Light up front, Heavy in the pants

[Michigan-SHO]

The SHO is inherently front heavy when considering downforce wouldn’t you agree? We have a “vanity” spoiler and anemic side skirts to deter lift from the middle. Our only saving grace is the moderately open front end through the upper and lower grille that somewhat pushes air against the bottom tray to provide less than adequate front pressure. Pressure that in all reality is on all of the plastics of the car, not the frame, where it does the most benefits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SM105K]

Me and @802SHO have that splitter life.

 

[High on Ethanol]

I feel like we discussed this 99x already. The SHO is less aerodynamic than the flex. Close off your grille, remove weatherstripping from rear of hood area. Lower the car, increase rake.....make sure tires are good and brakes are fair.

 

[yaycandy]

Ooo ooo I wanna know too!!! I’m a whore when information is involved the more the merrier and too much is never enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Invest in a front diffuser with fins over a splitter. It will even out the rear downforce more than a rear spoiler ever could. You'd be surprised how much the front wing effects rear downforce even on F1 cars.

Front diffuser, remove side mirrors, plate the wheels and any openings on bumper, add fender flares, lower the car. Just that alone would raise 1/4 mile speeds over a car without. We have wind tunnels and wind tunnel simulations that can be set up for learning specific cars instead of just planes. Looking around a 12mph difference in just the parts I listed. Anything more than a quarter mile goal is completely different setup reducing downforce and drag.

Increasing downforce increases drag. Increase downforce where you need it and reduce drag in areas you don't need drag or downforce. Every application is different. What I listed is for 1/4 mile trap speed.
The Murcielago lp640 at high speeds the mirrors fold in flat and side drafts open on the rear sides to help reduce drag.

 

[FiveLeeter918]

Swing up to Tulsa and you can have my stock belly pan for free for testing before buying the Flex one.

 

[stripSHO]

I noticed the same thing when racing a corvette down a windy and hilly section of I75 up north. At 130 I just chalked it up as driver error and excessive input on my part. I’ve gone gone >140 down straight country backroads without noticing any instability.

Based on nothing but my extensive Gran Turismo training, you need less downforce up front to reduce steering sensitivity. Less downforce = less tire friction = less response. But I would be considering suspension / body roll as well.

Increasing downforce does NOT require an increase in drag. Change my mind!

Coefficient of drag by itself is a terrible metric for aerodynamic performance. That would make F1 cars the worst on the planet. Having a lower CD does not automatically make the Flex aerodynamically “better”

 

[yaycandy]

I noticed the same thing when racing a corvette down a windy and hilly section of I75 up north. At 130 I just chalked it up as driver error and excessive input on my part. I’ve gone gone >140 down straight country backroads without noticing any instability.

Based on nothing but my extensive Gran Turismo training, you need less downforce up front to reduce steering sensitivity. Less downforce = less tire friction = less response. But I would be considering suspension / body roll as well.

Increasing downforce does NOT require an increase in drag. Change my mind!

Coefficient of drag by itself is a terrible metric for aerodynamic performance. That would make F1 cars the worst on the planet. Having a lower CD does not automatically make the Flex aerodynamically “better”

There i found it on the site people without knowledge trust. Questions are asked and I give answers to the best of my 6 years of schooling with the Air Force.
The taurus is more aerodynamic then the flex in many ways. A .335 isn't good, compared to other boxes yes

 

[yaycandy]

.320 to .335 is a big difference for a passenger vehicle.

 

[SM105K]

I watch alot of F1 and aero literally evolves week to week. Some courses need a lot of downforce, some need less. It truly is amazing to watch.

 

[yaycandy]

I watch alot of F1 and aero literally evolves week to week. Some courses need a lot of downforce, some need less. It truly is amazing to watch.

Rules also change every year. Thats also why top fuel nhra have front wings. For all around stability. Without it, they would be faster but the true winner would be who didn't wreck at 400mph

 

[High on Ethanol]

I make simple: less drag means less power to push that barn door up to speed.

Getting down in the weeds on actual aerodynamics is scary on non-track designed vehicles because they didnt take lift or downforce or stability into the design phase.

At best you get fuel economy aerodynamics.

 

[yaycandy]

I make simple: less drag means less power to push that barn door up to speed.

Getting down in the weeds on actual aerodynamics is scary on non-track designed vehicles because they didnt take lift or downforce or stability into the design phase.

At best you get fuel economy aerodynamics.

Your right. I get it...not you but just because a flex gets good mpg does not make if better than a taurus. A Taurus was developed in the mid 80s for aerodynamics, they didn't stop when gen 4 sho came. I get it, a flex(van) has a low drag coefficient as does my 94' Astro(van). Having an aerodynamic van is cool to some people, including me.

 

[SM105K]

Rules also change every year. Thats also why top fuel nhra have front wings. For all around stability. Without it, they would be faster but the true winner would be who didn't wreck at 400mph

Also no insurance companies will insure any NHRA drivers that exceed 350 mph. That is one of the reasons why we haven't had a large speed increase. However they are going just as fast to 1000 feet as they were going to 1320 feet now. Tire technology is another factor. How much more speed can these cars generate with the extra 320 feet?

 

[yaycandy]

Also no insurance companies will insure any NHRA drivers that exceed 350 mph. That is one of the reasons why we haven't had a large speed increase. However they are going just as fast to 1000 feet as they were going to 1320 feet now. Tire technology is another factor. How much more speed can these cars generate with the extra 320 feet?

Wonder if the guys who strap into a jet engine for 700+ mph at Salt flats are insured. Probably not lol

 

[GotGrip?]

How much more speed can these cars generate with the extra 320 feet?

All of it.

 

[stripSHO]

There i found it on the site people without knowledge trust. Questions are asked and I give answers to the best of my 6 years of schooling with the Air Force.
The taurus is more aerodynamic then the flex in many ways. A .335 isn't good, compared to other boxes yes

View attachment 15687

Alrighty smartass. Since I'm so "without knowledge" and you're allegedly an aerospace engineer, maybe you can baby spoon feed me my error through these steps:

A) If creating vertical force increases drag, does that also mean creating lift increases drag?

B) If A, does reducing lift reduce drag?

C) Is the total net downforce (or lift) on a vehicle a sum of the total downward and upward forces being applied?

D) If A, B and C, does reducing aerodynamic lift increase the net downforce AND reduce drag?

Also is a drag coefficent of 1 a good thing or a bad thing?

I anxiously await your own personal wisdom on the subject.

 

[yaycandy]

All of it.

Haha probably

 

[Kevin81]

I noticed the same thing when racing a corvette down a windy and hilly section of I75 up north. At 130 I just chalked it up as driver error and excessive input on my part. I’ve gone gone >140 down straight country backroads without noticing any instability.

Based on nothing but my extensive Gran Turismo training, you need less downforce up front to reduce steering sensitivity. Less downforce = less tire friction = less response. But I would be considering suspension / body roll as well.

Increasing downforce does NOT require an increase in drag. Change my mind!

Coefficient of drag by itself is a terrible metric for aerodynamic performance. That would make F1 cars the worst on the planet. Having a lower CD does not automatically make the Flex aerodynamically “better”

Down force is drag. Its targeted drag.

 

[Kevin81]

I watch alot of F1 and aero literally evolves week to week. Some courses need a lot of downforce, some need less. It truly is amazing to watch.

Sarth. The mulsane sections. Teams have entire set ups just for that one track.

I LOVE watching Nurburgring laps on YouTube...that track is extremely diverse.

 

[Kevin81]

I make simple: less drag means less power to push that barn door up to speed.

Getting down in the weeds on actual aerodynamics is scary on non-track designed vehicles because they didnt take lift or downforce or stability into the design phase.

At best you get fuel economy aerodynamics.

Exactly. Rear trunk shape/height. Windshield angle grade.

The ultimate examples of this is the Veyron, with its reverse teardrop, submarine shape, vs something like the gumpart Apollo. Two cars with very different designs, trying to do very different things.

And in the middle? Everday cars. Designed to maximise fuel economy at 60 mph.