That was me - not logged on!Anonymous wrote:Downforce is typically considered to be a function of aero for the purposes of any discussion (weight is prejudicial to fast cornering..............inertia).
I have read that sports cars in the past have had really good drag/lift ratios. Due to closed wheels and a large underbody area. Imagine a pressure drop of 1/2 pound over 2000sq inches against 1000sq inches?
Yes, I am sure you are right. But there was a time when I am fairly sure that sports prototypes were generating more raw downforce for less drag than F1 cars of the day.RacingManiac wrote:Would the consideration of weight be taken into account though when related to actual cornering force? If 4 tires can generate 6000lb of lateral load, for a 1320lb car that would be equivelent of 4.5G, while for a 2000lb car it'll only be 3G. Since downforce are there for maxmize grip of the car, a lighter car wouldn't need as much downforce to generate a given cornering G?
Yeah certainly, some of the Group C cars of the late 80s and early 90s are reputed to have been doing so.RH1300S wrote: Yes, I am sure you are right. But there was a time when I am fairly sure that sports prototypes were generating more raw downforce for less drag than F1 cars of the day.
By "true" you mean open wheeler? (I would argue that sports prototypes are pure race cars BTW )ranger wrote:if prototypes suffer less drag then a true race car gets more drag ...
Yeas LMP cars do generate more downforce than formula 1 of nowdays.darksag3x wrote:do modern LMP prototypes (like the bentley speed generate more downforce than formula one cars do? how much downforce do lesser formula three cars make?
And don't forget the unraced Peugeot 905 Evo2.RacingManiac wrote:And then there are the fasinating "what ifs" like the Allard J2X(for the 3.5 liter formula in early 90's Group C)