that the driver reacts to, and what he feels. I think sometimes it’s a bump or a ripple on the track – that was the case in F1 too to some extent.’

Simulators clearly put human performance in the spotlight, in a way that is almost alien in motor racing, but perhaps fully

“If you did a simulator version of Charlotte Motor Speedway, there would not be a lot of movement. Here, the car is driven with a lot of feel” www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

F1-TO-NASCAR

Honda opened the HPD Indy Tech Center and DIL Simulator

LAT

in Indianapolis last year

understood in Olympic sports. It is something that F1 teams have started to understand and that may prove crucial in NASCAR, especially in 500- and 600-mile races. ‘The joy of the simulator is that you can have 10 laps with a constant fuel load, atmospheric conditions and tyre wear, and flip between setups at a flick of a switch with the driver in the same conditions too. When you do simulation studies in F1, you find that when you track a driver with a baseline setup throughout a day, his performance is not the same – it varies. You see this kind of wave. They drop off after lunch, for example.’

The technology will also likely change some up-and-coming drivers’ career paths, and you will find some highly paid drivers

never taking to the track in races.

Indeed, some will never even spend time in the real car. This is a common practice in F1, but totally alien in NASCAR. ‘There are some who are perfect simulator drivers. Mercedes GP I think have a driver who can beat the race drivers. It changes careers.

Pedro de la Rosa was really key at McLaren when I was there. He could drive in the styles of Kimi Raikkonen or Juan Pablo Montoya on demand. Montoya was always hard on the brakes, and wanted the aero balance forward and turned in late, while Kimi was smoother and carried more speed.

He could just switch between them. That made De la Rosa very powerful as a development tool at McLaren – he understood what they saw and what they

felt. He is a valuable commodity because of that.’

It is likely to be something that makes a difference to the top Cup competitors in the coming years, but the substantial change that is on the horizon in Sprint Cup is really what has attracted Coughlan back to the NASCAR garage. ‘One of the reasons I came back to stockcar racing is that there is a move from NASCAR to make the series more technically challenging to try to appeal to the audience.

‘Also, there is more engineering input in NASCAR, perhaps because you are starting from a lower mark. Formula 1 is really totally aerodynamic. F1 will have a few years of challenging designs with the new rules this year, but I don’t think that anyone

will design a car that is hopelessly wrong, because the F1 simulation tools are that good. Everyone will get it about right, and that’s what I want to see brought here.

‘I’m really looking forward to learning lots and bringing some of what I have learned in Europe to help RCR move forward,’ says Coughlan. ‘Generation 7 I’m particularly looking forward to.

The series is going to get more fuel-efficient engines, and there will be more science involved in the design and development.

The product will be more aligned with where I have come from, and I think that is for the good of the sport.’

The question that has yet to be answered by NASCAR, is when Generation 7 will arrive. Only time will tell. u

“In NASCAR you have the ability to change and tune the car during the race, whereas in Formula 1 all you can do is arrive and make sure you understand the tyre for that track” www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

Turbo Headers More power, increased efficiency The Vermont SportsCar-prepared Subaru WRX STI Rallycross car

Almost every division of the motorsport scene is investigating ways of maximising the volumetric efficiency of the engine using forced induction by turbocharging.

Good Fabrications have 30 years experience in the design, optimisation and fabrication of exhaust systems to suit every car, turbo or packaging challenge.

Good Fabrications LLC, 170-A Raceway Drive, Mooresville, NC 28117 T: 704 696 0077 E: michael@goodfabs.com www.goodfabs.com DC Nascar AD Racecar Engineering Feb 2013 AWF.pdf

www.dcemotorsport.com Wiring Looms Control Panels Data Acquisition Engine Management Sensors Power Steering USA DCE Inc 119-B Poplar Pointe Drive Mooresville NC 28117 USA T +1 (704) 230 4649 E sales@dcemotorsport.com UK & Europe DC Electronics - Motorsport Specialist Ltd Unit 1+2 Quayside Industrial Park Maldon, Essex CM9 5FA United Kingdom T +44 (0)1621 856451 E sales@dcemotorsport.com

1

06/12/2012

09:41

STOCKCAR AERODYNAMICS

TESTING TIMES CALL FOR TOP FACILITIES Aero is fast becoming a more important factor in Sprint Cup, and teams are facing major changes in the way they work as a result SAM COLLINS

A Generation 6 Chevrolet being put through its paces at the Aerodyn facility

Engineers working on a Generation 6 Ford in the ARC tunnel in Indianapolis –

in Mooresville, NC – a tunnel that was purpose-built for stockcars

one of only two scale model wind tunnels used regularly by Cup teams

A

t the 2014 Daytona 500, the Hendrickbuilt Chevrolet SS of Dale Earnhardt Jr was involved in a thrilling two-lap dash to the finish, but an engineer’s thoughts were inevitably drawn to a flapping bit of tape on the front of the car.

How much drag was it creating?

Aerodynamic discussion dominated the Fox Sports commentary of the weatherinterrupted race. Did the Toyota arrive in a higher downforce, higher drag trim to take advantage of traffic? Were the Chevy’s running very low drag to qualify well? Without access to the

team’s aero data it is hard to know for sure but, it is certain that aerodynamics are increasingly key factor in top class stockcar racing.

At first glance that may seem obvious, but over the years –despite substantial investments in testing facilities and technology – more effort has gone into the mechanical performance of the cars.

This is something that stacks up when you look at the number of wind tunnels in use in NASCAR compared to the number used in F1. In grand prix racing, all but two of the teams have their own wind tunnel – and indeed some teams have two. On top

of that there are a handful of commercially available tunnels largely dedicated to F1 testing, with more than 15 tunnels working on the open wheel designs. In comparison, in Sprint Cup there are only six facilities in common use, including the Laurel Hill Tunnel.

Now, with draconian new rules in Formula 1 restricting the use of both wind tunnels and CFD clusters as well as a forthcoming cost cap, a range of new technology may suddenly become available to Cup teams. It is notable that the full-scale tunnels currently used in NASCAR are largely fully booked at key times,

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

especially when rule changes are introduced. Two of them – Aerodyn and A2 – are on the same campus in Mooresville, NC, and both have been purpose-built for stockcars. The third – Windshear – was developed not only for stockcars, but also with IndyCar and Formula 1 in mind. It is the largest and fastest automotive wind tunnel in the world.

A2 was always intended to be a the little brother of Aerodyn. It is smaller and has fewer capabilities, but Cup teams do still use it on occasion.

However, its big brother is one of the most popular tunnels in the sport. Opened in 2003, the

Aerodyn HArPS SyStem SPecificAtion

the Windshear wind tunnel is the largest and fastest facility in the world, and is used regularly by stockcar, indycar and f1 teams

A ford in the Aerodyn tunnel, a facility which boasts 22 fans compared to

1. Main power to the system consists of a single DC power supply rated at 250 Amps and variable 0-20 volts, located in the basement balance room 2. Main power supply is designed to control output voltage to a set point, with amperage generated as required by the load 3. A pair of 1/0 power cables and a small 24 volt control power cable are routed from the basement, up through the left front ram opening into the engine compartment, through the firewall on the passenger side, into the greenhouse, where they connect to the HARPS in-car control box 4. A total of 14 discrete channels are available via connection to the control box located in the passenger side of the greenhouse 5. Each channel has a capacity of 50 Amps, with a total available system capacity of 250 Amps 6. Each channel is provided with a 50 Amp circuit breaker, Push-To-Test switch and Power-On LED to verify proper hook-up and flow direction prior to test 7. System voltage is adjustable from 0 to 20 volts DC. The selected voltage affects all 14 channels 8. System voltage and selection of channels to be “ON” or “OFF” are controlled by the customer using an iPad and a dedicated wireless network 9. Channels selected for “ON” may automatically start and stop in conjunction with tunnel main fans when “AUTO” start is selected.

10. Channel status, channel amperage, total system amperage, and system voltage are simultaneously displayed in real time on the in-car control box, on the iPad, and are recorded in the data 11. For every point of every run, the customer data sheet will record: a. Channel “ON” or “OFF” status b. Channel amperage c. Total system amperage d. System voltage 12. In-car control box includes connection for a single 3in duct hose to simulate connection to media electronics packages

“We can prep a car and get through four or five cars a shift – that’s ideal for cataloguing”

one big fan found in many other wind tunnels, speeding testing up

tunnel has been in a state of constant evolution, and has many interesting design features that make it perfect for the work that Cup teams do.

‘We have 22 fans on this tunnel whereas most tunnels have one big fan,’ says Chris Osetek, one of the engineers at Aerodyn. ‘The problem with one big fan is the deceleration time and acceleration time, but with these small fans it’s much faster. One data point takes us 50 seconds, but we have an active ride height control in here which means that if a team was doing an aero map, they can keep running. We can prep a car and get through four or five cars a shift, so that’s ideal for cataloguing.’

Cataloguing is the process where teams compare a number of their cars to work out which one to use at particular venues, and to see if any are too draggy to use without further work.

The teams do both cataloguing and development at

Aerodyn, but with rule changes in both Cup and Trucks, there will be some more development.

Currently, while in a static period of rules, there is more cataloguing according to the teams.

One new addition to the Aerodyn tunnel is the HARPS (high amperage remote power supply) system. It is a fully-automated control system designed to provide control and power to on-car fans including in-line duct, radiator or both. It allows the team using the tunnel to connect all fans to a central connection point, and to control everything remotely from the control room using an iPad app.

‘There is a high amp power system, a big box that is mounted in the car, and there is a 200 Amp power supply that comes up from the bottom of the tunnel and the teams hook up all of their duct fans and things like that,’ says Osetek. ‘If they want them to come on during the test, they just use the iPad to control it.’

There will be one noticeable change in wind tunnel availability this year in North Carolina, and it is all due to the 2014 Formula 1 sporting regulations. In recent years, grand prix teams have been strictly limited on aerodynamic testing, with few straight-line testing days allowed and even fewer tests allowed at full-scale.

The only wind tunnel in the world able to really deliver the airspeed at full-scale required by F1 teams is Windshear.

‘The Windshear test falls under the designated amount of testing we’re allowed to do during the course of a year,’ said Lotus F1 team manager Paul Seaby last year. ‘The rules allow four days of on-track aero testing, which can be exchanged for wind tunnel testing. We chose to swap all of our allotted on-track aero testing for one big hit of wind tunnel testing. We have done this in previous years and found it to be of significant benefit.

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

‘With so few days allocated to testing, development time is a valuable resource. To get the maximum from it, we pre-fit every new part we’re looking to test to make sure it can be changed over quickly. We left a certain amount of kit at the facility in America last time, so the crew has already been out there this week to make sure everything still works, that our software is compatible with theirs, and so on. This is important to make sure that when we arrive we can hit the ground running straight away.’

However, the new rules for 2014 have completely banned full-scale aerodynamic testing, partly due to an accident during an airfield test session in England that eventually proved to be fatal, and partly due to the fear of the costs associated with flying cars from Europe to North Carolina to test. This will almost certainly leave some free time available at the Concord facility.

STOCKCAR AERODYNAMICS

ThE CoMpuTERS ARE NoT TAkiNg ovER

Engineers with an F1 background, such as Richard Childress Racing’s Mike

Management at the Aerodyn wind tunnel are finding that teams

Coughlan, are looking at making more use of CFD in NASCAR

using CFD are still using tunnel facilities to very their work

T

he digital revolution has brought new methods of testing and developing the cars and the rise of CFD is noticeable, but here too Formula 1 teams have been hit with tough restrictions, and will now be limited to 30 Tflops a week, leaving many teams with spare capacity.

‘What I think will happen hopefully is some of the NASCAR teams will partner with F1 teams to take up the slack in CFD,’ says Mike Coughlan, technical director at RCR. ‘In F1, a different chip arrived which allows more computations per teraflop, so there was a big move toward buying new clusters – you could use the new chip and have a lot of redundant machines. I can see the NASCAR teams buying those.’

But CFD has not made the same impact in NASCAR as it has in Formula 1. ‘CFD was really big in F1 but not so much here – thats something I’m working on,’ says Coughlan. ‘We have a big programme, and it’s about making performance. We are now looking at buying our own cluster, being able to run our own cases.

‘Bear in mind that Nick Wirth [of Wirth Research] showed us how hard it was – he came along in 2010 trying to design a car just in CFD, and struggled for a while. And ultimately the team went over to using a wind tunnel.

But today, with some of the

The hand-finished nature of some Sprint Cup bodywork makes it at odds with the requirements of CFD, which calls for consistency in aero

current cars in F1, the majority of work is done in CFD, so it’s taken some time. Ultimately though the F1 cars will all be designed in CFD, and the tunnel and track will just be verification tools.’

The management team at Aerodyn do not consider the rise of CFD to be threat to its wind tunnel business having investigated with teams and manufacturers the viability of providing in-house expertise.

Most of the teams and manufacturers have their own capabilities, and even the smaller NASCAR teams have access to data.

‘Nasa has said that CFD and wind tunnels are not at

odds,’ says Aerodyn founder Gary Eaker. ‘They are complementary.

All the codes in CFD have been the codes that we use and – at best – they have to be verified in the wind tunnel. We are not threatened by CFD.’ Another reason that NASCAR teams may not have taken to computational methods as heavily as the F1 teams is the way of working required.

‘Maybe it is because most things are done at scale in F1, and there are issues with that with the Reynolds numbers,’ says Aerodyn engineer Chris Osetek.

‘They also have a max wind speed of 50m/s in F1, which is way off - they will not be matching the

Reynolds number with the frontal cross-section, so perhaps the CFD is closer for them.

‘But a Cup team can come to a full-scale tunnel like ours and match what they are seeing in the real world pretty easily. From a team’s standpoint there are all of these tools – the tunnels, CFD, straight-line testing – and if they can correlate two of the three, then that’s usually good enough.

Like many I thought CFD would take over. It’s definitely becoming a more useful tool, but I can’t see it taking over. The teams seem content where they are now, and the CFD trend does not seem to be happening now.’

Another possibility is that even with the arrival of Generation 6 and off-the-shelf body parts in Sprint Cup, a significant amount of the cars’ bodywork is hand-finished. This means that each and every car is slightly different in aerodynamic terms. In the perfect world of CFD the bodies are all identical, so the variation is not replicated.

In reality, it is probably a combination of factors that has meant that CFD has not taken off in stockcar racing the way it has in road racing, but it is certainly likely to increase with the sudden availability of new high performance clusters from the F1 teams. How NASCAR teams deal with that over the next 12 months will be very interesting to see u

“For teams there are tools like tunnels, CFD and straight-line testing.

If they can correlate two of the three, that’s good enough” www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

STOCKCAR SUPERMODIFIEDS

A HIGHLY MODIFIED KIND OF RACECAR The refuge of frustrated engineers that crave a bit more freedom than other classes provide, supermodified racers have a character all of their own SAM COLLINS Chris Osetek’s supermodified being put through its paces in the A2 wind tunnel

W

hat is the fastest car on a short track?

NASCAR Sprint Cup at Bristol? Sprint cars?

BriSCA F1? Actually it’s none of them. The fastest thing on the short tracks is a Formula little seen outside of a few areas of the USA. Supermodified racing started up in the New York State area and is still popular there, where it is sometimes called the Indy of the East.

One of the promoters of supermodified racing, Bob Gangwer, describes the cars as ‘the king of the asphalt’.

‘You have to realise that this open wheel racecar is very lightweight, and produces copious amounts of gut-wrenching torque and horsepower. They are rare and exotic beyond imagination.

No two are alike, the rules

governing them are few and the fans that follow them are as knowledgable and passionate as the drivers are brave.’

It sounds like an excessive amount of hyperbole on the part of the promoter, but in reality it is not. Supermodifieds have become something of a refuge for engineers frustrated by restrictions in other classes of racing. One of them is Chris Osetek, who by day is an engineer at the Aerodyn wind tunnel in Mooresville, NC. He has designed and built a number of cars for himself and others.

‘The reason I drive up and down between North Carolina and New York all summer long is because it is a class of racing still open to innovation,’ he enthuses. ‘The rulebook is very small – a engine capacity rule and some basic

dimensions – but then it’s really open. It’s an open wheel class with huge tyres, huge motors, and the cars weigh in at 1850lbs. All four tyres are different sizes, with the right rear at 18 or 19 inches. We get one race out of the tyres, and they cost $850 a set. ‘ The engines in supermodifieds are immediately noticeable, not for their design particularly, but for their installation alongside the driver. ‘The motor is often offset on these cars and we run 68 per cent max left side weight,’ says Osetek. ‘Back in the 1980s there were guys doing rear-engined cars and four-wheel drive cars, then the engine ended up on the left and that kind of stuck.

The rules say that the engines must be steel block, normally aspirated, run on methanol and be no bigger than 468ci.

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

‘Short stroke, long stroke – you can do what you like, but we run in the 900bhp range whatever,’ he adds. ‘I have my motor rotated by seven degrees, but some people run them as much as 24 degrees, which can lower the CG height by about a quarter inch. But when you factor in the exhaust installation it ends up being almost neutral.’

The cars have no transmission or gearbox – the engines drive the rear wheels directly, meaning that the cars require a push start. If a driver spins, his race is over. Many cars currently racing use universal joints, but Osetek runs a CV joint, something he believes is worth up to 10bhp at the wheels.

The chassis rules are evidently quite open, but there are some, as Osetek explains. ‘It must have a roll cage, but after that it’s

WILLIAM J TAYLOR

The cars feature no transmission or gearbox, and the engines drive the rear

There are two classes of supermodified – wing and no wing. However,

wheels directly. If a driver spins, that spells the end of their race

the no wing cars still feature large aerofoils front and rear

kind of open. A friend of mine did a full aluminium honeycomb monocoque – that did really well.

My car has a stressed skin on a tubular chassis, with aluminium bulkheads. Over the years they have tried to keep carbon fibre out because of the cost, but you can get round it as the rule says something like “carbon fibre can only be used for driver safety”, which is an easy argument to win.’

There are actually two classes of supermodified car – wing and no wing. That said, the ‘no wing’ cars still feature fairly substantial aerofoils front and rear. Both classes have substantial downforce, increasing the cornering speed further. ‘In the

aerodynamic package as an after-hours project in the A2 wind tunnel. ‘In aero terms it’s pretty free. We are at the track, and say we win a race, they weigh us and check the engine capacity – but that’s about it. So unless you are doing anything crazy, then it’s probably allowed. In aero terms you have boxes to work inside, front and rear wings are open, so are side panels.

There is quite a bit of downforce as you can imagine.’

An open rules class such as this is an engineer’s dream, but it must be wondered why it has not become more popular over the years. ‘None of the cars are the same – that’s the cool thing,’

wing class they feature a 24 square foot moveable wing on the top of the car. The wings are not meant to be driver adjustable, but they are passive adjustable so you can design it to flatten out on the straightaway and pop up in the corners.

Within the 24 square feet anything goes, so it’s pretty huge downforce. Some people use that top wing almost like a drag brake, as we are no longer limited by the aero. In fact we are limited by the tyres which after a point drop off in performance if the load is too high.’

Osetek is reluctant to reveal exact downforce figures, but he has developed his car’s

says Osetek. ‘When you go to the first race of the year you get to see all the new things people are trying. That’s the problem – with an open rulebook things can get expensive, but we still get 34 cars per race. But a car less motor will sell for $40,000-$70,000 with people then putting another $30,000-$40,000 on the motor.’

If supermodifieds ever did become more widespread then the costs would almost certainly rise even further, which could spoil the formula.

So it’s likely to remain the refuge for any engineers working in NASCAR who want a bit more design freedom, and long may it last! u

“The rules say that the engines must be steel block, normally aspirated, run on methanol and be no bigger than 468ci” www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

STOCKCAR PRODUCTS

Moment of inertia test rigs

The Centroid rig’s location next to the Aerodyn tunnel allows teams to run an MOI test before or after any wind tunnel test, saving multiple trips

T

he rise of simulation technology in motor racing, both multibody and driver-in-the-loop, has placed ever-increasing importance on understanding a car’s real moment of inertia and centre of gravity. The first test rig to be revealed that is specifically-built for this task was revealed in 2012 at Cranfield University in England.

The rig itself looks deceptively simple, like a scaled-down version of a child’s seesaw. Mounted on an air bed which supports the vehicle, there is an arrangement of steel arms with two long ones running the length (or width) of the vehicle.

The rig is capable of being aligned for testing in pitch, roll and yaw, and all three are used by F1 teams like Force India for its calculations.

‘We can also calculate the principal moment of inertia and find out which axis the object would like to rotate about,’ Dr James Watson points out. ‘The centre of gravity is not always on the car’s centre line, in either x or y planes, but we

assume a symmetry through the car. Certain vehicles like Formula 1 cars are very evenly balanced, so with them it is usually within 2mm of the vehicle centre line, and on road cars it can be up to 10mm off.’

The rig is linked to a computer which logs only three channels of data, including the timing pattern and a force via a load cell. But the results are just what is required by racing teams’ vehicle dynamists.

‘There is no point in just measuring the moment of inertia on its own though,’ Dr Watson adds. ‘That would be meaningless – we have to reference it back to the centre of gravity. You can get that in the x and y planes very easily on a flat patch with corner weights, but by using the rig for a supplementary test you can measure the height of the centre of gravity – you simply measure the reaction force in a pitch orientation and a roll orientation.

That is simply a case of tilting the vehicle for a set number of degrees and measuring the

reaction force at one end – you can then get two values: the centre of gravity height and also any offset from the x or y direction.’

Force India’s head of vehicle science James Knapton is in charge of the team’s usage of the Cranfield rig, and for him one of the results it puts out is clearly the most important when developing a new model such as the VJM05.

‘We go there once a year to carry out a centre of gravity test and an inertia test,’ he explains.

‘We primarily look at the centre of gravity height, which is massively important in F1. If you change it by 10mm you go about two tenths of a second faster. Over time you may expect the centre of gravity to go down as each new model is completed, but actually it has often gone up which can scare the management. It can be heavily influenced by regulation changes.

When the car safety was improved with side panels for driver protection and bigger headrests the height raised, for example.

‘The aerodynamicists always want to put things higher too. The chassis has raised at the front over the years as they want to get air under the nose. In the past there also tended to be a lot of winglets on the top of the bodywork and we had to assess whether the gain outweighed the losses from raising the centre of gravity height.

But if the rules don’t change, you target it to be reduced, and for us it has between 2010 and 2012. It is usually between 200-250mm above the bottom of the car, which is fairly low. We could make it lower still, but we would have to compromise the aerodynamics, by lowering the radiators and sidepods – things like that.‘ Beyond understanding the car’s centre of gravity height, the inertia of the car is also very important to the team. ‘The inertia of the car, how much it resists turning round a corner, is of course the primary function of this rig,’ Knapton continues. ‘Over the years it stayed roughly the same with

“We can calculate the principal moment of inertia and find out which axis the object would like to rotate about“ www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

STOCKCAR PRODUCTS

“It’s important that we have the correct centre of gravity height and inertial properties in our model – it must behave like the real thing”

Force India use the Cranfield facility once a year to carry out centre of gravity and inertia tests

our cars, but in 2009 we started to make the car longer for stability and aerodynamic reasons, and in 2010 the refuelling ban made them longer still, and that changed it a lot. There is not a lot we can do about yaw inertia because the parts of the car pretty much have to be where they are, and we have regulatory limits on weight distribution, which further limits where we can place things. The yaw inertia is usually dominated by things like the front wings and front tyres which are right out at the corners. Our yaw inertia has gone up quite a bit recently, but strangely the drivers don’t notice it. You’d imagine they would get out and say it feels very sluggish and unresponsive, but they don’t really pick it up.’

In the age of digital simulation, it seems strange that such a simple looking tool is so critical, but what CAD packages output is no comparison to the real world.

But the data is crucial to improving the team’s digital version of reality. ‘We use a lot of the data from this rig in our simulation models, it’s very important that we have the correct centre of gravity

height and inertial properties in our vehicle model,’ says Knapton.

‘It must behave like the real thing.

We use that data in dynamic models like our driver-in-the-loop simulator – getting the data right means that it feels like the real car for the driver. We had an incident recently where we got the roll inertia wrong, and the drivers were complaining that the car was very strange to drive. We didn’t believe them, but later realised that it was out by a factor of 100, due to a user error. The car was oscillating and the drivers picked it up.’

The data also can be used in real-world car development, something Force India technical director Andrew Green has placed an emphasis on.

‘We work out the aerodynamic loading on the car via load cells on the pushrods. If we change an aero component, we look at those outings to see if there is any change, but when the car brakes you get a huge weight transfer forward putting load on the front.

If you look at the data it looks like there is a massive load on the front. So, we need to compensate that out and to do that we need

to know the rate of deceleration and the centre of gravity height.

Another way we use the data is if we do stability calculations on the car, and try to work out the yaw moment making the car turn.

The front tyres will try to make the car go round the corner while the rear tyres try to stop the car going round the corner looking at that yaw rate sensor of the car.

Differentiating that from yaw acceleration we can then divide that by the yaw inertia – and we get the moment acting on the car.

We can then use that yaw moment to asses the stability of a change we make to the car.

‘The data from the VJM05 and the forthcoming VJM06 will be fed back to the design team to allow them to optimise other parts of the car.

‘We use this when we are designing the suspension elements. We need to accurately calculate the load that goes through them. If a wishbone fails at high speed, it is bad – as you probably realise. The data from the centre of gravity height helps us to accurately predict the car’s contact patch loads, and that

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

feeds into other models which give us the maximum loads for the suspension. It’s especially critical as we don’t use very high safety factors, perhaps 25-50 per cent.’

This facility in the rolling fields of England seems a world away from the equally rolling countryside of North Carolina, but in an anonymous building alongside the Aerodyn wind tunnel is ‘Centroid’. This is former Hendrick engineer Gary Eaker’s equivalent of the Cranfield facility, but it seems far more capable. The team behind it are still a little cagey about its exact specification, though it has been specifically developed with Sprint Cup cars in mind. As is the case with most of Eaker’s projects, the technology used in the Centroid rig is all in-house and some of it is very innovative indeed – and according to Eaker, ‘pretty difficult to copy’.

Its location next to the Aerodyn tunnel allows teams to run a MOI rig test just before or after any wind tunnel session, saving teams making multiple trips.

The full story on the Centroid rig will appear in the next issue of Stockcar Engineering.

STOCKCAR PRODUCTS

DCE and CRP develop an electrical enclosure using Windform materials

C

RP USA – together with DC Electronics – have developed an electrical enclosure using the technology of 3D Printing and Windform Laser Sintering (LS) materials. DC Electronics is a company based in the UK and in Mooresville, North Carolina. It is one of the leading manufacturers of custombuilt electrical systems for the motorsport industry.

CRP USA, with the service of additive manufacturing with Windform materials, supported DC Electronics in the construction of a custom electrical enclosure for the NASCAR racecars. electrical enclosure The NASCAR Sprint Cup championship moved to electronic fuel injection for the control of their engines in February 2012. Part of the mandated electrical system included a relay control box to switch a 12v power supply to the various sensors, actuators and fuel pumps. The relay box contains electromechanical devices (relays) and two circuit breakers.

In total, the device switches power to seven individual circuits, so already five channels contained no circuit protection. Early problems with circuit breakers tripping has led to many teams bypassing these devices, leading to no circuit protection at all.

The unit that DC Electronics has designed is manufactured from solid state components, so no moving parts are effected by vibration. Each circuit is pre-programmed with the maximum safe current that the wiring loom can take.

Should the current exceed this (due to accident damage or faulty component), the output is switched off

before damage can occur to the wiring harness.

In addition to this, each circuit has a bi-colour LED assigned to it on the outside wall of the box, this is used for rapid fault finding of any potential problems. The LED displays if the circuit is off, on or in a fault condition.

Material selection Windform LX2.0 was used to enclose the electronics – its mechanical features make it the right material in this kind of application. It features a good tensile strength, thanks to a mineral fibre reinforcement, and it also boasts heat resistance with a melting point of around 180degC. It has a natural black colour and the finished surface can be smoothed to Ra = 1.5 microns. It is also nonconductive, which represents a crucial feature in building the electrical enclosure.

The main criteria that the component had to satisfy

was being as light as possible, while the shape had to allow it to be retro-fitted to existing mounting brackets.

The component also had to be strong enough to resist damage when being fitted to the mounting cradle, as well as being able to handle and dissipate any heat generated by the circuit board.

DC Electronics had previously tested a machined billet box and a carbon composite box.

The billet box was heavy and expensive to produce.

The carbon composite box also proved costly and was not best suited to small changes in design as the project progressed, as this necessitated new moulds and patterns to be made for each change.

CRP USA offered DC Electronics the option of building the part with Windform materials and 3D printing. The solution was the most suitable, and the final Windform LX2.0 component

proved to be lighter in weight than both the billet and carbon composite boxes.

Part advantages The biggest advantage for DC Electronics to use Windform LX2.0 and 3D printing was the rapid delivery of production suitable parts at a sensible price. In addition, any design changes could be made quickly and easily to the CAD model. ‘With this particular project we have found no limiting factors,’ states David Cunliffe, managing director and co-founder of DC Electronics.

‘The biggest factor that pushed us towards Windform was the speed in constructing the parts, the mechanical features of the material and the ease of delivery.

‘Moreover, CRP USA also carried out the design of the enclosure for us, and this was a useful value added service.

It will also now lead us to looking to CRP USA and Windform materials for future products that we have in development.’

Windform LX2.0 and 3D printing have achieved the final result successfully.

The electrical enclosure was tested on track, and the component was found to be fully reliable.

Thanks to the technology of additive manufacturing and Windform materials, it was possible for DC Electronics to have in a short time a reliable electrical enclosure for the NASCAR racecars.

This electric enclosure from DC Electronics has no moving parts to be affected by vibrations

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

G N I R E E N I G N E R A C E C A R h t i w L A GO DIGIT ON YOUR TABLET Subscribe to the digital edition for fast and easy access to Racecar Engineering anytime, anywhere.

Available on:

VISIT OUR WEBSITE

www.racecar-engineering.com All the breaking news, technical developments, race results and rule changes as they happen.

Have the latest developments delivered direct to your inbox by signing up to our email newsletter, and keep up to date with breaking news and commentary as it happens by following us on social media.

Subscribe to our newsletter www.racecar-engineering.com/sign-up-to-our-email-newsletter/ /RacecarEngineering

@RacecarEngineer

+Racecar Engineering

STOCKCAR PRODUCTS

Damping systems and the viscosity index

O

ne of the challenges in damping systems is the fact that the fluids used in the damper have a pesky habit of changing viscosity with changes in temperature. More precisely, the viscosity of the fluid increases as the temperature of the fluid decreases, and vice versa. This inverse temperature viscosity relationship causes problems due to the fact that viscosity effects damping, so low fluid temperature damping performance is different than high fluid temperature damping performance.

This fact is well established and understood. To that end, damper fluids have been designed to minimise this viscosity change with temperature. The lubricants industry has a rating system called the viscosity index (VI) to grade the performance of a fluid in regards to viscosity change relative to temperature.

Here is a brief tutorial on how the VI rating system works. It is important to

Viscosity relative to shear Example

Low shear viscosity

High shear viscosity

20W-50 conventional motor oil 100C

20.4

13.2

150C

7.8

5.1

15W-50 synthetic motor oil 100C

17.7

10.5

150C

7.2

4.4

15W-50 Synthetic motor oil 100C

16.4

12.1

150C

6.4

4.7

understand how we get these numbers to gain better understanding and control of this critical characteristic.

The flow rating of a fluid is measured at 40degC and at 100degC in a device called a viscometer. This apparatus controls the temperature of the fluid and measures the time it takes for the fluid to flow from point A to point B through a capillary and orifice of a given size. The result of this test is given in what is called centistokes. The higher the

centistoke number, the slower the flow – so a higher viscosity.

For example, a 10W-30 motor oil may have a measured viscosity of 12 centistokes at 100degC, while a 20W-50 motor oil may have a measured viscosity of 18 centistokes at 100degC. The higher the viscosity, the higher the centistoke value.

So how does this relate to viscosity index and damping?

By comparing the centistoke values of our chosen damping fluid at 40degC and 100degC to reference fluids, the viscosity

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

index can be determined.

A conventional paraffinic, petroleum based oil will yield a viscosity index of 100. A synthetic-based oil will typically yield a viscosity index over 150, and with the help of viscosity index improver additives, viscosity indices over 200 are possible.

Following this logic, it stands to reason that the higher the viscosity index, the better the damping performance over a wider range of operating temperatures. So, if fluid A has a viscosity index of 360 and fluid B has a viscosity index of 180, fluid A should have 50 per cent less change in performance from 40degC to 100degC compared to fluid B. However, anyone with a damper dyno knows that you don’t see that level of improvement!

So why does viscosity index not provide as accurate a measure of viscosity versus temperature performance? The answer can be found in the way that the viscosity is measured.

LAT

The SHX damper fluid is race proven and was used in the Joe Gibbs cars at Daytona in 2014

KRL shear stability Kinematic viscosity @ 100C

Driven SHX

per cent HTHS difference @ 150C

The viscometer used to measure the viscosity of the fluid does not place even a modest level of shear on the fluid being measured. Welcome to the world of rheology!

Rheology is the science of viscosity as related to shear.

Fluids that have been modified with viscosity index improvers are called non-Newtonian fluids, because the viscosity of the fluid is relative to the rate of shear. High rates of shear lead to shear thinning – viscosity loss. To illustrate this fact, see the comparative viscosities of different fluids at the same temperature, but subjected to different rates of shear.

Penske

Sheared

New oil

Sheared

New oil

Sheared

New oil

Sheared

3.5

3.5

5.4

4.5

4.2

3.4

5.3

2.9

14.5

15.1

13.0

11.3

9.2

13.8

0 14.5

per cent difference @ 40C HTHS

Ohlins

New oil per cent difference @ 100C Kinematic viscosity @ 40C

Maxima

-16

0 1.2

-19

-13 1.2

2.5

0

Multi-grade motor oils provide a great example due to the non-Newtonian (shear thinning) behaviour of these oils.

Shear thinning is only the beginning of a variable that can affect damping performance over the course of a race. Very high rates of shear can lead to permanent shear thinning. This occurs when the shear forces are great enough to actual rip the polymers apart. The resulting loss of viscosity and shear thinning ultimately affects damping performance. We generally call this ‘fade’, but it is a tricky variable to measure and control.

This shear thinning phenomenon explains why

-45

-18 2.1

1.7

-16

different fluids of apparently similar viscosity can perform dramatically differently. What is the engineer to do with this ‘hidden’ variable?

NewtoNiaN Fluids Named after Sir Isaac himself, these fluids are as their name implies, the opposite of nonNewtonian fluids. Precisely, Newtonian fluids do not change viscosity relative to the rate of shear. More importantly, the viscosity characteristics of a Newtonian fluid do not change over time. Since all fluids are subject to change in viscosity relative to temperature, this variable will always be

www.racecar-engineering.com • Stockcar Engineering 11

-44 1.4

-18

7.6

1.5

1.1 -26

encountered and accounted for in various ways. However, eliminating the variation in viscosity due to shear and shear instability provides a firmer foundation for suspension dynamics modelling. This consistency puts the power back into the hands of the race engineer. The ultimate measure of high temperature and high shear viscosity is the HTHS test method, and as evidenced by the data, the Driven SHX Newtonian fluid demonstrates a consistent viscosity even after 24 hours of repeated shear cycling. Many other non-Newtonian fluids failed to maintain their viscosity under these conditions u

Motorsport. Redefined.

Highly Evolved.

The STACK LCD Motorspor t Display is the next evolution of driver communcation and data acquisition. Designed specifically for the harshest of environments, the carbon composite housing is IP67 sealed against water and dust intrusion and will Actual Screen Images easily withstand 20 g of continuous vibration and 50 g of shock shock. Our 7� LCD panel ensures easy visibility under all circumstances with a retina level pixel densisty, unmatched brightness and an optically bonded lens for extreme glare suppression. The display layout is fully configurable to your individual specifications. The system will accomodate four GPS programmable data bus channels (2 CAN and 2 serial) in conjunction with a nearly senso and its integrated 3 Axis Accelerometer. Data limitless amount of discrete analog sensors collection can occur at up to 1 kHz and the internal memory allows for practically infinite recording time. User defininable warnings take advantage of super bright, multi-coloured LEDs placed around the perimeter of the chassis to aler t the driver to critical onscreen information. Quite simply, everything else suddenly seems a bit dated.

World Class Instrumentation stackltd.com