Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:35:40 -0000 From: "**-**" <m.faulksnopsamternet.com> Subject: Re: Some More Pics
"Robert Brown" <roxbert.brxownnopsampnet.se> wrote in message news:3FCCF804.6566AD02nopsampnet.se... > Robert Brown wrote: > > -----8<----cutting previous > > > > > > > Hard to understand his (and Adrian's) subsequent comments that some of us > > respondents are missing the distinction between negative lift forces and drag. > > We have answered according to the symptoms described. > > > > When you have worked out what problem you really want to describe on this NG, > > then I am sure you will get responses that you will find relevant and > > hopefully useful. > > > > Oops - apologies to Adrian and Matt for the final 2 paragraphs here. In fact no > one has actually said that drag is the primary issue. My fault. Guess I better get > back on them pills them thar voices makin me do it ;-) > > But seriously folks - the air dam can be shaped to push air as much to the sides > as upwards, which would result in minimal added downforce, yet counter the > menacing lift issue. > > Laura's still right on the money IMO, if you use the right shape on the air dam. > Extending the current dam downwards 3-4 cm should reduce air under the car without > increasing the front axle load. Just build it strong . . . /Robert With the rev limit top speed is just over 170mph. I'll have a play about and see what I can come up with. As it is at the moment I rely on the undertray to provide a touch of downforce but mainly to smooth airflow under the car and avoid areas of high pressure. What I might try and do is shape the front and rear sections of the undertray to increase airspeed and combat boundary layer formation. Don't know if it'll work as planned but I'll have a bloody good go LOL. As its not got to corner at these speeds downforce creation is not a concern minimising drag and lift is. Cheers Matt
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
