Keeping rear spoiler down
i suspect that while i don't understand the difference in these examples between downforce not being the opposite of reduced lift. i DO get they they are NOT directionally proportional! i'm not seeing that any of you guys understand what i'm unclear about either.
i was never attempting to quantify one ( downforce ) against or VS "reduced" lift. it was a purely semantical question, and the answer ultimately doesn't matter as i was NOT ( again ) attempting to quantify one over the other. but thanks for trying to enlighten me.
i was never attempting to quantify one ( downforce ) against or VS "reduced" lift. it was a purely semantical question, and the answer ultimately doesn't matter as i was NOT ( again ) attempting to quantify one over the other. but thanks for trying to enlighten me.
i suspect that while i don't understand the difference in these examples between downforce not being the opposite of reduced lift. i DO get they they are NOT directionally proportional! i'm not seeing that any of you guys understand what i'm unclear about either.
i was never attempting to quantify one ( downforce ) against or VS "reduced" lift. it was a purely semantical question, and the answer ultimately doesn't matter as i was NOT ( again ) attempting to quantify one over the other. but thanks for trying to enlighten me.
i was never attempting to quantify one ( downforce ) against or VS "reduced" lift. it was a purely semantical question, and the answer ultimately doesn't matter as i was NOT ( again ) attempting to quantify one over the other. but thanks for trying to enlighten me.
i think.. whew!
Ya. It has to be. I designed the Aero for my vette and it makes 1600# at 150mph. At 75, I can barely tell it's there unless I'm in a huge sweeper. If it's under a few hundred pounds, it's not worth much. Probably better for mpg over grip.
i agree with everything you've said, but for the purposes of a discussion of downforce vs reduced lift, aren't they essentially one and the same thing, other than semantically??
or am i missing something? as the way i see it, "downforce" by its very definition "reduces" lift (!?)
or am i missing something? as the way i see it, "downforce" by its very definition "reduces" lift (!?)
The gt2/3 front bumper is a good example. The vent on top pulls from the bottom, reducing lift under the front of the car.
that i understand ( whew ). so this, in conjunction with the downforce created by the gt2? ( or even moreso using the gt3 blade + increased height relative to the lower gt2 rear wing ) work in concert with one another?? to keep the front "lift" reduced ( front splitter/lip? ), while doing much the same thing for the rear of the car..e.g. "downforce".
so that's all they are designed to do..yes? keep the car as low to the ground as is possible overcoming the laws of physics that want it to "fly"? sort of??
is that all there is, besides the physics of one over the other e.g.; front to rear proportionality?
if so, then i'm catching on ( however slowly ). everyone else has known all this already, no doubt.
so that's all they are designed to do..yes? keep the car as low to the ground as is possible overcoming the laws of physics that want it to "fly"? sort of??
is that all there is, besides the physics of one over the other e.g.; front to rear proportionality?
if so, then i'm catching on ( however slowly ). everyone else has known all this already, no doubt.
that i understand ( whew ). so this, in conjunction with the downforce created by the gt2? ( or even moreso using the gt3 blade + increased height relative to the lower gt2 rear wing ) work in concert with one another?? to keep the front "lift" reduced ( front splitter/lip? ), while doing much the same thing for the rear of the car..e.g. "downforce".
so that's all they are designed to do..yes? keep the car as low to the ground as is possible overcoming the laws of physics that want it to "fly"? sort of??
is that all there is, besides the physics of one over the other e.g.; front to rear proportionality?
if so, then i'm catching on ( however slowly ). everyone else has known all this already, no doubt.
so that's all they are designed to do..yes? keep the car as low to the ground as is possible overcoming the laws of physics that want it to "fly"? sort of??
is that all there is, besides the physics of one over the other e.g.; front to rear proportionality?
if so, then i'm catching on ( however slowly ). everyone else has known all this already, no doubt.
I took an instructor out once because I was losing grip on a dog leg that was about 140mph. Full throttle corner. I thought I was off line or doing something wrong. We discussed it and added just 1° to my wing and it then stuck like glue. It's awesome to see that stuff really work. If you look at the bottom of a 458 Ferrari, it's all flat with a diffuser and blades to accelerate the air off the back. That car makes 800# of downforce with just that, so its zero drag. Back when racing was racing, the old f1 cars and prototypes aimed their exhaust gasses over the diffuser and wings to add downforce. I think the new 918 uses that technology for high speed downforce. Fluid dynamics was always my favorite subject in school.
appreciate the info. i'm trying to understand the vast difference btw front aero splitters and wings of various sizes on the rear and without having wind tunnel results ( which i wouldn't understand anyway ) this is the next best way. thx for explaining it.
I'll never forget the account I read by a driver who had just switched to Porsche and was having issues with a turn losing grip. His crew chief told him - go faster! He finally did and the car stuck like glue. Neat stuff!
Driving with downforce is scary at first. The invisible hand pushing you down.
djcooper@rennkit.com





