Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2002-01-3312

Lateral Aerodynamics of a Generic

Sprint Car Configuration
Magnus O. Johansson and Joseph Katz
Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, SDSU

Reprinted From: Proceedings of the 2002 SAE Motorsports

Engineering Conference and Exhibition
(P-382)

Motorsports Engineering
Conference & Exhibition
Indianapolis, Indiana
December 2-5, 2002

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax: 724-772-4028
Tel: 724-772-4891

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-1615
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2002 SAE International

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017
Lateral Aerodynamics of a Generic Sprint Car Configuration
Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, SDSU
Copyright © 2002 SAE International
ABSTRACT
The aerodynamic characteristics of a sprint car model
were tested in a small-scale wind tunnel. Lateral
characteristics such as the side force and rolling
moment were measured in addition to the vehicle’s
downforce and drag. Measured data indicated that
during the rapid cornering of these race cars, lateral
loads are as important as downforce. Since literature
search revealed no aerodynamic data on such
asymmetric vehicles, a typical baseline sprint car model
was tested first with particular focus on large sideslip
conditions. Modified wing and side fin geometries were
also tested for improved visibility and in search for
additional downforce. The experimental data indicate, for
example, that a reduced endplate size of the main wing
can improve driver visibility without significant loss of
aerodynamic downforce.
INTRODUCTION
Sprit car racing is quite different from other forms of
motor-sport, mainly due to the large sideslip conditions
on the short unpaved oval tracks. It appears that
aerodynamic devices such as large wings serve not only
to create downforce but also improve vehicle roll stability
and cornering performance. Typical racetracks are 1/4 to
1/2 mile long clay ovals with average speeds reaching
100 mph. Since races are run counterclockwise, an
asymmetric vehicle shape evolved both in terms of
chassis (e. g., different wheels) and aerodynamic
devices. A generic sketch of a typical ‘winged’ sprint car
is shown in Fig. 1 and, clearly, the left and right side fins
(on the main wing) are entirely different. Literature
survey showed no published aerodynamic data on such
asymmetric race cars. The first objective of the present
study, therefore, is to document the basic aerodynamic
characteristics of such vehicles. Also, most race car
aerodynamic testing (e.g., Ref. 1) is focused on the zero
side slip condition, and large side-slip data for
asymmetric vehicles appears to be documented here
first.
2002-01-3312
Magnus O. Johansson and Joseph Katz
THE WIND TUNNEL SETUP
The 1/5-scale wind tunnel model, as mounted in the
wind tunnel is depicted in Fig. 2. The model was held
above the ground plane by a (shielded) central strut
which also controlled vehicle side slip angle. In principle,
the wheels and the model were not in contact with the
ground plane and wheel to ground clearance was kept at
a minimum (of less than 0.04 inch). The small gap
between the wheels and the ground plane was sealed
by light foam, which had negligible effect on the
measured aerodynamic loads. Due to the large ground
clearance of Sprint cars (compared to Indy or F1 cars) a
moving ground simulation is less important for this initial
study (see also data in Ref. 2). Measured boundary
layer displacement thickness under the car was on the
order 0.1 inch while model ground clearance was 0.95
inch (so moving ground simulation is not essential). Test
section height is 32 inches and width is 45 inches, and
test speed was 100 mph yielding a Reynolds number of
0.9 x 106, based on main wing chord (12 inches). Frontal
area blockage at zero sideslip was 10% which is quite
large but studies with even larger blockage yielded
acceptable results (Ref. 3, 4). Applying blockage
corrections (as in Ref. 5) would reduce the aerodynamic
loads by about 5%, but the data presented here is
without applying any blockage correction. Accuracy of
the six-component balance was about ±0.010 for Cz,
±0.006 for Cx and Cy, and ±0.002 for the moments Cm
and Cr.
Top wing angle of attack range was between αT = 10 to
28 deg, and front wing angle of attack range was α •=19
to 37 deg (positive angle is nose down). The front
wheels could be turned (left/right) within a range of ±15
deg and vehicle yaw angle range was ±20 deg with
positive β defined as ‘wind coming from the right’. The
wheels did not rotate (e.g., spin) during the test and
some effects of wheel rotation are presented in Ref. 6
and 7. A frontal reference area of 155.7 in2 (with the
main wing at αT = 18 deg) and reference length
(wheelbase) of 17.5 in was used for the aerodynamic
coefficients. The pitching moment reference center was
at ground levels and at 60% backward, between the
front/rear wheels. An ‘airplane coordinate system’ shown
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017
in Fig. 1 was used, where the x coordinate points
forward, y to the right and z down, respectively.
Moments definition followed the ‘right hand rule’, e.g.,
positive pitching moment is nose up and positive roll
moment is roll to the right.
RESULTS
Aerodynamic downforce and drag, for a wide range of
side slip angles is presented in Fig. 3. Since the vehicle
always turns to the left (with a positive sideslip) the main
wing is asymmetric (Fig. 1), resulting in the strong
asymmetry in aerodynamics. Downforce (Cz), for
example, increases with increasing β due to the
improved flow on the large upper wing. Also, the large
upper wing is the main contributor to the total downforce,
which in this case is much less than the total downforce
of race cars that use ground effect (Ref, 1, and 8). The
drag force (Cx), contrary to the downforce is not
monotonic. For the negative sideslip condition the large
side fin blocks the flow, reducing downforce and
increasing drag (so the side fin flow-separation reverses
the expected trend of less downforce corresponds to
less drag). In case of positive sideslip angles the drag
force grows with downforce as expected (e.g.,
resembling the classical induced drag models – for the
wrong reasons of course). The Downforce to drag ratio
(L/D) which sometimes called ‘efficiency’ is plotted in
Fig. 4 and it peaks near β = 11 deg, indicating the
desirable sideslip range (from the aerodynamic point of
view). The side force coefficient (Cy) versus side slip
angle is also presented in Fig. 4, displaying an almost
linear dependency on β. From the vehicle performance
point of view this is a favorable effect since the vehicle,
in general, experiences positive yaw conditions and the
resulting side force acts into the turn. Based on the
rolling moment data (not presented here) the side force
acts at about 7 inches above the ground and this
contributes to reduce rollover tendencies. Similarly,
pitching moments (not presented here) indicate that the
center of pressure is between the front and rear wheels
and its position is easily controlled by moving the top
wing (fore/aft). More information on the moment
coefficient can be found in Ref. 9. Because of the
asymmetric geometry, the side force becomes positive
at about β = - 3.5 deg (and not at β =0) and then
increases almost linearly with increasing right-yaw
angle. Negative sideslip in a left turn is not planned for
these vehicles, but when encountered the aerodynamic
loads (in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) contribute to vehicle roll over
(to the right).
The downforce on this type of racecars (without ground
effect treatment) is generated mainly by the upper wing.
The primary variable influencing vehicle total downforce
is, therefore, the main wing incidence which effect is
depicted in the following two figures. For example, the
downforce coefficient, for three sideslip conditions, is
shown in Fig. 5. Due to the asymmetry, more downforce
is generated at larger sideslip conditions (see also Fig.
3) but more importantly the lift slope is almost unaffected
and no signs of wing stall appear on this diagram. This
feature of delayed stall for small aspect ratio wings
(AR=1 in this case) was documented before in Ref. 10.
The drag coefficient in Fig. 5 follows similar trends, that
is, increasing with wing angle αT but with a slope smaller
than the slope of the downforce. It is expected therefore
that L/D will increase with top wing angle of attack αT, as
depicted by Fig. 6. The effect of sideslip seems to
initially increase L/D (see Fig. 4) before this trend
reverses. For this particular front wing setting the
inversion point is near αT = 18o. The absolute side force
coefficient in Fig. 6 increases with increasing downforce;
an effect created by the large asymmetric side fins. Note
that negative side force corresponds to force to the left
(Fig. 1) as a result of wind from the right (e.g., positive
β). Also, due to this asymmetry, a significant side force
is measured even at zero sideslip condition. The
magnitude of the side force grows more (compared to
Cx or Cz) with increased sideslip, and as noted, acts
favorably to push the vehicle into the turn.
The front wing in other form of open-wheel racecars
actually controls the fore/aft aerodynamic balance of the
vehicle (Ref 1). In this case the front wing (which span is
36 inches and its chord is 24 inches, in full-scale, and
specified by regulations) is relatively small and its close
proximity to the bodywork is quite unfavorable. Vehicle’s
pitching-moment control, therefore, is achieved by
fore/aft shift of the upper wing. Because of the small size
and effect of the front wing, compared to the main wing,
only the incremental downforce and drag is presented in
Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 (and not the total values). Also note
that the condition at αF = 19 deg is used as the reference
point for this incremental data (and of course the total
downforce and drag at this condition are not zero). Front
wing angle of attack is measured relative to a horizontal
line (hence the large values). However, the flow towards
this wing is being diverted upward by the bodywork and
the actual incidence relative to the incoming flow is
much smaller. The downforce increments seem to grow
with increased sideslip, perhaps because of the larger
flow under the wing, which is otherwise (at β=0) blocked
by the body. Because of the smaller forces the curves
are not smooth (a separate wing balance could be
helpful) but stall appears to take place near the αF = 29
deg condition, independent of sideslip. Also this data
(Fig 7 and Fig. 8) represent the increment of total vehicle
coefficient and the aerodynamic interaction between the
front wing and the vehicle other components is probably
not quite simple. This effect is more pronounced in the
incremental drag data in Fig. 8. Here the incremental
drag force increases with angle of attack but drops after
suspected wing stall at αF = 29 deg. Also the shape of
the curves is far from the ‘ideal’ drag polar, suggesting a
more complex aerodynamic interaction.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017
The previous data indicate that the top wing dominates
the aerodynamic characteristics of this vehicle. The
effect of the front wheels steering angle is clearly of
second order, but documenting its magnitude (in the
absence of such data) is still important. Fig. 9 and Fig.
10 document this information for the case of the front
wheels being turned left and right (by ±14 deg). It
appears that when the front wheels are aligned with the
free stream, resulting in less frontal exposure, the drag
is lower. For example (in Fig. 9), when the vehicles
oversteers into a left turn (positive β), and the front
wheels are steered to the right to correct the oversteer,
the drag is lower than in the other condition but the
downforce is lower somewhat too (perhaps due to front
wheel - front wing interaction). When turning the wheels
into the turn (left), then downforce increases somewhat
while drag rises close to the level of the case with zero
steering angle. The L/D ratio presented in Fig. 10
magnifies the above effects and for most of the practical
range (e.g., β > 0) the cases with steering input have
higher values of L/D than the case with zero steering
angle. Initially, both curves with the steering deflection
show similar trends but the left hand case reaches its
maximum earlier. The right hand steering case reaches
its maximum near β = 18 deg, possibly because of the
noticeably lower drag for this case (in Fig 9). The effect
of steering angle on the side force is quite small as seen
in Fig. 10. The largest level of side force is created
without any steering input, and the right hand steering of
the front wheels resulted in the lowest level of side force
(for the practical range of β > 0).
Up to this point, the elementary aerodynamic
performance of a typical sprint car configuration was
presented. Since both wing aspect ratios are small, and
their dimensions are highly regulated, the question to
ask is; can any airfoil shape modification have a
measurable effect on overall performance? For example,
the main wing upper camber cannot be more than 4%
(e.g., 2.5 inches deviation from a straight line). With this
in mind the modified airfoil shapes depicted in Fig. 11
were proposed (based on 3D computations). The
intention was to modify leading edge flow, and by
designing an aft-loaded shape, obtain larger laminar flow
regions on both upper and lower surfaces, combined
with a slight increase in overall camber. Results
comparing the baseline and the modified design are
presented in Fig. 12 and Fig. 13. For the same angle of
attack, the modified aerodynamic package did produce
more downforce and also more drag throughout the
whole sideslip angle range (Fig. 12). However, the L/D
curve in Fig. 13 clearly shows that not only there is a net
gain in downforce but also the L/D ratio has improved.
Of course larger downforce values can be obtained with
larger main wing angles of attack and the incremental
benefits of the new design remain at the same order of
magnitude (see linear lift slope in Fig. 5). The side force
characteristics have improved too since a higher
downforce translates to larger side force on the side fin.
The role of the large asymmetric side fins (or end plates)
on the main wing is quite clear when observing the large
increase in downforce for positive sideslip conditions.
The right plate, however, is quite low and interferes with
the driver’s side vision, creating a certain level of safety
concern. One option is to reduce the size of this plate by
a horizontal cut, as depicted in Fig. 14. This horizontal
edge of the plate is expected to create a strong vortex in
side slip (much like the tip of a rectangular wing) which
will compensate for the loss of end plate area. Results of
this study are presented in Fig. 15 and Fig. 16. Here the
case with no side fins at all (for the two wings) is also
presented to emphasize the strong influence of the end
plates. The downforce with the modified right plate is
almost the same as with the full size plates, suggesting
that this safety oriented modification does not results in
severe performance compromise. The small loss of
downforce is accompanied by a gain (reduction) in drag
and Fig. 16 shows that the L/D ratio is even better at the
smaller sideslip condition. This situation, however,
reverses for the larger sideslip conditions. Removing
the end plates entirely, reduced the downforce
dramatically, which now appears to be almost
independent of side slip. The drag force was reduced
too but not at the same level, resulting in a much lower
L/D ratio (for the ‘no side fins’ configuration in Fig. 16). In
the absence of the end plates the side force in Fig. 16
falls to less than half, compared with the baseline
configuration, signifying the relevance of these plates to
vehicle cornering ability (on dirt tracks of course).
CONCLUSIONS
The asymmetric design of the main wing on these cars
increases both downforce and side force for the practical
‘large side slip’ conditions. The aerodynamic effect of
the front wing on a Sprint Car is much smaller than in
other forms of open-wheel racing. Therefore, the fore/aft
balance (e.g., center of pressure adjustments) can be
controlled by moving the main wing (fore/aft). In spite of
both wings’ small aspect ratio, modified airfoil shapes
resulted in more downforce and improved cornering
ability. Although the principle of ‘larger end plates on
wings yields better performance’ is true, it can be slightly
altered for the benefits of better visibility (and safety).
Secondary effects such as those due to front wheel
steering angle are measurable but not large. Future
aerodynamic studies of sprint car shapes may expand
model scale and evaluate the effect of rolling ground
simulation and may focus on vehicle body shape as well.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

REFERENCES

1. Page, M. A., "Aerodynamic Design of the Eagle

E997 Champ Car," AIAA 2000 -4337, Presented at
the 18th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Denver,
Co, Aug 14-17, 2000.

2. Howell J., and Hickman, D., “The Influence of

Ground Simulation on the Aerodynamics of a Simple
Car Model,” SAE 970134, SAE Int. Congress,
Detroit, Feb. 1997.

3. Katz J., and Dykstra L. "Effect of Passenger Car's

Rear Deck Geometry on its Aerodynamic
Coefficients," ASME J. Fluids Eng., Vol. 114, No. 2,
1992, pp. 186-190.

4. Katz, J., and Walters, R., "Effects of Large Blockage

in Wind-Tunnel Testing," J. Aircraft, Vol. 32, No. 5,
pp. 1149-1153, 1995.

5. Barlow, J B, Rae, W H, and Pope A, “Low-Speed Fig. 1. Schematic description of the Sprint car model
Wind Tunnel Testing” 3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons and coordinate definition for the aerodynamic loads
Inc., N Y, 1999, Ch 10.

6. Wickern, G., Zwicker, K., and Pfadenhauer, M.,

“Rotating Wheels – Their Impact on Wind Tunnel
Test Techniques and Vehicle Drag Results,” SAE
970133, SAE Int. Congress, Detroit, Feb. 1997.

7. Cogotti, A., "Aerodynamic Characteristics of Car

Wheels," Int. J. of Vehicle Design, Technological
Advances in Vehicle Design 0Series, SP3, Impact of
Aerodynamics on Vehicle Design, pp. 173-196,
1983.

8. Bokulich F., "Getting the Aero Advantage,"

Automotive Engineering International, Vol. 108,
No.11, Nov 2000, pp.56-58.

9. Johansson, O., M., “Lateral Aerodynamics of a

Sprint Car Configuration,” SDSU M.Sc. Thesis
Fig. 2. The Sprint car model, as mounted in the wind
Report, May 2002.
tunnel
10. Katz J. "Aerodynamics of High-Lift, Low Aspect-
Ratio Unswept Wings", AIAA J., Vol. 27, No. 8,
1989, pp.1123-1124.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

Fig. 3. Downforce and drag variation versus side slip

Fig. 5. Downforce and drag variation versus main wing
angle, β (αF = 24o, αT = 18o)
angle, αT (αF = 20o)

Fig. 4. Side force and Downforce/Drag ratio versus side Fig. 6. Side force and Downforce/Drag ratio versus
slip angle, β (αF = 24o, αT = 18o) main wing angle, αT (αF = 20o)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

Cz(zero)
Cz(right)
2.2 0.2
0.1 Cz(left)
2 0.3
0.08
1.8 Cx(zero) 0.4

0.06
Cx Cx(right) Cz
1.6 Cx(left) 0.5
Cz
0.04 1.4 0.6

0.02
1.2 0.7

1 0.8
0 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
15 20 25
, deg
30 35 40 , deg
T Fig. 9. Effect of front wheel steering angle (±14o) on
Fig. 7. Front wing incremental downforce versus wing vehicle downforce and drag (versus side slip angle, β at
angle of attack, αF (αT = 15o) αF = 24o, αT = 18o)

Cy(zero) L/D(zero)
Cy(right) L/D(right)
Cy(left) L/D(left)
2 0.45
0.14
0.4
0.12 1
Cy 0.35
0.1 L/D
Cx 0 0.3
0.08
-1 0.25
0.06
0.2
0.04 -2
0.15

0.02 -3 0.1
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
0 , deg
15 20 25 30 35 40
, deg Fig. 10. Effect of front wheel steering angle (±14o) on
T vehicle side force and L/D ratio (versus side slip angle, β
Fig. 8. Front wing incremental drag versus wing angle of
at αF = 24o, αT = 18o)
attack, αF (αT = 15o)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

Fig. 11 Baseline versus modified airfoil profiles for the

main and front wings.

Fig. 13. Effect of modified airfoil shapes on vehicle

sideforce and L/D (versus side slip angle, β at αF = 24o,
αT = 18o)

Fig. 12. Effect of modified airfoil shapes on vehicle Fig. 14. Modified right-side end plate (full-scale
downforce and drag (versus side slip angle, β at αF = dimensions in inches)
24o, αT = 18o)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

Cx(mod) Cz(mod)
Cx(nofin) Cz(nofin)
Cx(slant) Cz(slant)
2.4 0.1

2.2 0.2
0.3
Cx 2
0.4
1.8 Cz
0.5
1.6
0.6
1.4
0.7
1.2 0.8

1 0.9
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
, deg
Fig. 15. Effect of side fin geometry on vehicle downforce
and drag (versus side slip angle, β at αF = 24o, αT = 18o)
Fig. 16. Effect of side fin geometry on vehicle sideforce
and L/D (versus side slip angle, β at αF = 24o, αT = 18o)