My take on the fastest r/c

[promodvette]

Here is what i think-

1.) It should be done at a dragstrip not a round track. When is the last time you saw a car at bonneville make turns? Dragstrips are FLAT roundtracks arent. At a dragstrip you can have almost a 1/2 mile of un disturebed area that has no radio interference. I mean real dragcars can go 330+ on them and stop fine so why wouldnt an r/c?

2.) Personally I would rather have the lightest car possible not heavy. I mean ive only been racing for 15 or so years and what would i know? You use downforce as weight. Ya know those big wings on the back of top fuel dragcars? They put down about 10,000lbs of df and a 2100lb car.

3.) Its going to be in cali for 2005 so 2006 should be east coast and then 2007 be in the middle. Dont make it be cali every year. Many people would love to go but either financially, or because of their job or schooling etc cant make that trip from say georgia in my case across the us to cali. In 2006 make it be at Bristol motor speedway on the dragstrip...now that would be some fast times. Be in febuary where its pretty cool...that would make for some huge speeds from the nitro cars and even the electric cars.

4.) I found a flaw in the rules...it says 24 inches max then it says something about rails...ok a real top fuel 330mph dragster is a 300 inch wheelbase. Why cant this rc thing go for scale issue and make 30 inch wheelbase instead of 24 total length? That knocks out that king hauler with 100 cells in the trailer.

[Spoon37]

24 inches max makes it interesting. :)

I know of monster trucks that have used a 24" wheelbase, not to mention the large scales that it kinda rules out altogether.

fact is they have to draw the line somewhere - a limit must be imposed to make the competition fair, I beleive this is based on the idea of using cars/trucks of around 1/10th scale so with 24" length max, most cars and MT's will work and most 1:8th cars will work too. but drag rails wont be much of a challenge to make fast(er?) so it may be a deliberate cut off point.

;)

[Fastcar]

3.) Its going to be in cali for 2005 so 2006 should be east coast and then 2007 be in the middle. Dont make it be cali every year.

Very true... most guys don't want to go all the way from the east coast to cali.... I'm on the east coast... and as my name says, I have a "fastcar" but theres no way I'll be able to go to cali... sure thats true for many east coast guys....

I say have them all in one year.... Cali like in March or so, Middle in like July, and east coast in sept, oct....

[Craps]

You guys can make this run anywhere at anytime you choose to do so.

If I am going to do this, I am first going to bust the record on my own turf this year before I would or if I make the trip to California that would not be necessary if I held the record using better and more controllable conditions that I would get to choose and control.

It would still be fun to do this in a group related competitive environment.

[promodvette]

See 30 inches is scale for a rail...maybe they could reconsider in teh next few years...if it looks 1/10 scale it would be fine but no big scale cars dragracing is my thing and i know how to build a bad ass dragcar (real not rc) and im almost positive put my knowledge in a 1/10th scale dragster with some big power and it would run extremely fast.

[Soupisgoodfood]

If you want a scale looking topfuel, just make it 1/12 scale.

Also, I think you are wrong about the weight/downforce. If you go to the salt lakes, you don't see many vehicals that look like drag cars. Top speed, not acceleration is they key here. Big downforce-generating wings will slow you way down. You just want enough downforce to stop the thing skating about. I'm pretty sure you could get all the downforce you need simply by working with the underside of the chassis.

[PeterV]

We'll announce it soon officially (maybe tomorrow), but the overall length rule is going to be changed. The new length will accomodate 1/5 scale cars.

[DualBL]

WEEE!!!
thank you peter!
-Nick

[promodvette]

If you want a scale looking topfuel, just make it 1/12 scale.

Also, I think you are wrong about the weight/downforce. If you go to the salt lakes, you don't see many vehicals that look like drag cars. Top speed, not acceleration is they key here. Big downforce-generating wings will slow you way down. You just want enough downforce to stop the thing skating about. I'm pretty sure you could get all the downforce you need simply by working with the underside of the chassis.

haha alright ya think im wrong about the dowforce...so at 335 mph a 2100lbs car would not skate around without those big wings? trust me ive seen the wings come off and the car crashes every time. Yes downforce will slow a car down to a certain point but if you are running assloads of power it will not slow you down at all. In the top fuel car case they have est. 8000hp and it doesnt slow them down but a salt flat car has probably 2000 hp but geared crazy thats why they can stay planted down. And you can ask anyone that has drivin a salt flat car...they do not just go..they are all over the place too.

[Oldway]

Anyone can go fast in a straightline (maybe not) but the true test of a vehicle is can it also be controlled (thus fasted radio CONTROLLED). I have have only been doing rc cars for 31 years and have yet to see a full scale race car driver, builder walk in and win anything. I think breaking the record where it was originally set is the only way to really break it!

[promodvette]

Has anyone tried to do that? I havent heard of it. Im not only a real racer but a engineer as well. Ive got many years in the motorsports industry and know areodynamics and downforce in a straight line. The thing in cali is stupid period. Yeah they are radio controlled cars and its a speed test. You do speed in a straight line not around a round track. Thats why it needs to be on a dragstrip. They are flat, got rubber on them thus creating a good amount of traction for the high hp cars and are extremely long and safe.

[Oldway]

A number of engineers and full scale drivers have had success in RC, they just didn't walk in and dominate, there is a learning curve.
Historically the fastest rc car was crowned at the "Thunderdrome" Insane Speed Run at the Encino Velodrome and later at Domingus Hills Velodrome they were considered "closed coarse" records and were sanctioned by NORRCA. BTW don't try to tell an RC racer he is not a REAL racer :)

[Soupisgoodfood]

haha alright ya think im wrong about the dowforce...so at 335 mph a 2100lbs car would not skate around without those big wings? trust me ive seen the wings come off and the car crashes every time. Yes downforce will slow a car down to a certain point but if you are running assloads of power it will not slow you down at all. In the top fuel car case they have est. 8000hp and it doesnt slow them down but a salt flat car has probably 2000 hp but geared crazy thats why they can stay planted down. And you can ask anyone that has drivin a salt flat car...they do not just go..they are all over the place too.

To a point? I think you are underestimating the amount of downforce generated at high speeds. The amount of power needed to counter the drag increases expodentaily. The faster you go, the bigger that point is going to get.

If what you say is the case, then how come we don't see many topfuels at the salt lakes setting speed records? My guess is that drag generated by the huge wings would start to have a noticable effect, or the engine would blow before the minute was up. :p

[ggfx-mikey]

welll because there made only for 1:4 of a mile, and there actually limited on there gearing and engine displacement and other steps which prevent them from getting too fast.

[Oldway]

There are some dragster style cars at the salt flats, but they have shed there huge wings for a more appropriate size. Also aerodynamics work differently as the size is reduced the smaller models do not react the same as larger models do otherwise aviation and car companies would have laptop wind tunnels. If I'am not mistaken I think they use at least close to 1/4 scale in the aviation industry.

[promodvette]

I topfuel dragster wing is designed to put down as much downforce possible without sacrificing speed. Same works on the salt flat cars. A dragcar uses very soft tires and hardly any air at all. The saltflat cars use extremely hard tires. With the soft tires you have to have much more downforce. Hard tires need alot of downforce also but to a certain extent. The saltflat cars also put down monster amounts of df alot more than a dragster. You should look at some top fuel dragsters and the deformation of the rear tires and then look at a salt flat car at speeds and see the difference.

[Chris LaPanse]

Huh :confused: :confused:

A salt flat car has LESS downforce, not more. Also, a soft tire needs less downforce to grip, wheras a hard one needs more. A TF dragster puts down 5000 lbs of DF at speed, but this is for acceleration. If it was a top speed car, they would want only enough DF to stay on the ground, because downforce adds drag. The only way to get downforce is to divert some air, and this, by nature, causes drag. Finally, if you look at saltflat cars, it becomes immediately obvious that they are not built for downforce, but for aerodynamics.

[Soupisgoodfood]

welll because there made only for 1:4 of a mile, and there actually limited on there gearing and engine displacement and other steps which prevent them from getting too fast.
The engine is a still a limiting factor. They are designed to run only for a few seconds, that is the only way they can get that much power out of an engine. Sure you could tune it to last longer, at the expence of power, but that defeats the whole point of using a topfuel engine in the first place ;)


I topfuel dragster wing is designed to put down as much downforce possible without sacrificing speed.
Physically impossable! :) Any increase in downforce is always going to mean less speed. There is no way around it, it's always a case of making a compramise between speed and downforce.

[Craps]

OK Aeronautical Engineers, here is a place you can find out you're theories for the low cost of $1250 per hour: http://www.aerodynwindtunnel.com

This facility is right beside Penske South Racing in Mooresville, NC.

[KMac]

Physically impossable! :) Any increase in downforce is always going to mean less speed. There is no way around it, it's always a case of making a compramise between speed and downforce.

Don't let oversimplification fool you. The point of the Top Fueler wing is to create the downforce NOT to keep the car on the ground but to keep the tires from spinning. If it was to keep the car on the ground it wouldn't be at the back of the car it would be somewhere in the middle.

If the tires are spinning you can increase downforce AND make the car go faster by having the tires maintain traction.

You can't simply apply theory to one aspect of an entire vehicle and assume from there.

[Soupisgoodfood]

Downforce is downforce wether you're using it to stop a car taking off, or getting more traction to accelerate faster, they are essentially the same thing. It's not an oversimplification. It's the law of physics.

You can use downforce in different ways and for different purposes, but the fact still remains, the more downforce you need, the more drag you are going to generate, the less speed you will have compared to if you had less drag, all other things being equal.
I never said that your over-all speed within a certain time range will be slower, as I said before, it's a compromise, as it is with everything else in motor racing.

If you don't believe me, please go to any professional racing team or your local uni physics department.

I'm still not sure I understand the whole point of this agrument. Are there some people here who think that because a topfuel dragster can reach over 300mph in under 5 seconds, that it will get up to 1000mph after 20 seconds? Not a chance.

[KMac]

Downforce is downforce wether you're using it to stop a car taking off, or getting more traction to accelerate faster, they are essentially the same thing. It's not an oversimplification. It's the law of physics.

You can use downforce in different ways and for different purposes, but the fact still remains, the more downforce you need, the more drag you are going to generate, the less speed you will have compared to if you had less drag, all other things being equal.
I never said that your over-all speed within a certain time range will be slower, as I said before, it's a compromise, as it is with everything else in motor racing.

If you don't believe me, please go to any professional racing team or your local uni physics department.

I'm still not sure I understand the whole point of this agrument. Are there some people here who think that because a topfuel dragster can reach over 300mph in under 5 seconds, that it will get up to 1000mph after 20 seconds? Not a chance.

Maybe you should spend a little time at your local uni physics department. I assure you I can create MORE downforce by utilizing a higher L/D airfoil and NOT increase drag AND increase speed.

Furthermore, when I read the computer data from a top fuel run and see I have tire spin the entire run I can most certainly increase downforce, which will increase drag. (Assume I leave the clutch as-is) BUT, the resultant increase in speed due to the traction increase will be greater than the speed loss due to drag; the net effect being overall increased speed.

That said, a top fuel wing is NOT what you want on a long duration high speed vehicle. In this instance you would want the combination of the body and any wings to produce the highest L/D possible to eliminate every last ounce of drag you can and still have enough downforce to keep the tires gripping the road AND maintain enough lateral and longitudinal stability to keep the car under control. It's that simple.

[Oldway]

Enough about downforce what about Upforce? When ever I ran my insane car, anytime I had the slightest bounce over 70mph the car would blow over. I saw Cliffs car do a 360 in mid air between turns 1 & 2 at Domingus and keep going without missing a beat! Later I believe he put holes in the top of the body to release compacted air.

[noahrc]

lol - i knew this "fastest RC car" thing would turn into a wizzing contest. quite frankly, i could care less. my 2 cents.

[Oldway]

I know, this is GREAT!!!

[recarcixelsyd]

You guys can bicker all you want. I am going to start building my car and I will either win or tear my car apart doing so.

[Soupisgoodfood]

Furthermore, when I read the computer data from a top fuel run and see I have tire spin the entire run I can most certainly increase downforce, which will increase drag. (Assume I leave the clutch as-is) BUT, the resultant increase in speed due to the traction increase will be greater than the speed loss due to drag; the net effect being overall increased speed.
What you have done is increased speed within a certain time range. But have decreased the absolute top speed the dragster is capable of (ignoring the fact that engine wouldn't be capable of any longer runtime).

If you're talking about increasing speed for a drag race, the I agree with you, but I though the whole point was how well a draster would do at a land speed run.

[cretin]

oldway's comment about cliff's car reminds me of a story about smokey yunik. he was testing a vette in the 50s, and the car "hit a wall" at 120 or so. they knew the car had more in it, but it would not go faster. smokey pulled the hood off (releasing air pressure), and the car went like 140.

[Chris LaPanse]

Don't let oversimplification fool you. The point of the Top Fueler wing is to create the downforce NOT to keep the car on the ground but to keep the tires from spinning. If it was to keep the car on the ground it wouldn't be at the back of the car it would be somewhere in the middle.

If the tires are spinning you can increase downforce AND make the car go faster by having the tires maintain traction.

You can't simply apply theory to one aspect of an entire vehicle and assume from there.
The wings actually help do both-traction and to keep it on the ground. The rear wing is for traction, and the front one is to keep it on the ground.
http://www.nhra.com/2002/special/bernstein/photos/photo12-big.jpg

[Mike Keeney]

A lot can be learned from the picture above. Notice the rear wing. It's much higher than the body of the car. This is so the rear wing operates in clean air. If the wing were closer to the body or engine it would be affected by the turbulent air created by the tires & engine. Regarding the drag vs downforce discussion, the puropse of any wing is to create downforce to help improve traction. The principal works the same on a fuelie as it does for the F1. The trick is to position the wing so it provides just enough downforce to keep the vehicle on the road, while creating the least amount of drag possible. If all a wing did was maximize downforce they wouldn't need to be shaped like an (upside down) airplane wing. You could put a board on the back of the car at a slight angle and you would get all the downforce you could ever want. The faster you go the more downforce you would get. Raw horsepower can overcome excessive drag, but applying a little aerodynamics can improve traction and speed much more than it can hurt. Sort of the best of both worlds.

Cheers,
Mike

[promodvette]

everyone of you can assume that the top fuel style car isnt the way to go. If that insane speed run is ever out east i will prove everyone wrong. Funnycars dont have front wings yet still run 330+ mph but have huge rear wings styled after f1 type cars. If everyone is saying... im gonna use the biggest motor possible and the most batteries ever then you will need styling like a funnycar or top fuel car. If you were using a stock motor with a 6 cell pack you would want no downforce at all. It all depends how the car is gonna be built. I guess the majority of you dont "live" at the dragstrip and know how those cars work. Ive seen it all and saw what does work and what doesnt work. Ive talked to many areodynamic engineers about this sort of thing over the years and if they were going to build a wheel drivin car to run some type of insane speed run it would be a mock up of a top fuel car.

[Grant Tokumi]

You guys can bicker all you want. I am going to start building my car and I will either win or tear my car apart doing so.
I hear ya. Good luck to you.

[racerrandy]

Sorry if I have the # wrong but I am thinking "Swamp Rat 31"

[promodvette]

lol....you saw my drawings eh? my car for this contest is exactly like that just a couple more things to make it a little better and the wing is lower

[racerrandy]

I didn't seee your drawings, but any time I think of a aero type type fueler, Big Daddy comes to mind.
I hope it turns out well.
Randy

[Mike Keeney]

I didn't seee your drawings, but any time I think of a aero type type fueler, Big Daddy comes to mind.
I hope it turns out well.
Randy

I think Don was first to use the little tires in the front, but wasn't he also the first to field a rear engine dragster. Joe Amato (sp?) was the first with the rear wing.

Mike

[promodvette]

yes garlits was first with rear engine but also first on the big rear wing...amato was the one who did the setback on it

[Spoon37]

bicker all you want - I just wanna clarify 1 point, high speed cars such as those doing speed runs at bonneville produce minimal downforce, not because they dont need it, but simply that at very very high speed they gain immense downforce from fairly minimal aerodynamic aids.

oh and upforce does matter a great deal too - ever seen a top fuel rail slow down slightly during a run(from say and engine failure of some sort) and flip over backwards? now theres a lovely trick of aerodynamics......:p

;)

[promodvette]

spoon, no i havent seen that happen at all!! The only time top fuel cars go over is when the front wheels go up and the driver doesnt lift soon enough!

[Mike Keeney]

spoon, no i havent seen that happen at all!! The only time top fuel cars go over is when the front wheels go up and the driver doesnt lift soon enough!
I second the motion.

[MAXXKILLER]

The only way I see a T/F flipping is when the front spoiler acts like a wing instead of a spoiler and that requires the front wheels to be fairly high in the air.