C24 modified

[ZE.FT]

Anyway we have to trust Saubers aero departments statement as mentioned that they have already tried drop plates which were behind the FW but found out that they did not add downforce.

If we really have to trust them (do you exclude it was just a polite answer to a fan ?), Sauber until a couple of years ago already had two vertical plates, on the sides of the tub, behind the wing, the keels. Maybe they just attached the horizontal mounts to the keel or to a prolongation of the keel on the nosecone.
DON'T KNOW HOW TO INTER QUOTE-JUST PUT IN HERE
Also had the same idea with the two plates attaching to the twin keel,but on the other hand thought THIS would have increased the structural problems indeed.
With trusting Sauber I did not exclude a polite answer to a fan but tried to say I do not have an argument against qualified personal of
a multi million USD wind tunnel team.And also said in previous reply
'unless Sauber shows up with such vertical plates' which includes a lot of
possibilities.

Not so sure about 'the rules do not allow bodywork behind the rear edge of the car' for FIA/GT class.if you meant so.You will have noticed the huge diffuser dimensions which are well behind the rear edge of the cars.

FIA GT rules on the rear wing does specify the dimensions of a box, the rear wing assembly (that includes, wing, endplates and vertical supports) must be contained in that box, and it’s required that the box doesn’t protrude beyond the rearmost point of the car.

Reca are we talking the same class? FIA GT1 or GT2?
I just have checked the regulations for the GT1 and GT2 classes but was unable to find an explanation for the massive diffuser rear edge which certainly is well behind the rear edge of the cars (bumper).
Can you interpret the 3.6 better than I can do it?
Or do I have to search somewhere else?

[Reca]

Reca are we talking the same class? FIA GT1 ?

I think so, FIA GT1, art.258 of appendix J.

I just have checked the regulations for the GT1 class but was unable to find an explanation for the massive diffuser rear edge which certainly is well behind the rear edge of the car (bumper).

but that’s just because the diffuser has a flat rear edge while the bodywork (viewed from above) is usually a bit curved, the diffuser limit is the rearmost vertical panel, look at the article 3.5.1

3.5.1) [...]
It is permitted to add the following elements:
[...]
An inclined, flat panel to the rear of the flat bottom:
- between the vertical planes formed by the inside faces of the rear wheels.
- between the rear end of the flat bottom and the vertical plane formed by the rearmost vertical panel of the bodywork.

BTW :

first part of the text

first part of your message

second part of the text

second part of your message

[ZE.FT]

Thanks.

Not trying to be stubborn but look at this one.
GT acc. to FIA specs.The rear wing may be out of regulations.
http://www.lambocars.com/highres/murgtr17.htm

another one
diff&rear wing
http://www.lambocars.com/highres/murgtr19.htm

[Reca]

The rearmost point of the bodywork is the bumper at the car centreline, in the Murcièlago that point is some cm behind the upper bodywork (where the rear lights are) rear edge, no part of the diffuser or of the rear wing can be beyond that point. The simple fact that the Murciélago raced in FIA GT last year and the fact that the rules on rearmost point of rear wing and diffuser are unchanged since 2002 at least, should be a conclusive proof of the fact that it does meet the requirements.
BTW the perspective in the pics is often misleading for this kind of details, but if you look at this pic of the car during a race :
http://www.pitstop.com.my/news/images/1008041301-S.JPG
you can see that the wing rear edge looks a lot closer to the diffuser rear edge and to the bumper rearmost point than in the pics you posted (of the car in a stand during a motorshow).
Furthermore if you increase the brightness and then draw two lines as the prolongation of the vertical edges of the diffuser rear face, (the edges are pretty visible so isn’t difficult), you’ll see the two slightly diverging lines touch the wing at the trailing edge (not at the tips obviously because the wing is wider than the diffuser), exactly as it should be, and it’s also plausible that the bumper at the centreline does touch the plane defined by the two lines.
That’s not conclusive by itself (it just shows that it’s possible that the rules are respected in spite of the first impression) but coupled with the fact that the car was allowed to race...

[ZE.FT]

It's o.k. reca.
The rear wing on the picture I 've posted seems to be a showcar wing with the bulge in the middle plus one chord,therefore no wonder if it is not within specs.
Also the diffuser is a dummy as to be seen from other back views
from same site.

[kilcoo316]

about the mounting of the wing - at the wing centre there would be very little in the way of transverse flow across the wing anway - it would build up as you get towards the wingtips - so having effectively wing fences (like on MiG - 15) wouldn't help if they are at the centreline

see fences here http://cybermodeler.com/aircraft/mig-15 ... 15u-01.jpg