Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:56:14 -0000 From: "**-**" <m.faulksnopsamternet.com> Subject: Re: Some More Pics
"Robert Brown" <roxbert.brxownnopsampnet.se> wrote in message news:3FCBA5D8.55C252A3nopsampnet.se... > Grunff wrote: > > > **-** wrote: > > > > > 161.8mph. That the lot for this year the weathers deteriorating and it needs > > > more development before I push it any further. Front end is too light past > > > 160mph. > > > > Wow!!! Superb. > > I don't normally get jealous about cars, but that's just awsome. > > One day, when I have a spare couple of months... > > > > -- > > Grunff > > Yeah, and isn't it true that cars with the cleanest lines are usually the most > elegant. Very nice. > > BTW Matt, you mention lightness in the front end at speed. At the speeds you're > doing (assuming high rate springs and smooth runway surface), have you considered > a front air dam that reaches a bit lower (another 3-4 cm or so), and outwards? > > That standard Aero air dam "tucks in" all the way down until the last 3 cm, which > would cause some lift. For this particular application (on concrete runway), maybe > you could get someone to fashion an air dam that flares outward only. Only issue > is to brace it from the inside so it doesn't flex or collapse. Maybe it wouldn't > look so good but I bet you'd get a very sure-footed 170 mph ;-) See my reply to LauraK re: the above. Its not so much downforce I'm after as anti-lift and the undertray on the car should prove sufficent if I can refine the setup. > > Wonder what your fuel consumption is at that speed (heh heh). 4mpg on the last outing ;-) > > Looking forward to the next diary entry, keep it going. Don't worry I will. > > /Robert > >
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
