- 1. Downforce (score: 1)
- Author: ttarleto@ix.netcom.com
- Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 22:11:07 -0600 (CST)
- I can't give a number for a ground effect car , as each car is very different. FYI , a wing can produce lots of downforce at 50mph. Each wing has a different Lift/Drag Cofficient, but here are some
- /html/autox/1999-01/msg00165.html (7,691 bytes)
- 2. Re: Downforce (score: 1)
- Author: Jamie Sculerati <jamies@mrj.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 23:16:52 -0500 (EST)
- Of course, 32 sq feet is alot of wing -- a 6 ft span would need a chord of nearly 5.5 ft! Not something you'd find on the trunk of a Neon, but they seem to make excellent sunshades on A Mod cars. Jam
- /html/autox/1999-01/msg00167.html (7,527 bytes)
- 3. Re: Downforce (score: 1)
- Author: Cliff Loh <vcmc001@ibm.net>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 11:29:33 -0800
- at15 deg 2.7 Of course that calculation, although correct, only considers a single element airfoil. The Phantom has three elements on each wing, all set to different attack angles. Also recalculate f
- /html/autox/1999-01/msg00192.html (8,207 bytes)
- 4. Re: Downforce (score: 1)
- Author: "Phil Ethier" <pethier@isd.net>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 00:02:03 -0600
- This assertion is absurd. Weight added to a car, whether added by adding mass or by adding downforce, must go to the tire patches. It can't be "absorbed". True. The increase in corning ability with
- /html/autox/1999-01/msg00216.html (8,413 bytes)
- 5. Re: Downforce (score: 1)
- Author: "Jason Powell" <fizzx@wi.net>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 00:35:33 -0600
- For those wondering if the above statement is true or false you should look at the following page with links to racing sites and NASA on the topic of "centrifugal" force. http://www.netsurf.com/nss/
- /html/autox/1999-01/msg00221.html (7,887 bytes)
- 6. Re: Downforce (score: 1)
- Author: aria@interaccess.com (Danielle Engstrom)
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 20:56:32 -0600
- You're leaving out an important part of the equation -- weight. I'm no physics guru, but my gut tells me that a smaller, and therefore lighter, car is generally going to corner better than bigger an
- /html/autox/1999-01/msg00278.html (8,961 bytes)
- 7. Re: Downforce (score: 1)
- Author: Mike Shields <mshields@inconnect.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 01:35:00 -0700
- You have a very astute gut. The reason for this is that while more weight (as in vehicle weight, not downforce weight) on the tires does increase grip, it also increases the forces acting on the car
- /html/autox/1999-01/msg00293.html (8,012 bytes)
- 8. re: Downforce (score: 1)
- Author: Cliff Loh <vcmc001@ibm.net>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 11:07:39 -0800
- You're leaving out an important part of the equation -- weight. I'm no physics guru, but my gut tells me that a smaller, and therefore lighter, car is generally going to corner better than bigger and
- /html/autox/1999-01/msg00325.html (7,797 bytes)
- 9. Re: Downforce (score: 1)
- Author: Gemery@aol.com
- Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:54:55 EST
- Weight actually helps the bigger, heavier car in a steady-state corner (more downforce!), though the extra momentum cancels that out. The lighter car has the advantage when it changes direction, such
- /html/autox/1999-01/msg00328.html (7,482 bytes)
- 10. RE: Downforce (score: 1)
- Author: "Miller, Don" <MillerD2@idhw.state.id.us>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:04:31 -0700
- This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --_=_NextPart_000_01BE3B42.168CC19A charset="iso-8859-1" So, si
- /html/autox/1999-01/msg00330.html (11,318 bytes)
- 11. Re: Downforce (score: 1)
- Author: "Jason Powell" <fizzx@wi.net>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 23:21:11 -0600
- MASS is your enemy! The less your car has the faster you'll be...on all parts of the course. Why? Newton figured this out long ago...more mass means more inertia. Inertia is resistance to change in
- /html/autox/1999-01/msg00345.html (8,567 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu