The Superbird Wing Was Not "Idiotically-Ineffective" or "Dumb"

"SteveLehto" (stevelehto) 05/18/2015 at 12:00 • Filed to: None

160

100

A recent article on car spoilers from Quora (“The best answer to any question”) was reposted on Oppositelock and its author called the Superbird wing “idiotically-ineffective” and “dumb” because he does not understand how it works. His answer was dumb.

I have never read anything before !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and he might very well be the best “subsea hydraulics engineer” alive. But he answers questions on Quora and does not limit himself to topics in which he is an expert. Someone asked how effective spoilers and wings are on street cars and he answered that they are really not all that effective. He explained the differences between wings and spoilers and noted that major strides have been made in automotive aerodynamics in the last few years - much of it in the field of racing.

He then wrote:

This is where people’s intuitive grasp of aerodynamics is wrong. Most folks think airflow exactly follows the surface contour. Even many auto-designers used to think that, until computational fluid dynamics and rigorous smoke-trace wind tunnel testing improved our understanding of airstream behavior. This is why so many older vehicles had idiotically-ineffective spoilers or wings. Like this dumb beauty:

The “dumb beauty” he points to is a 1970 Plymouth Superbird. His caption for the photo is sarcastic: “The Plymouth Superbird —because cars that look like rocket ships are awesome.”

But is the wing “idiotically-ineffective”? Was it based on flawed prehistoric thinking on the part of its designers? No.

I am currently finishing a book on the winged car project at Chrysler - covering both the Charger Daytona and the Plymouth Superbird. In my research on this subject (which I have been working on periodically for more than ten years) I have interviewed dozens of people who were involved in designing, testing, building, and racing the winged cars. A great number of them were engineers. Many had backgrounds in aerodynamics. Their “understanding of airstream behavior” was much greater than Carlyle gave them credit for.

Before 1969, Chrysler had a major problem in NASCAR. As their Hemi-powered cars pushed through the air faster they became unstable. The cars had gotten to the point where aerodynamics became just as important as horsepower.

Chrysler racing called in some engineers, including a few recent transplants from their missile division, and asked what they could do to make the cars go faster and handle better at higher speeds. At least two engineers suggested putting a nosecone on the front of the car (to solve problems with the flat grille and too much air getting under the cars) and a huge wing in the back to push the back end down and hold the car to the track at speeds necessary to win in NASCAR. The two engineers were working independently of each other when they pitched the solution. I interviewed one of them later.

Despite the obviously outlandish nature of the proposed features, Chrysler racing gave the go-ahead. Engineers and technicians mocked up nosecones and wings and tested them at the Chelsea Proving Grounds. When they found combinations and shapes they liked, they sent them out for wind tunnel testing at two facilities. At one they used scale models and at the other they used full-sized cars lowered in through the roof. After extensive testing, they developed the shapes that ended up being on the Charger Daytona which debuted at Talladega in the Fall of 1969. One of these cars had the fastest qualifying time NASCAR had seen to date; another won the race.

A winged car was the first to run a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! on a NASCAR track. Later, Bobby Isaac took a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and set more than two dozen land speed records for a stock-bodied car. All of those races and records were run with that “idiotically-ineffective” wing on the back. In 1970, Plymouth would add the aerodynamic treatments to a Road Runner, calling it the “Superbird.” That would be the car that Carlyle disparaged.

But was the wing functional? Or was it just a “dumb” appendage that Chrysler stuck on the back of the car because American car buyers are stupid and think cars that “look like rocket ships are awesome”?

Two engineers who worked on the program wrote a paper for the Society of Automotive Engineers and presented it to a packed house at Cobo Hall in Detroit in January, 1970. I admit, I am not an engineer. So I don’t know what some of this means.

But there are pages and pages of technical jargon about “incremental axial force coefficients,” “freestream dynamic pressure,” “reynolds number corrections,” and “boundary layer simulations.”

That big, “dumb” wing is described in the paper: “The horizontal stabilizer is an aerodynamic surface of 3 sq ft in area with a geometric aspect ratio of 7.75. The cross-sectional shape is an inverted Clark Y airfoil which is a highly efficient negative force generator within the 12 deg adjustment range provided.” ( Bold is mine.)

And all of the cool schematics you see here are from that SAE article. There are more - many more - along with charts and graphs that probably mean something to engineers. But I think it is safe to assume that the wing did something and it was not “idiotically-ineffective” or “dumb.” The wind tunnel testing predicted the effectiveness of the wing and the real-world results proved it. And that would be the same wind tunnel testing Carlyle touts as being partly responsible for the current field of knowledge in automotive aerodynamics. In fact, one of the paper’s authors, Gary Romberg, would later be granted US Patent #6588287, “Multiple stage system for aerodynamic testing of a vehicle on a static surface and related method.” That system is used in a wind tunnel.

The Charger Daytona first raced in the Fall of 1969 and was joined in 1970 by the Plymouth Superbird. By the end of that year, NASCAR outlawed the cars, more or less, and the winged car era was over in NASCAR. Carlyle might not like the way the car looks but don’t blame the stylists for that. Blame the engineers. They put that nosecone and “dumb” wing on for a reason: They helped the car go really fast and handle really well at high speeds. And that is not something to describe as “idiotically-ineffective.” To say otherwise is dumb.

Follow me on Twitter: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Hear my podcast on iTunes: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Steve Lehto has been practicing law for 23 years, almost exclusively in consumer protection and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! He wrote !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

This website may supply general information about the law but it is for informational purposes only. This does not create an attorney-client relationship and is not meant to constitute legal advice, so the good news is we’re not billing you by the hour for reading this. The bad news is that you shouldn’t act upon any of the information without consulting a qualified professional attorney who will, probably, bill you by the hour.

Top photo by author; all other illustrations and the wing quote are from The Aerodynamic Development of the Charger Daytona for Stock Car Competition , Society of Automotive Engineers, paper no. 700036, by R.P. Marcell and G.F. Romberg (1970).

For Sweden > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:05

5

You know I’ve been to Montana but have never seen this car.

SteveLehto > For Sweden 05/18/2015 at 12:06

2

Car was not in Montana when I took the pic. Have you ever seen a Superbird or a Daytona?

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:07

17

I roasted that remark in the comments when that post went up, and then got into a very long discussion, in which somebody managed to produce evidence that the stabilization of the fins was far more critical than the downforce. The wing was very capable of downforce, but apparently some other aspects of the setup - available power, traction, whatever else, meant that in practice the car was faster flat out without much downforce tuned in.

This of course still leaves the main premise true - that accusing the Mopar engineers of spitting wildly into the wind is wrong. They absolutely knew what they were doing theoretically, merely running into snags in practice. A little bit different mechanical setup or a series in which the ‘bird was doing more turns, and it would have rocked and rolled even better.

For Sweden > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:09

5

I have, just wondering if this particular example was evading taxes and emissions laws.

SteveLehto > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 05/18/2015 at 12:10

8

The primary goal was downforce. The added benefit from the uprights was real but was not why they were initially designed. There is a whole lot of legend around this topic - but I just HAD to respond to the one idiotic remark made in that article.

SteveLehto > For Sweden 05/18/2015 at 12:11

0

You never know . . . .

jjhats > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:12

1

CTRL+F “TRUNK “ - NO RESULTS

seriously dude you wrote all this up and didn’t mention once the widely accepted rumor that the wing is that size to open the trunk? have you ever opened the trunk on one? have you noticed a startling coincidence that the trunk opens perfectly within the massive wing? People call it dumb because they didn’t think to mount the wing on the trunk or use a spoiler style wing instead. All you proved is that the wing helps with aerodynamics. you didn’t prove it has to be as high as it is. this is idiotic American engineering circa 1970 in a nutshell.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:13

6

One of our local shows in western NC has had a Superbird present before. Here’s one of my brothers photographed with it.

SteveLehto > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 05/18/2015 at 12:14

8

I love these cars. It’s a toss up for me. The Daytonas to me have slightly better lines but the Superbirds came in all those wacky colors!

CalzoneGolem > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:14

275

Frankly I couldn’t care less if that wing does anything at all. It provides a modicum of up force in my pants.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:15

6

Here’s another shot of the same car, with a bonus partial Fiero.

Vin > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:15

18

Note to self: never spout automotive dumbshit on Quora, lest I get roasted by Steve.

(Or only post using the name “Chris Perkins.”)

nighttimeistherighttime > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:16

166

I wish that NASCAR still used actual stock cars that were for sale to the general public instead of the race cars that they use now.

SteveLehto > Vin 05/18/2015 at 12:16

16

Especially not leading into a weekend when I have time ti kill!

MTY19855 > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:16

1

Aerodynamics? What? Look where the spoiler is attached to the car. How the fuck would you get the trunk open if it was lower? The Superbird spoiler is a matter of practicality, not aerodynamics.

Fuel_of_Satan > For Sweden 05/18/2015 at 12:17

24

I’ve been to London but I never saw the Queen.

The-Ever-Socially-Apathetic TBAL > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:17

5

Clearly this idiot can’t grasp that the Superbird, and it’s Charger Daytona brethren, were designed for top speed in mind, hence the height of the wing.

Even someone who is as knowledgeable as a rock about NASCAR, such as myself, can figure this out by way of a quick glance. It’s obviously designed to increase downforce at high speed, which is why it’s so high up - because the pocket of air must be much larger (due to the speed) passing through.

Booger Davis > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:17

3

If mr smarty pants engineer had ever been in a winged car at speed, he’d have realized those Chrysler engineers had probably forgotten more about automotive design and performance than he now knows.

SteveLehto > MTY19855 05/18/2015 at 12:17

15

That didn’t take long.

I knew this topic would come up too. I will have a full length piece on it too (at a later date).

Hooneriphic > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:18

76

For Sweden > Fuel_of_Satan 05/18/2015 at 12:18

12

Well obviously, the correct Queen lives in Stockholm.

McMike > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:18

11

“Car was not in Montana when I took the pic.”

LOL, they’re never in Montana.

http://www.mtvehicles.com/Montana_Plates

Bullitt417 > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:18

4

I vaguely remember reading something about these cars that mentioned that part of the reason the wing was so tall, was so that you could open and close the trunk. It never doubted their actual functionality; just noted there were other factors in their design. I wish I remember what book it was out of. I believe its the same book that noted the reason Plymouth got the Superbird was because they were jealous of Dodge and made a lot of noise to the right people at corporate.

ICwater > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:18

1

of all my years on the intarwebz it seems people are the most sensitive about this car.

SteveLehto > The-Ever-Socially-Apathetic TBAL 05/18/2015 at 12:19

5

Yes, and it is an airfoil . . . . they put a lot of effort into its design.

Thanks for the note.

Vin > CalzoneGolem 05/18/2015 at 12:19

3

This made me laugh way harder than I expected.

SteveLehto > McMike 05/18/2015 at 12:19

0

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.

Fuel_of_Satan > For Sweden 05/18/2015 at 12:20

1

I’ve been there as well. Didn’t see that German Queen either.

Axel-Ripper > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:20

4

This is downforce. Negative coefficients of lift. Over -0.100 coefficient change from 0 degree angle to 10 degree angle. Thats pretty significant. Elegant? probably not as much as it could be, but damn thats significant.

SteveLehto > Bullitt417 05/18/2015 at 12:20

7

There are a lot of legends surrounding these cars. You have mentioned a couple there. I am going to give a detailed post on this (the height issue) later.

SteveLehto > ICwater 05/18/2015 at 12:21

4

It has a lot of legends around it. And the Tucker (another subject I am writing about).

Vin > nighttimeistherighttime 05/18/2015 at 12:21

4

Ditto. Exact same parts but either optimally-tuned or made as light as possible (titanium, composites, etc).

SteveLehto > Axel-Ripper 05/18/2015 at 12:21

3

Those were done in 1969. Nowadays they would have prettier illustrations.

nerd_racing > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:22

1

This article is great. I’ve always loved the winged cars. How much truth did you find about the wing height being directly related to the height required for the trunk to be opened?

OHFcar > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:22

3

Richard Petty has spoken about that wing quite a bit. Essentially, its benefit to the car wasn’t in creating downforce, but instead it was like two giant (fixed) rudders that stabilized, or even eliminated, the vehicle’s yaw (to borrow a nautical term). He side it made it almost impossible to get the car sideways, which was an enormous benefit relative to the competition.

motoguy1251 > nighttimeistherighttime 05/18/2015 at 12:23

5

I wish this as well. I would actually watch naSCar .

nerd_racing > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 05/18/2015 at 12:23

0

His wing isn’t adjusted properly. It should not be flush with the vertical sides.

SteveLehto > nerd_racing 05/18/2015 at 12:23

9

Zero. I don’t want to get into an argument about it here but I plan on doing a whole piece on it later. I interviewed the guys who came up with the initial design. I trust their versions over anything said by anyone later.

Zipppy, Mazdurp builder, Probeski owner and former ricerboy > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:24

9

I always loved this car, the wing was comically large, which made it so awesome in my mind, (I have 4 diecasts of it, including Richard Petty’s blue Superbird) my grandfather (a civil engineer) on the other hand always disliked it, and he owned a Charger from the same era.

SteveLehto > OHFcar 05/18/2015 at 12:24

5

There is some truth to that but the downforce was a huge advantage too. Petty only drove his in 1970. Other guys drove them in 1969 and 1971.

That Guy That Said That Thing > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:24

20

I remember my first moment, but that was years ago before college tore me a new one

CJinOB > For Sweden 05/18/2015 at 12:25

2

I don’t believe there is a single US state ridiculous enough to have emissions testing for 1970 automobiles. 1976; sure, but not 1970.

Axel-Ripper > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:25

3

I actually love the classic diagrams and graphs. As an engineer now there is no way in hell I could draw something that elegant by hand.

nmalinoski > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 05/18/2015 at 12:25

0

Why does the Superbird look massively long?

JarkBerts > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:27

1

Wow, a little defensive of your Chryslers, huh Steve?

I think the comment of being “idiotically-ineffective” is a bit of harsh wording, but I think what the original writer was getting at was that we have found much more effective ways of reducing lift and improving aero, especially on road worthy cars. The whole point the original author was making was how far we have come. For the time period, Chryslers were brilliant. Compared to what we know now, they are not.

It’s kind of like making fun of those brick Nokia cell phones everyone carried around in the early 2000’s. No one thinks that they were dumb for the time period, but in retrospect they look pretty silly.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:28

0

So the rumor is that the cutouts on the top of the fenders are also there for downforce. Did your research confirm that?

the 1969 Dodge Charger Guy > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:28

25

And don’t forget how the Daytona/Superbird’s uprights for those effective monster spoilers had to act as rudders to keep the cars pointed forward while barreling around the track at 200MPH.

Autojunkie > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:29

2

One of the most important key points that you forgot to include was why they were used on a short run of production cars. Obviously we’re well-versed in the homologation rules, but maybe not everyone reading this article is.

Additionally, since you’re researching this for a book, I was always curious if it was true that they could have actually gone with a shorter rear wing. The story I had heard was that since the car(s) had to meet homologation rules the engineering team realized that it had to be at that height for the production car trunk lids to fully open. Supposedly, based on the homologation rules, the same wing for racing had to be used for production, thus why is why they are actually as high as they are.

Lastly, I love shutting down those who just love to talk out of their ass as an “expert”. Thanks for posting this story.

nerd_racing > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:29

2

I look forward to finally having concrete first hand information on this. It’s been debated for so many years by people who really don’t have any facts, just guessing and pulling information out of places.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > For Sweden 05/18/2015 at 12:29

3

As far as I know there were no emissions laws for the MY1970.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > nerd_racing 05/18/2015 at 12:29

0

Good to know. It came in under its own power, but I *suspect* he doesn’t race it. Just a feeling. I also can’t discount a possibility it’s a replica, but there are enough of them around...

Methylsulfonylmethane > nighttimeistherighttime 05/18/2015 at 12:29

42

And that, my friend, is why Formula D is the new NASCAR. Formula D rules require the use of OEM unibodies that cannot be cut up or modified anywhere in-between the suspension pickup points. The cars must have full bodywork that closely resembles the factory version of the car upon which they are based. They use production car-based engines, tons of ‘off-the-shelf’ parts, and generally feature very little “unobtanium” in their construction. Formula D is, by far, the most ‘grassroots’ form of high-level motorsport currently going on in the USA.

LicensedToDill > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:29

0

I just tweeted at you, but I have to cover all of my bases to get an answer of when your book is coming out.

Bullitt417 > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:29

2

If I get a chance, I will dig around my reference books at home. If I find it, I’ll shoot you an email with the SKU. I am legitimately excited for your book; I’ve read about the development of these cars but I don’t think any included the degree of technical information your might. Good Luck.

SteveLehto > JarkBerts 05/18/2015 at 12:29

12

Did you read the quote I blocked? He clearly suggests that the guys who designed this car did not know what they were doing. All that wind tunnel testing he is yapping on about was initiated by these guys.

I am not defending me. I have nothing to do with this car (other than I am writing about it). I am defending the guys I interviewed (and their legacy).

I suspect the writer of the article did not understand what the winged cars were: NASCAR racers sold to the public so they could be raced as “stock.”

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > nmalinoski 05/18/2015 at 12:30

0

Because it’s low, captured at a funny angle, and Fieros are tiny.

jfa1177 > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:31

5

What the original article failed to mention was the Daytonas and Super Birds were designed as race cars first and road cars second; only really being sold on the street to meet NASCAR homoligation regs. The engineers who worked on this were brilliant rather than the blubbering idiots they were made out to be in the original Quora article.

SteveLehto > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 05/18/2015 at 12:31

4

They were air extractors which DID cut down on pressure build up under the car.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:31

3

You could also have roasted his comment about wings being less effective when mounted above the roof line. If that were true, racing organizations wouldn’t have rules that limit how far above (if allowed at all) the wing can be.

christianjamesmac > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:31

46

fawgcutter > The-Ever-Socially-Apathetic TBAL 05/18/2015 at 12:32

2

Moreover, it gets the wing out of the turbulence caused by the cockpit, or in this case the passenger compartment of the vehicle - enabling a smaller wing. Whereas the tiny wing on my Aveo is only effective for keeping my backlight clear.

SteveLehto > Autojunkie 05/18/2015 at 12:32

2

Yes, in 1969 they built 503 Daytonas (more or less) and in 1970, 1,920 or so Superbirds. Those were required to consider the car “stock.” The wing height thing is an old wive’s tale. I’ll address it later.

SteveLehto > LicensedToDill 05/18/2015 at 12:32

0

Early 2016.

oldirtybootz > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:33

28

One of the two I’ve actually seen in person.

nmalinoski > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 05/18/2015 at 12:33

0

How does it compare in length to, say, a Toyota Camry or Doug’s Hummer?

SteveLehto > Bullitt417 05/18/2015 at 12:33

8

I’ve seen it. But I spoke to the guys who first conceived of the wing. I’ll put their statements over anything written in a book about them.

SteveLehto > jfa1177 05/18/2015 at 12:33

3

YES, YES, YES.

Thanks you!

CobraJoe > MTY19855 05/18/2015 at 12:34

0

Funny thing: The race car had a lower wing than the street car simply to allow the car to open the trunk.

So, race version: Aerodynamics take priority. Street version: Practicality takes priority. Makes sense, the street version likely didn’t see 200mph as often.

SteveLehto > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 05/18/2015 at 12:34

1

I am not an expert on that so I decided to focus on the one thing I was sure of.

Thanks!

Kevin Camp Photo > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:34

0

Aerodynamic aids such as wings and gurney flaps on racecars have an obvious affect. A wing on a Porsche 911 has a an affect under certain circumstances, ie: high speed. Adding a wing to Honda Civic road car? Almost zero effect aerodynamically because they car simply is not going to be driven fast enough on a regular basis to exploit any aerodynamic gains. The wing on the Superbird road car? Not much real effect because 90% of the time its driven at street legal speeds where aerodynamic aids have very little affect. In fact, the body kit provided on the Superbird road car is not the same as the nose cone, front air dam and rear wing as used on the NASCAR version so its really apples and oranges. One is for racing, the other is for posing.

CalzoneGolem > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:34

2

For Sweden > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 05/18/2015 at 12:35

1

So just tax evasion?

Zoom > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:35

2

I Love You, Steve.

Because fellow Michigander.

And now, this. Nice work.

Someone please post Baker’s 200 mph run at Talledega for me. My mobile device is arguing with me.

velvet fog > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:35

16

Great article. Don’t much care for the look of the Superbird wing but then again, have seen way dumber things on cars or trucks. The spoiler on my older Accord is an example, and every time the trunk lid caps me on the head because of the extra weight I swear I’ll take the damned thing off. It’s on the list. Trust me. As far as Ryan Carliyle goes, when he claims to be a “sub-sea hydraulics engineer” what he probably means is that at the beach he goes into the water to pee.

CobraJoe > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:36

1

It might be legend, but I heard the street versions had a higher wing just to allow the trunk to be opened. Have you found this or any other differences in the aero design in your research?

wunderwagen wants a longer roof > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:36

1

Steve, your books are very quickly taking up bookshelf space in my house. When can we expect this one about the Daytona and Superbird? I'm extremely interested and love that you write about Mopars so well, getting ready to reread the turbine cars book.

SteveLehto > Kevin Camp Photo 05/18/2015 at 12:36

5

I wasn’t addressing the gist of his overall argument. I am merely pointing out that what he said about this particular wing was wrong.

LicensedToDill > nighttimeistherighttime 05/18/2015 at 12:36

4

Do you ever watch Trans-Am Series Racing? The TA2 Series features great racing and the closest thing to stock cars that are out there. Cameron Lawrence has been on a hot streak lately in his SRT Challenger.

SteveLehto > Zoom 05/18/2015 at 12:36

1

And I you.

I had a link to the run in the piece.

http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/45-years-ago-t…

John > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:37

2

Great article Steve - I have the book “Supercars” by Frank Moriarity from the 90’s on these machines - it looks like yours is going to have a lot more details, including some interviews with those who designed them.

I brought that book to Dover International Speedway once, and had Buddy Baker sign the photo of him with the “200MPH” chalkboard. Awesome guy.

dataPOG > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:37

0

The trunk had a stop so you wouldn’t pinch your hands didn’t it?

GregGuy > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:37

0

I was always anectdotally told that for homologation / stock car purposes the street cars had to have the wing. The reason it’s so tall? So you could open the trunk.

SteveLehto > CobraJoe 05/18/2015 at 12:38

14

It is a legend. I spoke to the guys who came up with the design. They laughed at that.

You have to remember that Chrysler would often even tell little fables about the cars to keep NASCAR off their backs. The scoops over the fenders are another: They told people for years they were for tire clearance. They were air extractors which had tested well in wind tunnels.

the_grouch > Autojunkie 05/18/2015 at 12:38

2

I think they would have modified how the wing attached to the car to allow trunk opening (or sold the car with a non-opening trunk) if that was the case.

And the other famous big-wing car from the 60s also had the wing several feet over the car. I would guess it was to keep the wing within laminar flow, away from turbulence generated by the car. But I’m no aerodynamics expert, so I’m probably wrong.

phydeaux > CalzoneGolem 05/18/2015 at 12:38

4

And that is all the lift you need.

Pickup_man > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:38

5

I’m so excited for your book.

SteveLehto > John 05/18/2015 at 12:39

2

That is a good book too. I’ve met Baker; a hell of a nice guy.

SteveLehto > dataPOG 05/18/2015 at 12:39

1

Not that I’m aware of.

Kevin Camp Photo > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:39

1

Point taken. But you know the readers all think that Pep Boys wing they installed backwards on the rear deck of the clapped out Civic really makes them faster. ;)

SolamenteDave > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 05/18/2015 at 12:40

1

Are they dragoning the Superbird?

SteveLehto > GregGuy 05/18/2015 at 12:40

4

Old wives’ tale.

As for homologation, yes it had to have the wing and the nosecone.

E92AP1991.2JK > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:40

8

Wasn’t the wing effective at any height? I thought the purpose of the uprights being so high was so the trunk could be opened

Brian, The Life of > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:40

8

I see your Super Bird and raise you an Uber Bird!

Flashback Friday is a bit early this week ;)

phydeaux > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:41

0

I have heard, and I don’t remember where now, that the wing was that tall partially because of the requirement that the read deck lid still be functional. Plus, it would see to get that wing up into the clean air above the vehicle, where it would be more effective, than down on that same rear deck lid, where the air flow would be more turbulent.

SteveLehto > Kevin Camp Photo 05/18/2015 at 12:41

4

99% of that stuff is for appearance. Heck, much of what people do to their cars (like make them LOUDER) is for appearances.

picoFarad > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:41

4

Pwned, as they say.

SteveLehto > E92AP1991.2JK 05/18/2015 at 12:42

11

No, the wing needed to be in the clean air. It may or may not have been effective a tad lower but the first drawing ever done of the proposed wing put it up there. The guy who drew it said he put it there to assure it was in clean air at speed. And he was a former rocket scientist.

FullSpectrumPotato > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:42

7

The first time I saw one my father taught me about the NASCAR year and the spoiler effectiveness. Why an actual engineer thought it was useless is confounding. It was a car so cool it made NASCAR fun for an entire year until they ruined the entire sport.

Kevin Camp Photo > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:42

5

And to your point, it is an endemic problem through out the industry in engineering, that the old ways were stupid and unless you did it all with a computer you were either lucky or just stupidly wrong. I have worked in manufacturing engineering for going on 30 years now. We used to design some pretty cool stuff that is still working like a champ on paper with pencils before we had CAD software and 3D modeling.

CobraJoe > SteveLehto 05/18/2015 at 12:43

1

That’s good to know, I’ll stop repeating that then.