Cars with magic downforce

[MOTORTRENDmitch]

The RUF RGT Grips SO well it feel like it has down force but "Doesn't"

 

[seanneedscar]

Gathers drider civic race car

It has the OEM civic type r wing and front lip, yet has adjustable front and rear downforce

 

[sesselpupser]

In that sense, the downforce figures in the game had better be on a relative scale, different for each car...

Thanks, that was the article I meant, it's quite an interesting read so I think I'll take another look at it.

And I do wonder if the downforce settings are relative, but if they are you'd've thought they'd make them percentages... As it is we have some cars with much higher figures than others which would suggest to me that they're absolute, or there are 'downforce bands'; sort of tiers of downforce settings that cars fit into.

I wonder if there's a way to test two or more cars' aero settings to see if they compare?

 

[Nismo34]

Downforce is not drag, also in GT5, induced drag is extremely weak.

Wait, What?!?

 

[FordMKIVJ5]

PD should remove all aero from all the 60's race cars, as they didn't have any. The Ford MKIV was actually capable of 240mph down the backstretch of Le Mans, but the "magic aero" limits it completely.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

First off many 60's race cars had spoilers etc. Including the MKIV. It's rear spoiler (more of a lip, but it does create some downforce) can be seen quite clearly in this pic:

It also had tunnels on the underside of the body to reduce wind resistance. (No front downforce as such like in GT5)

If you don't believe it look at cars like the Chaparral 2F and the Panhard CD Le Mans cars.

Secondly the MKIV never hit 240mph on the Mulsanne straight. The fastest one was ever clocked was 216mph in a test. The cars at Le Mans were hitting about 212-213mph after adjustment of the lip so that the Mulsanne kink could be taken flat out.

👍

 

[mister dog]

Also look at the front spoiler of the 1967 Ferrari 330 P4, it even has little sideflaps DTM style like you have nowadays

 

[sumbrownkid]

Weren't the Porsche 917 and the group c machines were the only cars capable of regularly hitting 240+ mph?

 

[sumbrownkid]

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?

That car was catching air underneath the nose due to lack of downforce. Mercedes went all out in designing, but they forgot to double check the math at the wind tunnel.

 

[kieran177]

Downforce is not drag, also in GT5, induced drag is extremely weak.

More downforce generally means more drag, take f1 cars for a example.

 

[Snakebitten]

Id have to include the Lambo Muira Bertone. For an old underpowered car compared to cars like the newer Ford GT, Saleen S7, Mclaren F1 etc that are more powerful and have downforce, it has no problem beating them and outcornering them with it's mystical power to weight ratio and magical downforce.

It always kills me to see the Muira beating Mclarens etc on straights and in the corners. When u look at it's specs it makes no sense.

 

[aadil717]

That car was catching air underneath the nose due to lack of downforce. Mercedes went all out in designing, but they forgot to double check the math at the wind tunnel.

IIRC I thought the front splitter just fell off?

Nothing to do with Mercedes failing to test it in the wind tunnel?

 

[Rudenut]

The cars had been having aero issues in practice. I believe a car had gotten some lift previous to the big flip. I saw it live on the old Speedvision feed.

Man, I miss speedvision....now it is all Neckcar all the time. Well, I suppose it has improved a bit.

 

[Morgoth_666]

More downforce generally means more drag, take f1 cars for a example.

The two generally do relate to one another but that in no way means that they are the same thing. Downforce is pressure pushing the car into the track. Drag is resistance to forward movement(or any direction I suppose). The idea when developing aero components is to increase downforce without increasing drag, or at least increasing it less than your competitors.

 

[sumbrownkid]

IIRC I thought the front splitter just fell off?

Nothing to do with Mercedes failing to test it in the wind tunnel?

The front splitters were added after the first two flips. Adrian Newey managed to undo some of the damage in only 24 hours, but the entire car needed a redesign. It cut air magnificently like the GT-One, but it couldn't use the air to its advantage like the Toyota can. Newey managing to claw back noticeable amount of downforce just showed how bad someone messed up with the wind tunnel.

 

[Exorcet]

Wait, What?!?

More downforce generally means more drag, take f1 cars for a example.

But it's anything but a direct correlation. Only induced drag is "guaranteed" drag produced from downforce, and you can pretty much nullify it with the ground effect.

Just because the Speed 12 produces downforce, you shouldn't assume it's draggy. This goes for real life and the game, but it counts double in the game itself because the aerodynamic modeling is so crazy.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

First off many 60's race cars had spoilers etc. Including the MKIV. It's rear spoiler (more of a lip, but it does create some downforce) can be seen quite clearly in this pic:


It also had tunnels on the underside of the body to reduce wind resistance. (No front downforce as such like in GT5)

If you don't believe it look at cars like the Chaparral 2F and the Panhard CD Le Mans cars.

Secondly the MKIV never hit 240mph on the Mulsanne straight. The fastest one was ever clocked was 216mph in a test. The cars at Le Mans were hitting about 212-213mph after adjustment of the lip so that the Mulsanne kink could be taken flat out.

👍

Yes, there were spoilers, but not much thought was given to the shape of the actual car, which probably generated a good deal of lift up front thanks to the cockpit, and ground effect was not very well understood, which pretty much left underside aero ineffective. I don't remember the GT40's having any kind of diffuser. The net result would be not very much downforce, even with the spoiler in place, and terrible load balance on the tires. These cars should change character with speed, but in GT, they are absolutely planted all the time.

 

[Tornado]

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

First off many 60's race cars had spoilers etc. Including the MKIV. It's rear spoiler (more of a lip, but it does create some downforce) can be seen quite clearly in this pic:

The only thing spoilers did for cars in the 1960s (Chaparrals perhaps being the exception) is keep them from taking flight like the early GT40s tried to do. The canards and rear lip spoilers added after the fact to stuff like the Ferrari P4 were purely to keep the thing stable at speeds. Not to add much of anything in the way of downforce.

 

[Chad D.]

Others with "magic" downforce are:
Tommy Kaira ZZ-II
Volkswagen W12 Nardo Concept

Darn, beat me to it. The ZZII seems to have pretty good rear downforce, and, I don't see a wing on the back. First time I saw the car I had thought "That thing definitely needs a wing", only to find out it already had some sort of wing or something to get some downforce on the back. Confusing but amazing little car

More downforce generally means more drag, take f1 cars for a example.

You mean take the Suszuki Escudo for example, lol, that thing has 1000+ hp, but it can't actually go as fast as any of the other 1000hp cars, (can't remember if it can actually hit 200 mph or not )

 

[TankAss95]

You mean take the Suszuki Escudo for example, lol, that thing has 1000+ hp, but it can't actually go as fast as any of the other 1000hp cars, (can't remember if it can actually hit 200 mph or not )

I don't think the Escudo can hit the 200mph mark - as far as I remember it struggles at 160-170.

 

[sesselpupser]

You mean take the Suszuki Escudo for example, lol, that thing has 1000+ hp, but it can't actually go as fast as any of the other 1000hp cars, (can't remember if it can actually hit 200 mph or not )

In the Escudo's case you also have to consider drivetrain power loss as it's AWD and aerodynamic issues as it was designed to accelerate quickly but not necessarily reach high speeds; things like radiator placement and airflow around other internal components can seriously harm aerodynamics. Downforce does often increase drag, but not all drag is from downforce, though the Escudo's wings, frontal area and such really won't help it hit high speeds, of course!

 

[FordMKIVJ5]

Yes, there were spoilers, but not much thought was given to the shape of the actual car, which probably generated a good deal of lift up front thanks to the cockpit, and ground effect was not very well understood, which pretty much left underside aero ineffective. I don't remember the GT40's having any kind of diffuser. The net result would be not very much downforce, even with the spoiler in place, and terrible load balance on the tires. These cars should change character with speed, but in GT, they are absolutely planted all the time.

The later cars like the Mark IV Ford did have some testing in the wind tunnel but all this was only to reduce drag and not to do with downforce. Spoilers at the time created only a small amount of downforce so that the car was more stable at speed as I said. And yep the Mark IV had "tunnels" under the car that "reduce drag", I never said they created downforce. And yes GT5 gives the cars downforce where they shouldn't really have it but they probably model it so that it has a similar level of grip as it does in real life just with downforce contributing to that.

The only thing spoilers did for cars in the 1960s (Chaparrals perhaps being the exception) is keep them from taking flight like the early GT40s tried to do. The canards and rear lip spoilers added after the fact to stuff like the Ferrari P4 were purely to keep the thing stable at speeds. Not to add much of anything in the way of downforce.

^ 👍

 

[chuyler1]

Try driving the TRIAL CELICA SS-II (ZZT231) '03. You will swear it has front downforce. The front tires grip like RH even though they are SS, giving the car perfect balance offline and significant oversteer online. That's right, I said oversteer on a FF. It is the oddest FF car I've ever driven in the game.

If you try to tune the Toyota CELICA SS-II (ZZT231) '99 with the same specs (including suspension and LSD settings), it will understeer like no tomorrow. Absolutely not the same car despite having the same weight and similar power curve.

Something is tweaked in the TRIAL version and it's either invisible front downforce or wider front tires.

 

[grrlpurple]

The standard Spoon S2000 race car - it has no rear wing and handles like it is on rails!

 

[Racedude]

The standard Spoon S2000 race car - it has no rear wing and handles like it is on rails!

It´s rather obvious: light, not too powerful, fine tuned suspension and race tires. Even with no downforce it should be a walk in the park.

 

[Exorcet]

The later cars like the Mark IV Ford did have some testing in the wind tunnel but all this was only to reduce drag and not to do with downforce. Spoilers at the time created only a small amount of downforce so that the car was more stable at speed as I said. And yep the Mark IV had "tunnels" under the car that "reduce drag", I never said they created downforce. And yes GT5 gives the cars downforce where they shouldn't really have it but they probably model it so that it has a similar level of grip as it does in real life just with downforce contributing to that.

I think I have a PDF copy of those wind tunnel results somewhere. I believe that I posted them before on the forum. The rear end felt downforce, but the front lifted I think.

I didn't say that the tunnels produced downforce, I just said I didn't remember any such thing on the car.

Downforce isn't just about grip. Even if the GT cars produce the right amount of net downforce, the cars could behave miles differently from their actual selves. The downforce needs to be distributed correctly as well. Taking a GT40 and putting a stage 5000 Turbo on it and going to Sarthe should result in a back flip. And during normal driving, the front end should get progressively lighter with speed.

 

[FordMKIVJ5]

I think I have a PDF copy of those wind tunnel results somewhere. I believe that I posted them before on the forum. The rear end felt downforce, but the front lifted I think.

I didn't say that the tunnels produced downforce, I just said I didn't remember any such thing on the car.

Downforce isn't just about grip. Even if the GT cars produce the right amount of net downforce, the cars could behave miles differently from their actual selves. The downforce needs to be distributed correctly as well. Taking a GT40 and putting a stage 5000 Turbo on it and going to Sarthe should result in a back flip. And during normal driving, the front end should get progressively lighter with speed.

Yep, I believe we are saying the same thing or at least meaning to say the same thing. 👍 -The cars in GT are just modeled on their real life counterparts and I doubt the real car behaves in the same manner in real life in fact with the MKIV I doubt it does because it isn't very likely that PD got their hands on one to model it's driving manner.

Dan Gurney reports having to adjust the rear spoiler (on the MKIV) as little as a 1/16th of an inch in order to get the right balance of top speed, stability at speed and being able to take the Mulsanne kink flat out so balancing downforce is definitely key- something that isn't really modeled very effectively in GT. 👎

In fact I seem to remember reading that a slower steering rack was requested at Le Mans due to the twitchyness of the steering at speed- pointing to the idea that the front was lifting.

 

[mister dog]

I did a little research myself:

In 1928, engineers working for Germany’s Opel brand attached inverted aerofoils to combat high-speed lift in a rocket-powered test car (one of the first examples of the breed). The idea, while “in the ether,” never coalesced in the minds of designers. Various vehicles grew and shed aerodynamic attachments, but none ever took the concept to its ultimate level. Robin Herd, chief McLaren designer, briefly tested wings on F1 cars in the early sixties, but ultimately neglected this important avenue of development.

The 1968 Lotus 49B incorporated a raised, flat tail and small front winglets. When the car was first raced at the 1968 Monaco Grand Prix, Graham Hill waltzed to victory from pole position. But at the next GP, at Spa-Francorchamps, Brabham and Ferrari both showed up with full-size rear wings mounted to the rear of their cars. Chris Amon took pole at Spa by nearly four seconds.

And here it is, the grand prix that launched the whole thing, ps look how crazy the safety precautions were; no seatbelts, people walking at 1 meter of the cars screaming past... suicidal!:

 

[aadil717]

The front splitters were added after the first two flips. Adrian Newey managed to undo some of the damage in only 24 hours, but the entire car needed a redesign. It cut air magnificently like the GT-One, but it couldn't use the air to its advantage like the Toyota can. Newey managing to claw back noticeable amount of downforce just showed how bad someone messed up with the wind tunnel.

Ah I see, I was too young to be interested in Le Mans back then, only seen the YouTube Clips and presumed that the splitter must of fallen off.
Learn something new everyday!

 

[Griffith500]

The front splitters were added after the first two flips. Adrian Newey managed to undo some of the damage in only 24 hours, but the entire car needed a redesign. It cut air magnificently like the GT-One, but it couldn't use the air to its advantage like the Toyota can. Newey managing to claw back noticeable amount of downforce just showed how bad someone messed up with the wind tunnel.

They weren't "splitters", they were "canards" or "diveplanes" (as in submarines?!) on the front corners of the car, along with a "Gurney" (as in Dan) flap on the leading edge of the wheel arch, all to try to reduce lift / increase front downforce. The splitter (i.e. the leading edge at the lower "bumper" that splits the air over and under the car) may have been modified, but the fault was more fundamental than any add-on parts could really fully rectify in the time available.

Anyway, canards do add downforce (why else would Mr. Newey prescribe them for the CLR's lack of front-end downforce?). Whether the car overall produces downforce is another matter; the GT40 MkIV seems to be a great example: despite the substantial Gurney flap on the rear, and the McLaren-esque nostrils on the front, the thing still lifts overall. Under-floor effects are incredibly important, as is the profile of the car's body itself - the more bodywork you can keep as low as possible, the better; hence the big "grooves" either side of the nose / crash structure on modern LMP cars.

Thanks, that was the article I meant, it's quite an interesting read so I think I'll take another look at it.

And I do wonder if the downforce settings are relative, but if they are you'd've thought they'd make them percentages... As it is we have some cars with much higher figures than others which would suggest to me that they're absolute, or there are 'downforce bands'; sort of tiers of downforce settings that cars fit into.

I wonder if there's a way to test two or more cars' aero settings to see if they compare?

I was going to ask the same thing, but I expected it would have been investigated already. Something tells me there are subtle differences between cars (e.g. the SuperGT cars), but whether the '60s WSC cars are extremely lacking by comparison, I don't know.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Thanks for correcting me. I knew I was off with the naming, but canards kept escaping me.

 

[Griffith500]

Thanks for correcting me. I knew I was off with the naming, but canards kept escaping me.

I'll be honest, it took me a while too. A Google image search was required to be sure I wasn't dreaming that the term (canard) meant what I thought it did, and actually applied to cars.
You've got to love the technical terminology for those things, though; one means duck (i.e. the waterfowl), the other is a control surface from a submarine...