erodynamics of Ferrari and C3Vette flying buttresses, "tunnel back" recessed windows?

[Big time]

They are like fastback C-pillars with the sloping rood replaced by an almost vertical recessed one.

Beautiful aren't they?
But How aerodynamic they are?
Being sport cars their C-pillars boat-tail inward and they have sleek windshield angles.
Would a roof sloping downward at the rear help?
Maybe also boattailing the side windows a bit?

[UltArc]

Is the third a Ferrarri? It just screams Cizeta to me. It looks like Ferrarri is on the side, and maybe this is the Testarossa(?) I have heard about. I have no valuable contribution, but I am subscribing and figured I would comment, too.

[gone-ot]

Not good...as DODGE found out with their NASCAR 1969 Chargers, hence the Dodge 500 with its "filled-in" rear window:



...also see SAE paper #700036: "The Aerodynamic Development of the Chager Daytona for Stock Car Competition," by R. P. Marcell and G. F. Romberg, both of Chrysler Corp.

...lots of good info about front and rear spoilers, as well as backlight angles.

[mcrews]

tele,
you find the coolest stufff!!!


ps. big time, funny how that particular vet looks better with time......

[aerohead]

I believe that the Corvette pictured was around Cd 0.50
The Ferrari would be lower but not great.
Enzo really didn't give a ---t about drag coefficients.The cars were light,very powerfull,relatively small frontal area.
Stability would overshadow low drag,as all these cars could be legally driven at their limit in some places.
In the late 70s Mazda came out with their GLC,and in their marketing,mentioned that it had a lower Cd than a Corvette.This may have precipitated the move towards better streamlining.on the Chevy.
GM used to have designs 12-years out into the future so it's hard to tell.

[user removed]

Another thing they did with the Charger 500 was a flush front grille with fixed headlights.
Then the Daytona and Superbird. Worked for a Chrysler dealership when they all first came out.

regards
Mech

[some_other_dave]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Enzo really didn't give a ---t about drag coefficients.The cars were light,very powerfull,relatively small frontal area.

There's a famous quote from Il Commendatore to the effect of, "Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines."

His company nowadays appears to disagree.

-soD

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by some_other_dave

There's a famous quote from Il Commendatore to the effect of, "Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines."

His company nowadays appears to disagree.

-soD

Yes,there's no way Ferrari can afford to ignore this part of the performance equation and compete within this niche.

[Sven7]

Originally Posted by UltArc

Is the third a Ferrarri? It just screams Cizeta to me. It looks like Ferrarri is on the side, and maybe this is the Testarossa(?) I have heard about. I have no valuable contribution, but I am subscribing and figured I would comment, too.

It's a Testarossa. The others are a 308 and a 512 BB. The bottom one isn't real.

I believe the buttresses fail because they create vortexes over the rear window. The air wants to curve in toward the center line and twist around as if it were in a pickup truck with the tailgate down.