- 3,130
- HaylRayzor
Camaro RM
Jag XJ13
Others?
Jag XJ13
Others?
Cars with magic downforce
- Thread starter HaylRayzor
- 75 comments
- 8,894 views
- 7,938
- LMSCorvetteGT2's Mom's House
- GTP_LancerEvo7
I assume downforce without anything to make it on the car.
- 6,380
- United Kingdom
- RoJJieE
- mb6roj
The Camaro RM has a tiny rear spoiler, but apart from that it looks like it shouldn't be making any downforce at all. The Civic EK RM has this "problem" also. It's not really a problem as such, but it's hard to believe that a stock front bumper with no splitter of any kind can generate 10 downforces, let alone the 35 that the Camaro RM has.
- 582
- Florida
- GTP_Gearhead
- X11R
Any of the Mazda RX-7s on sport hard have unbelievable grip. I've been running the '95 in 475pp rooms for months with many 1st place finishes with 15 second gaps.
- 5,814
- Hillsboro Oregon
- XDesperado67
- XDesperado67
The Viper ACR has 10 front downforce stock and some rear as well, but you don't actually see the numbers for it unless you install the rear wing when magically it shows up as a fixed 10 points.
The Enzo is the same with I think a fixed 2 points of front downforce that doesn't show up unless you install a rear wing. There are a few others as well.
PD's fixation with rear downforce really annoys me as generally you get the best performance from a more balanced application of aero both front and rear.
Additionally it seems that all other "aero kits" other than the rear wing are merely cosmetic in game and contribute absolutely nothing to performance which is ludicrous as most aftermarket body kit manufacturers will make some sort of attempt at improving performance with their parts. Especially ones producing kits for high end sports and luxury cars.
The Enzo is the same with I think a fixed 2 points of front downforce that doesn't show up unless you install a rear wing. There are a few others as well.
PD's fixation with rear downforce really annoys me as generally you get the best performance from a more balanced application of aero both front and rear.
Additionally it seems that all other "aero kits" other than the rear wing are merely cosmetic in game and contribute absolutely nothing to performance which is ludicrous as most aftermarket body kit manufacturers will make some sort of attempt at improving performance with their parts. Especially ones producing kits for high end sports and luxury cars.
- 1,184
- Glass Village
- OK8_
Many people say the NSX-R has magic downforce, but in my opinion it doesn't have the mega grip what downforce provides, just very good balance and handling.
I agree with the RX7, the stability of this car is magical. Almost unbeatable in 450-480pp FR class. Love the pop-up headlights aswell. 👍
I agree with the RX7, the stability of this car is magical. Almost unbeatable in 450-480pp FR class. Love the pop-up headlights aswell. 👍
- 9,129
- United Kingdom
- neema_t
It is also possible to influence the flow of air around a car with just the shape of the body, not all downforce comes from front splitters, rear wings and diffusers. One good example of this is the Mercedes Sauber Group C (I think?) car that just got sucked up off the road, did a backflip and landed in the foliage on the wrong side of the armco... I can't remember what the car was called, what year it was or what the track was, but I think Mark Webber was driving. It has been theorised that the shape of the car, the cockpit in particular, was shaped similarly to an aircraft wing and therefore created lift when too much air was allowed underneath the car.
That said, that sort of downforce isn't exactly easy to change so I suppose it's not reflected in the car's setup options, so if that's what this thread is about, never mind!
Also, this is slightly on topic... I wonder if you can increase/decrease the downforce in GT5 by changing the front/rear ride heights? It works in real life, if the rear proportionately higher than the front then more downforce is made, and the opposite is also true. I can't think of a good way to test it, though. What we need is a Route X-style skidpan and gymkhana course...
That said, that sort of downforce isn't exactly easy to change so I suppose it's not reflected in the car's setup options, so if that's what this thread is about, never mind!
Also, this is slightly on topic... I wonder if you can increase/decrease the downforce in GT5 by changing the front/rear ride heights? It works in real life, if the rear proportionately higher than the front then more downforce is made, and the opposite is also true. I can't think of a good way to test it, though. What we need is a Route X-style skidpan and gymkhana course...
- 7,938
- LMSCorvetteGT2's Mom's House
- GTP_LancerEvo7
It was the CLR, not the CLK-LM.
- 8,704
Is this not specific to the current F1 cars? It's to do with regulated sizing and location of parts of the car, and adding lots of rake allows those parts to sit lower for better effectiveness. Presumably, when the cars are tested for compliance, they relax the rake a touch... Note that the extreme rake on F1 cars makes the rear diffuser less effective, which is why the "curtaining" effect of exhaust-blown diffusers was so useful.
On a non-regulated car, you would just build the aero structures where you wanted them, and adjust the rake for best chassis dynamics, rather than aerodynamics.
Body shape does have a large effect on aerodynamics, too, obviously. The McLaren F1 appears pretty lacking in the aero department, but does actually produce a not-insignificant amount of downforce due to clever flow shaping on the bodywork, and under the car, including "boundary control" fans (I guess a bit like the EBD in F1). It could have produced even more, but ground effect is sensitive to ride-height (e.g. rake in F1; hence EBD) so the decision was made to limit the downforce for best stability and add an active spoiler.
See also the accidental discovery of the effectiveness of "radiator nostrils" on McLaren's early CanAm cars, which were also present on the GT40 from the get-go; they produce downforce. As for the MkIV, it had adjustable aero that allowed the team to balance cornering speed for straight-line speed at Le Mans. Basically, anything that increases pressure above the car whilst simultaneously decreasing it below the car will produce downforce. This ability need not be immediately visually apparent, but wind tunnel testing since the 1930s has allowed designers to zero in on the shapes producing the least overall lift (maximising axle weights), then later actual net downforce, often without "wings".
The Jaguar, on the other hand, is a bit more dubious given its high-ish nose (and perhaps its high-speed crash during testing) but I don't really know enough about the car to say whether it produces a realistic amount of downforce relative to its contemporaries.
Last edited:
- 9,129
- United Kingdom
- neema_t
Griffith500
I found an excellent article that explained why the CLR (it was the CLR, by the way) flipped like that, and in that article the author explained that if the car had been raked a little more, less air would've gotten underneath it, less air means less pressure, and that's what you want underneath the car to keep it sucked to the ground. It also makes sense when you think of it like a hose; a hose with no obstruction will sort of pour the water out, but if you put your thumb over the end you can get a high pressure jet of water coming out from a relatively low flow rate. This does kind of contradict what I just said in a way, but if you think of the front end of a raked car as the hose with your thumb over it, the air is at higher pressure, but the rear end is like the hose with no thumb, at a lower pressure, because the same amount of air flow has more room to move.
In any case, I'm not sure if you meant to say that they only rake F1 cars and not others or if the rake effect only applies to F1 cars, but I don't see why the rules of fluid dynamics would be so different for F1. Admittedly the effect would be much greater with an F1 car as they rely heavily on aero, but it would still have some effect on anything with underbody aero. This is all speculation based on reading that one article a year ago, I'm no expert (because experts don't contradict themselves hoping that one of the two statements is right)...
mister dog
(Banned)
- 8,396
- Spain
- misterdog
- misterdog7
While I agree with you on the removing downforce part (The Mark IV actually produced lift), some cars of the time did produce downforce (All of the Chaparrals, for example).
BTW- The top speed of a Mk. IV was 205 MPH. That 240 figure is just a rumor.
Am i right stating that 60's racecars had basic downforce from the way they were shaped already? And the only difference would be adjustable wings?
XPOWER180
(Banned)
- 1,581
- XPOWER180
- 30
- Roma
- Antineutrino999
There are also cars with magic no-downforce such as Ferrari Enzo... It's unbelievable how the Enzo understeers!!!
- 9,129
- United Kingdom
- neema_t
mister dog
In a nutshell, maybe. The Mk. IV is definitely aerodynamic but aerodynamics and downforce aren't the same thing, which is obvious given that aerodynamics keep planes in the air and race cars on the ground, but downforce only does one of those.
Back in the 60's aero in racing was relatively new, and at first was used to get around drag (long before the 60's, really). Then people realised it could be used to improve grip (again, probably before the 60's but I don't know), but as with any technology it took time to work out, so you do see old race cars with aerodynamic bodies and huge wings but then poorly packaged radiators, unsealed floors and things like that that create some downforce but also some lift so the net result may be a tiny bit of downforce, if not the opposite. I have no idea about the 60's race cars in GT5, though.
- 2,045
- TX
- whitemanLS1
you are correct, and Jim Hall was way ahead of the game with is Chaparral 2C, 2E and 2F that had adjustable spoilers. All three of those should be in the game.
- 7,578
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
GT5 aerodynamics are basically Need for Speed level. They are not simulator worthy.
On rake/ride height, think of the car as a wing. Changing the rake changes the angle of attack, hence more lift. But to really get the most out of it, you need a shaped underside. If the flow separates underneath, it spoils the aerodynamics.
Some of the old cars should be trying to jump off the track, but not even the big muscle cars do. The Jag and GT40 don't really have a lot keeping them down. The Chaps and the Ferrari were ahead in this area, particularly Chaparral. But I very much doubt that the 2D has modern LMP levels of downforce like it does in GT5.
On "magic" downforce, I don't mind it at all. I care more about aero kits adding performance rather than changing looks. Every single car should be able to have a full aero kit installed, even if its invisible.
On rake/ride height, think of the car as a wing. Changing the rake changes the angle of attack, hence more lift. But to really get the most out of it, you need a shaped underside. If the flow separates underneath, it spoils the aerodynamics.
Some of the old cars should be trying to jump off the track, but not even the big muscle cars do. The Jag and GT40 don't really have a lot keeping them down. The Chaps and the Ferrari were ahead in this area, particularly Chaparral. But I very much doubt that the 2D has modern LMP levels of downforce like it does in GT5.
On "magic" downforce, I don't mind it at all. I care more about aero kits adding performance rather than changing looks. Every single car should be able to have a full aero kit installed, even if its invisible.
- 8,704
You're right, the CLR was flat-bottomed, so rake is important for downforce (the Sauber C8 "flipped", too, but I think Group C allowed "wing cars", so it's a bit different).
I think I found the article you mentioned describing the CLR's flip, over on Mulsannescorner; on that same site there's a brief description of diffusers, and it describes how a raked flat-bottomed car does the same job. I think if the CLR had had a more aggressive front diffuser, it might not have been so unstable.
According to that same website, the GT40 had mild net lift (so parts of the car are producing downforce), although it doesn't state how the forces are distributed. I think it's safe to say that the airflow under the car wasn't really managed back then, and streamlining was the main concern, with stability (mitigation of lift, location of centre of pressure etc.) next. In that sense, the downforce figures in the game had better be on a relative scale, different for each car...
mister dog
(Banned)
- 8,396
- Spain
- misterdog
- misterdog7
I remember when the CLR flipped it was practically launched because it reached the highest point of a rise in the road at mulsanne just before the road sloped down again, and i remember the nose of that car to be very low and flat almost like a plank. Drive a superfast plank over a hill and you'll have the same effect no? 
- 6,598
- United Kingdom
- MSTER232
- PS3 =/= Xbox 360
The Standard Blitz Skyline D1GP Drift car has "magic downforce" too. I can adjust the rear downforce settings and yet there is no visible spoiler seen on the car. Premium Blitz has a visible spoiler. And yes I do think huge rear spoilers are ugly.
Similar threads
