| Author |
Message |
William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member
Username: Countachxx
Post Number: 2678
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 8:30 pm: | |
back in the 60s there were movable wings on CanAm cars, not sure about F1. Occasionally the wings on the some cars wouldnt work & they'd have a shunt. Chaparal, UOP & Porsche were the most high tech then so probably the only ones with movable wings |
Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member
Username: Mitch_alsup
Post Number: 804
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 5:27 pm: | |
"If they do race the Enzo, my guess is that they will have to modify the underbody aerodynamics to prevent adjustment while the car is in motion to satisfy the rules."
Just like McLaren F1; the only race car derived from a road car that ended up with a) lower HP, b) lower downforce, c) greater drag, d) lower top speed; than the road car. |
Lucas Taratus (Karmavore)
Junior Member
Username: Karmavore
Post Number: 242
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 3:53 pm: | |
I thought that the only 'active' aero component on the Murcielago where the cooling/intake ducts?
Luke. |
Steve Burns (Sjb509)
New member
Username: Sjb509
Post Number: 15
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 3:38 pm: | |
I find it interesting that Ferrari, Lambo, et al that use active aeros wouldn't be worried about liability in the case of an accident. If one failed to operate properly and resulted in the loss of the car or its occupants, it seems the door could be open for a lawsuit for faulty equipment. Founded or not, just putting them on the car would result in a light bulb going off in an ambulance chaser's mind for grounds for a lawsuit.
I personally wonder why they are there in the first place. Why not have manually adjustable downforce settings for the underbody. If someone wanted to go to try the top speed, they could have them set for low drag, while an autocrosser could crank them up so the car would only go 130 but would stick like glue.
Hey, I think I just figured out another service procedure for the 15k: "adjust aerodynamic control services". Ha! |
Lucas Taratus (Karmavore)
Junior Member
Username: Karmavore
Post Number: 241
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 3:36 pm: | |
why should it more of a worry than any other potential system faliure?
Luke. |
Mark (Study)
Member
Username: Study
Post Number: 527
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 3:19 pm: | |
That's what I was thinking. You go into a tricky part of the track and have to wonder if your new "bat" wings are working on your Murcielago. Did they lift up like they are programed to do?
|
Steve Burns (Sjb509)
New member
Username: Sjb509
Post Number: 14
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 2:47 pm: | |
The main reason F1, AMLS, CART, etc cars have large fixed wings is that they are mandated to use only non-movable aerodynamics. The theory was that active aerodynamics could potentially be dangerous to the driver. Imagine blasting down the main straight at a track with your wings "trimmed" for very little downforce/drag. Turning into the tight turn at the end, expecting to have the wings turned to maximum downforce, only they have malfunctioned and the car doesn't stop or turn like expected...immediate high-speed crash.
While I personally like the look of the wings on Ferrari supercars (looking at my calendar with the F50GT right now), it would also be appealing to have a car with tremendous performance, but without the visible wings.
If they do race the Enzo, my guess is that they will have to modify the underbody aerodynamics to prevent adjustment while the car is in motion to satisfy the rules. |
Sean F (Agracer)
Junior Member
Username: Agracer
Post Number: 241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 10:35 am: | |
The Enzo has an moving wing on the BACK of the car. I don't think it's underneath the car. Their is a diffuser which generates considerable downforce, but it doesn't move. |
Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member
Username: Mitch_alsup
Post Number: 802
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 10:27 am: | |
"I'd been told by many dealers, mechanics, etc. that Ferrari didn't want to admit that their "anti-lift" body shape and those thousands of wind tunnel testing were wasted."
I would not say wasted! The F355 was the first road going Ferrari with underbody aerodynamics. Available litterature indicates that this was worth 155 lb at the rear at thigh speed, the 360 has around twice the downforce.
However, a 9" chord wing as wide as the body can easily generate 1000 lbs of downforce, and is adjustable with the angle of attack and gurney lips. Heck, even the placement location can change the total downforce on a car. Take a wing mounted above the rear of the car, and reposition it so that the leading 1/4 chord point is right at the end of the car, and the low pressure region under the wing can be used to accelerate air from the diffusers under the car and significantly increase the total downforce on the car. See "Race Car Aerodynamics: designing for speed" Joseph Katz.
A stated goal of Ferrari was high speed stability without the use of external aerodynamic control devices. Looking back to the days of racing cars before aerodynamics, the designers had to implement massive amounts of understeer to avoid high speed (>150 MPH) stability problems. Old footage of mid 1950s F1 and leMans cars show these effects. The advent of aerodynamics in the early-mid 60s, venturi cars of the late 70s, and ground effects of the 80s provided a means to have your high speed stability 'cake' and still have a car that will rotate into turns with the slightest steering input 'eat it too'.
Many ricers take to wings to make a statement: look at my car--its got to be fast because it has a wing, fart pipe,..... |
Raleigh Smith (288gto)
Junior Member
Username: 288gto
Post Number: 80
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 10:03 am: | |
The new Maseratis have an undercarriage wing so it will provide down force at 20mph. That's also why the 360 Stradle and the diffuser. Wings on the back of cars are great after 120 mph. That is why they are on race cars. How many times are any of us going over 120 on the street (not track) and need that kind of downforce? |
William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member
Username: Countachxx
Post Number: 2676
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 11:42 pm: | |
The countach looks much better With a wing< I imagine the Murcielago would look better with a wing also.
Can you imagine an F40 or an F50 without a wing ? Pretty dumb looking. I can see how the Enzo doesnt need a wing, although a wing would improve its looks. The 360 Does need a wing & Ferrari added a wing on their 360GT2 car
Ferrari also uses wings on its F1 cars the 333SP & the F50GT1 |
Steven J. Solomon (Solly)
Member
Username: Solly
Post Number: 503
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 10:26 pm: | |
Apparently Ferrari spent thousands of hours in wind tunnel testing on the 360 (and presumably as much, if not more on the Enzo). The bodies of the 360's were supposed to generate "huge" downforce by virtue of their design(flat bottom, diffusers, etc.).
When I first tracked my street 360 and the rear wheels got twitchy in some corners i put it down to street tires, street chassis, soft springs, etc. When i began noticing similar problems with my 360 Challenge (with massive slicks, tuned chassis, etc.), I started thinking that the 360 really could use a wing in the rear. I'd been told by many dealers, mechanics, etc. that Ferrari didn't want to admit that their "anti-lift" body shape and those thousands of wind tunnel testing were wasted. In addition, Matt Karson commented that he thought the 360 needed a wing as well. I tend to believe Matt.
I started searching for an aftermarket wing for the Challenge, as i had seen 2 of these at the track, but they looked ugly. Lo and behold, the Stradale comes out, and has a rear factory wing. I guess Ferrari finally realized there was not enough downforce from body design alone. I am now trying to get hold of a Stradale wing, but they are apparently very hard to get. If anyone knows of a source, please let me know.
As far as a wing on the Enzo, i'm in favor for both looks and function. |
matt green (Mattg)
New member
Username: Mattg
Post Number: 34
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 7:49 am: | |
I like the wings that are designed to be there not aftermarket tack ons. A big wing looks tough on the f50 |
PSk (Psk)
Member
Username: Psk
Post Number: 563
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 1:25 am: | |
quote:Must be a real b!tch to do U turns in town.
I doubt it with that much power ... just a little twitch on the steering wheel and a bit of throttle, and you would be facing the other way real fast !!!! Ha ha ha ha
Pete |
Peter S�derlund /328 GTB -88 (Corsa)
Member
Username: Corsa
Post Number: 333
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 1:11 am: | |
Right, Faisal.
Ciao
Peter |
Faisal Khan (Tvrfreak)
Member
Username: Tvrfreak
Post Number: 335
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 12:54 am: | |
I think you mean Ferrari wanted better lateral grip from the Enzo compared to the F50 when it was describing a circle of 400 metres, right? |
Peter S�derlund /328 GTB -88 (Corsa)
Member
Username: Corsa
Post Number: 332
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 12:46 am: | |
Not minimum turning radius. At 400 m.
Ciao
Peter
|
Taek-Ho Kwon (Stickanddice)
Intermediate Member
Username: Stickanddice
Post Number: 1209
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 12:46 pm: | |
400m? That's around 400 yards for the US brain, right?
Must be a real b!tch to do U turns in town.
Cheers |
Faisal Khan (Tvrfreak)
Member
Username: Tvrfreak
Post Number: 288
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 12:43 pm: | |
Peter,
the Enzo has a turning radius of 400 m? What are you talking about???!!! |
Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member
Username: Mitch_alsup
Post Number: 779
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 10:24 am: | |
I think wings on road cars look like the designer was not "with it--aerodynamically" when the car was designed. On most cars it does more harm to the looks than good.
An especially poor looking wing is found on the previous generation Camaro.
Even the Countash and Diabolo look better without the wings.
But, if you are going to put a wing on a car, at least mount it far enouch to the rear so that the low pressure region generated under the wing extends under the car adding a lot to its functionality. Wings that are positioned above some 'sheet metal' on the car are worthless--in my opinion.
Secondly, find out what direction the air is actually flowing and mount the wing so that it is NOT STALLED. Many wings sitting on the backs of ricer-cars are no better than spoilers in the lift to drag department. |
Mark (Study)
Member
Username: Study
Post Number: 521
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 10:01 am: | |
Does anyone know how these wings work?
Are they electronic motors tied to a speed sensor?
|
DES (Sickspeed)
Advanced Member
Username: Sickspeed
Post Number: 4751
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 9:20 am: | |
LOL, Whart...! |
Peter S�derlund /328 GTB -88 (Corsa)
Member
Username: Corsa
Post Number: 331
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 12:48 am: | |
There is an adjustable front wing that gives and alters downforce, which also increase drag. The rate is often 3:1 to 3,5:1 for F1 cars. This downforce/drag rate is of major concern when designing a race/sportscar.
Enzo reaches its maximum speed at 300 km/h and at that speed the entire aerodynamic package gives the maximum downforce of 785 kg.
From that point, to increase the top speed Enzo has been equipped with an adustable wing underneath the body that decreases the drag and also decreases downforce. When Enzo reaches its definite top speed at 350+ km/h the downforce has been reduced to 525 kg.
It should also be said that even very competent sportscars do generally generate lifting forces instead of downforce. A design criterion for Ferrari was to improve maximum speed when turning radius was 400 m compared with the F50. That�s what makes the Enzo so fantastic and also the reason why Enzo will blow the door of its competitors.
That�s interesting to know for those who believe 0-100 km/h is of any importance for Ferrari designers�
The 360 got 180 kg downforce at 290 km/h.
Ciao
Peter |
PSk (Psk)
Member
Username: Psk
Post Number: 550
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 10:32 pm: | |
I believe that some countries do not like the wings due to them being dangerous, i.e. extra harm to the person that you have just run over, etc. or catching people if they should happen to walk into the side of the moving car ...
This maybe one reason why they have moved away ???
Pete |
Dr. Erik Nielsen (Judge4re)
New member
Username: Judge4re
Post Number: 12
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 9:42 pm: | |
Ferrari dropped the wing after seeing too many big wings showing up on Honda Civics.
Seriously, a wing is almost an after thought to the design, not to mention more drag (read lower top speed). Its more aerodynamically efficient to let the underside of the car generate downforce. |
wm hart (Whart)
Intermediate Member
Username: Whart
Post Number: 1300
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 9:39 pm: | |
Willi: We're going to introduce you to DES's friend; her name is apparently "The Bird." |
Lucas Taratus (Karmavore)
Junior Member
Username: Karmavore
Post Number: 237
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 9:37 pm: | |
Those dynamic wings (911, Corrado, et al) have been around for the while. The Crossfire is the latest to make use of one if I'm not mistaken. |
Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Junior Member
Username: 86mondial32
Post Number: 143
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 8:24 pm: | |
William... I love that kind of thinking. what do you guys think about the trick powered wings that Porsche has been using for a few years? Even the little stub on the Boxster is kinda cool to watch in traffic. |
William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member
Username: Countachxx
Post Number: 2671
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 8:16 pm: | |
I like big wings, F1 & Indy & LeMans cars still use wings. The Enzo & Murcielago just look unfinished without a nice big wing on the back |
Mark (Study)
Member
Username: Study
Post Number: 520
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 6:06 pm: | |
Did I read it right in Road&Track that the Enzo has speed sensitive wings under the car that change at different speeds to add or take away down-force? Kind of like the wings on the new Lambo that give it the name- BAT I guess?
I've just been watching the 360 at Watkins Glen and I like the look of the big fixed wing on the back.
Why have P-car, F-car and Lambo all gone away from the fixed wing style? F50 and F40 look great comparied to todays under-car areo tricks.
Are these new hidden wings reliable? Embedded electronics. Warning light if its not working?
Funny that Ferrari can't make a convertable top that works right (360 thread) yet they make the car more complex with hidden wings?
|