USA FERRARI F40

That's a great song and fitting as this afternoon I had a great ride on my one horse power Buck Skin Mare Cutting Horse who if you don't know how to handle her can get you into a lot more trouble than an F 40 in the snow.

 

That's more what I meant when I mentioned you above. Someone not liking the car is one thing. but if they started to talk to you about aerodynamics or the like in regards the p4/5, you WOULD be the definitive source, in this instance, on the car.

It was only an illustration used to prove a point. That is all.

 

On the fence. Did you have any of the other rides, LOLA,GT40 wind tunneled to make any adjustments? If so, did you do full scale or model versions?
Sorry for the off topic

 

Hi

Yes we put Dino Competizione in the wind tunnel and learned that she has the Cx of a small truck and that the rear wing over powered the front wing. In the Dino thread there's info. about that investigation. She does have fences that tune the flow through the radiator for better engine cooling and they work. We tested with them removed and the engine cools worse at low speeds without them.

Aerodynamic testing was just beginning in the 60ies and often was carried out by attaching tufts of cotton to the car, heading down the road and watching what happened to them.

The MK-IV was one of the first cars put into a wind tunnel, and compared to modern cars it produced a lot of lift.

Back then race cars had very little down force. Today they make huge down force which enables much higher cornering speeds. In 1967 my MK-IV made 950 lbs. of lift at 233 mph.
Today's Le Mans cars make 3000 lbs. of down force at 100 mph!

The F 40 used it's aerodynamic devices especially it's rear wing to create down force at cornering speeds. The Fences tuned the airflow as discussed in that thread. You need down force in the turns not the straights where it hurts VMAX. That's why the Enzo/P 4/5 spoiler backs off at high speed. The new 458 uses movable/flexable aerodynamic devices as well.

Best

 

Nice, Thank you.
In reference to the flexable devices on the 458, how difficult is it to get/maintain consistent side to side performance accuracy. It would seem mechanically movable units based on speed similar to the rear wing on the CGT would be more reliable/reproducable?

 

Interesting question. On the Enzo/P 4/5 and CGT they are mechanical. On P 4/5 as we increased the size of the rear spoiler we had to re engineer and beef up the mechanism.
Flexable devices were also used on the Chaparral. A spring loaded flap ducted air flow to produce down force at low speeds and reduce it at high speeds. On the 458 the fences in the nose as I understand it flex and are not spring loaded so whether or not they are as accurate as mechanical devices is a good question. Ferrari has great engineering so I'm sure they've thought about this and are confident that this will work in the real world. On the 458 the flexible fences tune air flow to the radiators, more at low speed, less at high speed. At high speed too much flow produces drag and over engine cooling.

At Le Mans in the 60ies several cars had to duct tape cardboard across the radiator inlets to reduce high speed flow and over cooling of the engine especially at night.

The F 40's air fence also increases low speed engine cooling but unlike the 458's flexible fences causes increased drag at high speeds.

 

I'm not sure why the CGT spoiler just doesn't stay up all the time. What difference does it make if it stays up under 50 MPH (it goes up over 75 mph)?

It's a complex and probably heavy hydraulic system (pumps and servos) just to make the spoiler go up and down at >75 and <50.

The rear spoiler in the Enzo retracts at very high speeds. I don't think the CGT does that, or at least it's not documented.

 

I think it has something to do with meeting mpg standards. While it does add downforce it also adds drag and may effect gas mileage.

I think the Enzo spoiler gets around that with "race mode".

Can you feel a difference when the CGT wing goes up?

 

That makes sense. I haven't noticed a difference, but I'll pay more attention the next time I go out.

 

I believe this is right. Makes sense. The downforce with the wing extended increase by 30% over the rear axel and improves engine cooling in the process. Of interest, originally the wing elevated too slowly and Porsche had to increase the servo speed to allow full extention in I believe 4 seconds. The car was outaccelerating the wings function!

 

There is also the white F40 done by that tuning company Liberty Walk in Japan.

I think the three best colors for the F40 are black, white and of course red.

 

Technically isn't it a wing.

 

The 1987 Ferrari F 40 has substantially worse drag coefficient (Cd) than a 1947 Saab 92 which has a substantially worse drag coefficient (Cd) than a 2004 Porsche 997.

Apples to Apples the F 40's Cd is worse than a Porsche 959's.

In Sport/Race cars Cd is often sacrificed for down force so the F 40's Cd isn't surprising. That however is the reason that modern Ferrari's (Enzo/P 4/5 / 458) and modern Porsche's like the CGT utilise the vastly superior system of movable aerodynamic devices. The benefit of being able to generate down force when you need it and reduce drag at higher speeds, or maintain engine cooling without excess drag far outweighs the extra weight of these systems. P 4/5 for example has a much lower Cd than an F 40 but generates much more down force accross all speed ranges. By removing drag at high speeds it also has a higher VMAX. Unlike the F 40 it's VMAX is not limited by drag but by gearing.

 

A wing is quite different than a spoiler.

A wing generates lift or when mounted in an inverted position generates down force.
The drag generated by a wing is much less than the drag generated by a spoiler which spoils lift.

 

Thanks Joe! But another way to look at this is how amazingly far Ferrari has come in only 10 years from the F40 to the Enzo. Maybe we've just reached a point where more has performance and "sporty" benefits as well? For example, a US Enzo only weighs 248 lbs more than a US F40, and it has:

- Integrated electro-hydraulic computer-controlled spoilers (front and rear) vs one large fixed rear spoiler
- Full underbody aero system vs minimal or no underbody aero system
- 6-liter V12 vs 2.9-liter V8
- Normally aspirated 650 hp vs turbocharged 478 hp
- 6-speed F1 transmission vs 5-speed manual transmission
- Driver and passenger airbags vs no airbags
- Full carbon tub vs no tub
- Computer-controlled inbound suspension vs conventional outbound suspension
- '03 emissions with full catalyst system vs '92 emissions
- Larger brake rotors with 6-piston calipers
- Front elevator vs no elevator
- 11" longer
- 2" wider
- 1" taller
- 345/35ZR19 tires vs ?
- 217+ mph vs 200+ mph
- 60 to 130 mph in the 7s vs 9s

Of course one wouldn't do this, but would an Enzo be lighter than an F40 if you just removed the airbags, emissions equipment, spoiler components and elevator to match what's in a US F40?

 

You should add a few things to that list though.

1-Looks: F40 wins hands down. All the downforce the Enzo makes without a wing made it look well, not so nice compared to the F40 and even F50 for that matter.

2-Iconic value: F40 wins hands down. The F40 was the old mans last car and is raw and sublime. The Enzo may have great performance, but 20 years down the line will it be as "well received" as the F40? Doubtful.

 

That's subjective (which I'm not good at commenting on)... and I really like both cars...but...

- How does an F40 look without the rear wing?
- Only one car was deemed worthy by family and friends to have the "old mans" name.
- Park an Enzo on one side of the street and an F40 on the other side. Invite 1000 people that don't know much about cars. Record which car attracts the most people.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

BTW, as a collector I like the Enzo and F40 the same. But as a driver... well you need to drive both to understand.