Quote:
Originally Posted by winkosmosis
It's not like drag and downforce are the same.
A lot of the elements of a car that create lift are also ones that create drag... like pushing more air under a rough underside. I don't see why you couldn't do both.
IIRC the Porsche GT3 has zero lift, and something like 0.29cD
|
Most production cars try to get zero lift or slightly negative.
The GTR doesn't give up speed for downforce even though the engine can handle the extra drag. Although I'd like to see the numbers on the aerodynamic forces
. I wouldn't consider it a good car just because they went with a smoother V6. It ain't a V8 and it's still pushing HP, but still, it's not the best of combinations.
Race cars get those reported 1.0-1.1 drag coefficients because they're not aerodynamic, 800hp in some cases, and generate hundreds to thousands in downforce at speed. They often give up speed at a high cost for a little more downforce.
The Aerocivic is the best example I've seen of low drag and good downforce. How it runs at 90mph and higher is a testament to his safe design. Most people don't understand how much aerodynamics affect a vehicle even though it is a major factor as early as 35mph.
Honestly, it looks easier for them to add excess horsepower rather then design a vehicle that gets low drag. Good aerodynamics does wonders for a small 100hp car. But the Camaro is a full size sports car. It still pales in comparison to a Corvette but a Corvette isn't a 2+2 seater. 400hp probably pushes it into the same bracket as a muscle car.
The Camaro trans ams were some of the best aerodynamic sports cars still on the road. My grandma has a '92 Camaro and it comes from the more beautiful generation of Camaro cars. But her's is an autoslushbox, and sat so long the wheels started sinking into the ground. It's a clear picture of how poorly this design is appreciated IMHO.