[Racer Duck]

"Coil bind" is a term which describes a coil spring that's been compressed to the point where some or all of it's coils are resting against each other. In other words, that part of the spring can no longer compress because it's "coil bound".

The reason I said "some or all" is that some springs are what are called "progressive", which means as the spring compresses it exhibits greater tension as the compression increases. With this type of spring some of the coils (the weaker ones) will bind before the rest (the stronger ones.)

"Coil binding" is a setup method which relies on the front suspension collapsing (the car going down) to the point that it becomes effectively one solid mass. The bad thing about this method is that the shocks are no longer controlling wheel movement; everything relies on the "springiness" of the tires, much like a low rider that's riding on full hydraulics. When the coil bind happens the tire can chatter and skip across bumps or rough places in the track. It's an unstable situation who's only benefit is the increased aeordynamics achieved by lowering the nose to just barely above the track.

I'm not sure exactly when it began being used. But it became popular when the "Big Bar Soft Spring" setup (BBSS) gained favor which allowed the nose of the car to come down easily (the soft spring part), while still maintaining roll stiffness (the big bar part).

The harsh jolt (and often momentary loss of traction) caused by coil binding led to the use of "bump stops." Originally these were rubber bumpers that were placed so that the lower control arm would contact them slightly before the spring went into coil bind, thus softening the blow. Then someone figured out how to insert a neoprene "collar" on the shock shaft which would do the same thing and was easy to change during a race. Now they've developed different hardness bump stops which allow the teams to tune that end of the suspension travel for the best performance.

Coil bind (and bump stops) are used to control the suspension travel when entering a corner. If you watch closely during a race, you'll see the splitter "settle" a little closer to the track as the driver slows while entering a corner. They're also used to limit the "settling" on high speed straights where the front down force pushes the nose down.

As far as drivers "liking" coil binding or not. I don't think any of them "like" it 'cause it's an unsettling feeling. Older drivers are more used to the older suspension setups and they developed their driving style using those setups. It requires a completely different style of driving to be comfortable using the coil bind/bump stop setups. Many younger drivers have never driven cars with the older setups, the BBSS setup is all they know.

On our Late Model, we tried BBSS in 2007 but were unable to make it work. We subsequently found out we were doing some things wrong (it requires a completely different mindset and some adjustments which are counter to what we learned running the "Big Spring" setup.) In 2008 we put it back on and, with lots of experimentation and guidance we were able to make it work. And we're much faster: we now qualify mid pack rather than in the back and we regularly get T10 finishes. But we're still a long way from being a T5 car .. there's a trememdous amount of finesse that goes into making the BBSS setup work to perfection .. much more so than with the "Big Spring" setup.

[mccastle]

What does the term "pony car" mean? I have heard it used a lot in the nationwide series. To me it means a Mustang but I know that is not the case.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by mccastle

What does the term "pony car" mean? I have heard it used a lot in the nationwide series. To me it means a Mustang but I know that is not the case.

it's a generalization for cars that came out around the time of the Mustang (Mustang, Camero, Firebird, Charger, etc.) which are generally classified as the American "sports" cars of the '60's and 70's (excluding the Corvette, which was really intended to be a sports car.)

[Bryan Blanton]

I mentioned coil binding and bump stops in my previous post i've heard some people say nascar should ban both of those and not allow any similar technology like that to be run on the cars.

Why doesn't nascar ban that type of technology?

[Racer Duck]

why should they? just because some folks don't like it? that's like saying they should eliminate slick tires.

the parts are freely available. the technology is in the combination of standard parts being adjusted a particular way; there's no safety concerns or other factors save, learning how to utilize the technology. plus it contributes to high speed safety by allowing the nose to get close to the track thus significantly reducing the chance of the nose of the car catching air and flipping or going airborne.

[mccastle]

Can a team test at a track that does not have SAFER barriers?

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by mccastle

Can a team test at a track that does not have SAFER barriers?

Yes. The teams are not NA__AR employees but are just contract labour. Many of the tracks are not NA__AR affiliated tracks (TWS, for example) and the deal to test is between the track and the team ONLY. NA__AR itself is not involved.

So, it's of no interest to NA__AR if a non-aligned track has safe barriers or not.

[LSC9901]

My wife asked a question this evening that I had no clue of an answer for. Why is a dashboard called a dashboard ?

[Quality88]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

My wife asked a question this evening that I had no clue of an answer for. Why is a dashboard called a dashboard ?

I know this one. It has to do with the boards on the front of horse drawn carriages that protected the driver. Horses kicked up rocks that "dashed" the board instead of the drivers.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by Quality88

I know this one. It has to do with the boards on the front of horse drawn carriages that protected the driver. Horses kicked up rocks that "dashed" the board instead of the drivers.

Good Job Q! According the "The Word Detective":

Prince Albert in a cab.
Dear Word Detective: What is the origin of the word "dash" or "dashboard," as in an automobile. -- Emily Kirkpatrick, via the internet.
Oh boy, an easy one. The "dashboard" of a car is, of course, the panel facing the front-seat passengers, and often houses all sorts of pointless little dials and gauges (as well as the odometer, at which I like to stare for long periods when I become bored with driving). The "dashboard," an English invention, is named after the famous incident in which Queen Victoria thumped the front panel of the Royal Rolls-Royce with her fist, exclaiming to her consort, "Dash it all, Albert! Forget the odometer and watch the road. You've just run over an Archbishop."
Oh, all right, I made that up. "Dashboards" were actually around for quite a while before automobiles and odometers. The term first appeared around 1846 and referred to a leather apron or wooden board mounted at the front (and sometimes along the sides) of a horse-drawn carriage, designed to prevent mud or water being splashed into the interior of the vehicle by the horses' hooves. "Dash" in this sense reflects the basic meaning of the verb "to dash," namely "to throw sharply against something; to break upon," as well as the derivative meaning of (as the Oxford English Dictionary puts it) "to bespatter or splash (a thing) with anything (e.g., water or mud)." This what-a-mess meaning of "dash" dates back to around 1530, and the hyphenated term "dash-board" first showed up around 1846. The word "dash" itself is probably of Scandinavian origin.
Now here's something truly cool. "Dash" as a noun meaning "sudden blow" led to "dash" being used to mean "a small amount" (as in "a dash of salt"), as well as "a hasty stroke of the pen," thus giving us the typographical "dash," a sort of elongated hyphen. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the word "damn" was frequently replaced in print with a "dash" (as in "Who gives a -- ?"), and by about 1800 "dash" had come to be used as a spoken euphemism for "damn." So Queen Victoria probably did say "Dash it all, Albert!" at some point, and that "dash" really was, at least remotely, connected to "dashboard."

Now we all know more than we ever wanted about "Dash" and "Dashboard"

[Bassdogs]

Explain the new pit rule in the truck series that outlaws tires and fuel on the same stop. They say the purpose is to save a couple of crew members and therefore saving all the teams money. Wouldn't they accomplish the same thing by just limiting the over the wall crew? You stop, change tires, the fuel guys head over and change the tires and its over. The stop takes 10 or 15 seconds longer but the trucks don't have to make 2 trips down pit lane and yellows don't have to be elongated so the teams can pit twice.

What am I missing?

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Bassdogs

Explain the new pit rule in the truck series that outlaws tires and fuel on the same stop. They say the purpose is to save a couple of crew members and therefore saving all the teams money. Wouldn't they accomplish the same thing by just limiting the over the wall crew? You stop, change tires, the fuel guys head over and change the tires and its over. The stop takes 10 or 15 seconds longer but the trucks don't have to make 2 trips down pit lane and yellows don't have to be elongated so the teams can pit twice.

What am I missing?

They have cut the number of over-the-wall preople to five and the number of crew assigned to the truck at the track to twelve. I'm sure that saves some money but how is it on safety?

I'm glad I'm not alone on this either-gas-or-rubber rule. I haven't figured that one out either. The biggest things I've seen is that the crew now has two chances tio screw up on each caution flag. It also seems that NA__AR plays to the two stops per yellow strategy by dragging out the number of laps under caution.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by Bassdogs

Explain the new pit rule in the truck series that outlaws tires and fuel on the same stop. They say the purpose is to save a couple of crew members and therefore saving all the teams money. Wouldn't they accomplish the same thing by just limiting the over the wall crew? You stop, change tires, the fuel guys head over and change the tires and its over. The stop takes 10 or 15 seconds longer but the trucks don't have to make 2 trips down pit lane and yellows don't have to be elongated so the teams can pit twice.

What am I missing?

NASCAR has limited the number of over-the-wall crew to 5, down from 7 last year to ensure they don't try to do both in the same stop.

It takes a minimum of 3 crewmen to change 2 tires, and that makes the Tire Changers also Tire Carriers if they try to do both. It's not as easy to get the Gasman to change tires as you may think .. he's pretty well bound up in his apron and other protective gear. So, playing "tag" is the only option and that will get really complicated real quick.

I don't think they anticipated the teams would just do one, make a lap, and do the other. And as soon as one does both that way, almost everyone will follow.

They also think this will inject more "strategy" into Truck racing. Time will tell...

This is another case of NASCAR screwing with a good thing to "make it better". We all know how that turns out.

[BringBackWilkesboro]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

I'm glad I'm not alone on this either-gas-or-rubber rule. I haven't figured that one out either. The biggest things I've seen is that the crew now has two chances tio screw up on each caution flag. It also seems that NA__AR plays to the two stops per yellow strategy by dragging out the number of laps under caution.

I almost wonder if NASCA meant for the teams to take one of the two and get the other in a later stop to make them last longer. They just didn't think teams would go to the lenght of coming in twice during the same caution. We've yet to see what they'll do under green though. It doesn't make sense, but they said it was to save money and that's the only way I see it happening.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by BringBackWilkesboro

I almost wonder if NASCA meant for the teams to take one of the two and get the other in a later stop to make them last longer. They just didn't think teams would go to the lenght of coming in twice during the same caution. We've yet to see what they'll do under green though. It doesn't make sense, but they said it was to save money and that's the only way I see it happening.

I believe the key words in your response are the ones I took the liberty to enbolden.