aerodynamic body design, thoughts? advantages? Experience?

[Dragsinger]

Racers,

I am interested in your experience and thoughts. maybe someone has taken less aero package and put the same power train in a more aero package.

The set up;

in this example, consider what we might refer to as a "shoe box" [many of the 60's body designs qualify as non-aero packages, flat front, more upright windshield, taller roof line, etc]

then consider a more aero style, smaller frontal area, more laid back windshield, lower roof profile, maybe a factory rear aero rear device.

Maybe someone has taken a 1965 Chevelle [shoe box] and put that same power train in a 1990 Firebird [aero package]

What about the "aero advantage?" For the power, speeds, performance of 9 second, 10 second super stockers/ stockers, does it matter? It is true we many have examples of many races won with less aero packages? OR, is the aero advantage truly an advantage and changing to the newer body styles a valid idea?

[Mike Carr]

I'm sure the more aerodynamic cars are quicker/faster. How much so? That is a question for someone smarter than I.

You can win, certainly, with an older car. Dan Fletcher has won forty-plus of his eighty-nine wins in a S/S '69 Camaro, with small and big block motors as well as a Modified type car (SS/AS, SS?BM etc). He also has many wins in a big block (A-F, depending on motor) Stocker '69 Camaro. His son just won in it today at Seattle. Kevin Helms won three straight Stock world Championships (as well as several Indy titles) in a big block 4 speed A/S '69 Camaro. So, yes, you CAN win with an older car. And, yes, most certainly a newer, more aero-friendly car will be quicker (hence why you see so many Cobalts, Cavaliers, and other jellybean cars in SS/GT and S/S Mod classes).

[SSDiv6]

Originally Posted by Dragsinger

Racers,

I am interested in your experience and thoughts. maybe someone has taken less aero package and put the same power train in a more aero package.

The set up;

in this example, consider what we might refer to as a "shoe box" [many of the 60's body designs qualify as non-aero packages, flat front, more upright windshield, taller roof line, etc]

then consider a more aero style, smaller frontal area, more laid back windshield, lower roof profile, maybe a factory rear aero rear device.

Maybe someone has taken a 1965 Chevelle [shoe box] and put that same power train in a 1990 Firebird [aero package]

What about the "aero advantage?" For the power, speeds, performance of 9 second, 10 second super stockers/ stockers, does it matter? It is true we many have examples of many races won with less aero packages? OR, is the aero advantage truly an advantage and changing to the newer body styles a valid idea?

For Stock and Super Stock classes, aerodynamics do have an effect, especially in a heads-up race when an older car races a modern car like a FWD conversion car.

The OEM's started to put more emphasis on aerodynamics starting in the early 1970's and it has been a big area of innovation since the gas crunch started and the means to increase mileage in cars by the reduction of drag.

Since the subject was brought up as regards to the early Camaro's, they are aerodynamically very efficient especially when you have the proper rake as we do in drag racing. On road racing events, the use of both factory spoilers helps handling and driving at any speeds that would exceed 65 MPH.

[Jim Kaekel]

Dialing can certainly be a challenge in windy conditions as well with older cars. The larger the car, the more it slows down (headwind) or speeds-up (tailwind).