When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
i watched it. i don't see the BS. i did say "might" increase front downforce. to get that you would need your under car cooling ducts to look like this.
the stock air dams is the real reason for the lift. any time you put a dam in the air that will create a large slow patch of air. for down force we want fast air underneath, slow air over the top. again aerodynamics is whole world of physics and talking in general terms can be rendered pointless.
Johnny, what is your opinion of the Girodisc replacement 2 piece rotors?
They are advertised on CF by a supporting vendor and I have not heard of them before. The price makes them look very enticing for two piece floating rotors made in oem replacement sizes for C6 Z51 and C6 ZO6.
Johnny, what is your opinion of the Girodisc replacement 2 piece rotors?
They are advertised on CF by a supporting vendor and I have not heard of them before. The price makes them look very enticing for two piece floating rotors made in oem replacement sizes for C6 Z51 and C6 ZO6.
mehh not a fan. the iron isn't that pure. i think they use Chinese iron. that's why it's so cheap. but if you have a c6z51 then i think that's your only option.
So Johnny I have a question, what would be the ultimate, money no option, mad science type, brake solution? Really go wild here and tell us what we will see in the next 10 years.
So Johnny I have a question, what would be the ultimate, money no option, mad science type, brake solution? Really go wild here and tell us what we will see in the next 10 years.
I want to take a crack at this: preheated carbon-carbon, with active suspension and tires that wear out exactly at the end of one race distance.
I want to take a crack at this: preheated carbon-carbon, with active suspension and tires that wear out exactly at the end of one race distance.
is that the best you can think off? my thing would be an energy recouping system that could then be used to drive you faster out the corner. Imagine KERS for all 4 wheels and on steroids.
is that the best you can think off? my thing would be an energy recouping system that could then be used to drive you faster out the corner. Imagine KERS for all 4 wheels and on steroids.
I did think about that, but I decided to limit mine to what would offer the most pure braking performance over a race without regard to efficiency. So I ditched the idea of KERS because it's heavier than a non-recouping brake system. Ditto AWD because it adds weight in the front vs a rwd car, which is the worst possible place to add weight for braking performance.
I did think about that, but I decided to limit mine to what would offer the most pure braking performance over a race without regard to efficiency. So I ditched the idea of KERS because it's heavier than a non-recouping brake system. Ditto AWD because it adds weight in the front vs a rwd car, which is the worst possible place to add weight for braking performance.
All very valid points. Then I watch a video of a P1 and think how amazing it would be if it could last a few laps longer (no recovery on the P1).
All very valid points. Then I watch a video of a P1 and think how amazing it would be if it could last a few laps longer (no recovery on the P1).
The P1 would probably be the Laguna Seca record holder instead of the low bucks and low tech ACR if it wasn't for the extra weight of the battery systems.
I want to take a crack at this: preheated carbon-carbon, with active suspension and tires that wear out exactly at the end of one race distance.
kers is still unobtainable for anyone not named AUDI, or Ferrari. once it is available at a reasonable price i will buy one.
Club racers can get Carbon Carbon rotors. When you order them you basically wright a bank check, tell PFC or Brembo what your car is. they go to town, build a kit for your application, hand deliver it, and a engineer shows up to your first few races. in 2012 i was apart of a team that developed a kit for a SCCA team.
For this driving season I plan to work on my braking ability. Specifically two areas: staying off the brakes in order to carry more momentum, and compressing braking windows to maximize time on throttle.
So in the spirit of this, using the following video of me going into Turn1 at VIR as an example I ask:
Is it safer to brake early and harder (sans ABS) then gradually shorten the window using the same force albeit with slight higher speed?
Or would it be better to cap my speed at maybe ~135ish determine minimum braking window then slowly expand the window as I increase my speed.
My current assumption is that my car can probably see a max speed of roughly ~145 MPH on the front straight.
Note: My car is daily driven year round and I only participate in a handful of events per year (~less than 5), therefore I’m not considering any BBK or major changes until my driving ability requires it.
Current Car & Setup:
- C6 Grand Sport with F55 suspension
- Engine / Drivetrain @ Stock Power Level
- Tires: Bridgestone Potentza Pole Positions Runflats
- Rotors: Centric Premium Blanks Front & Rear
- Pads: Carbotech XP10’s fronts & XP8’s for the rears
- Installed Quantum Cooling Ducts, but using factory bottom feeding tubes.
- Primary Track: Virginia International Raceway (Full Course mostly, some South)
- Currently running low 2:20's with an instructor, striving for goal of consistent 2:15
- Normally get 7-8 laps per 25min HPDE session with at least 3-5 of those laps being at full clip and no traffic.
Note: Located near the bottom use the (*) next to the YouTube Logo to change the video to HD
i watched it. i don't see the BS. i did say "might" increase front downforce. to get that you would need your under car cooling ducts to look like this.
the stock air dams is the real reason for the lift. any time you put a dam in the air that will create a large slow patch of air. for down force we want fast air underneath, slow air over the top. again aerodynamics is whole world of physics and talking in general terms can be rendered pointless.
Can a stock C6 (that is tracked) just remove that front airdam and improve front end down force that easily?
front inlet is going to move more air, but have more overall drag.
bottom inlet will move less cfm of air, but removing air from under the car will have less drag, and might increase front down force.
I see, so it's mostly cfm vs. drag. I gave up on minimizing drag on this car. It has to work first, work well next, work cheaper third. I'm not sure I'll ever get to minimizing drag.
I see, so it's mostly cfm vs. drag. I gave up on minimizing drag on this car. It has to work first, work well next, work cheaper third. I'm not sure I'll ever get to minimizing drag.
Thanks!
once you start looking for time it's a easy place to find some. i tape mine up if it's cold out. i'll tape up the radiator too. it's easy few tenths.
Originally Posted by Suns_PSD
Can a stock C6 (that is tracked) just remove that front airdam and improve front end down force that easily?
that is a loaded question. yes pulling it would remove a large area of drag, but i don't know if it serves some other purpose. the OEM's usually don't install things for no reason.
I always assumed that the front airdam works as a warning when you are about to scrape cause it's very flexible and scrapes. I scrape mine every time I leave my driveway. And as a fuel economy enhancement.
I have seen where people built an airdam (out of an old airport luggage conveyer belt) on a FS F250 and they improved mpg notably. Like 20% notably in controlled testing. Now MPG isn't my concern (proudly averaging 10.1 this tank!) but if I see that preventing air from going under the car IMPROVES mpg that indicates, nay PROVES, a reduction in aerodynamic drag.
Now aero drag might not be the exact same thing as downforce, but I think in this case they are both effected the same by the airdam. I suspect that if more air gets under a C6 (due to removal OEM airdam) it reduces mpg (the General's primary concern) and also INCREASES lift and aero drag (my concern).
But I'd love to be told that I'm wrong and it's been proven in a wind tunnel cause I'd sh*t can my air dam quicker than you can believe. The front end lift of these C6s is a big (negative) deal imo.
I always assumed that the front airdam works as a warning when you are about to scrape cause it's very flexible and scrapes. I scrape mine every time I leave my driveway. And as a fuel economy enhancement.
I have seen where people built an airdam (out of an old airport luggage conveyer belt) on a FS F250 and they improved mpg notably. Like 20% notably in controlled testing. Now MPG isn't my concern (proudly averaging 10.1 this tank!) but if I see that preventing air from going under the car IMPROVES mpg that indicates, nay PROVES, a reduction in aerodynamic drag.
Now aero drag might not be the exact same thing as downforce, but I think in this case they are both effected the same by the airdam. I suspect that if more air gets under a C6 (due to removal OEM airdam) it reduces mpg (the General's primary concern) and also INCREASES lift and aero drag (my concern).
But I'd love to be told that I'm wrong and it's been proven in a wind tunnel cause I'd sh*t can my air dam quicker than you can believe. The front end lift of these C6s is a big (negative) deal imo.
we can have the guesses all we want. Until we get the car in question, into a wind tunnel all guesses will be guesses.
Go look at the wind tunnel testing Katech did with their splitter for the C6Z. I seem to recall that they saw that removing the air dam reduced lift substantially and they also did that to my C6Z.
The non-Z C6 cars were bottom breathers and needed the air dam to get air to the radiator. The Z06/ZR1 were front breathers and as such didn't need it. I'm not sure about the GS.
Go look at the wind tunnel testing Katech did with their splitter for the C6Z. I seem to recall that they saw that removing the air dam reduced lift substantially and they also did that to my C6Z.
The non-Z C6 cars were bottom breathers and needed the air dam to get air to the radiator. The Z06/ZR1 were front breathers and as such didn't need it. I'm not sure about the GS.
GS uses the same exact front fascia and is a front breather as well.
Go look at the wind tunnel testing Katech did with their splitter for the C6Z. I seem to recall that they saw that removing the air dam reduced lift substantially and they also did that to my C6Z.
The non-Z C6 cars were bottom breathers and needed the air dam to get air to the radiator. The Z06/ZR1 were front breathers and as such didn't need it. I'm not sure about the GS.
I'm not sure this is as usable as I was hoping. The results are listed in percentage of increase or decrease in drag, downforce, lift or reduction of lift. I don't find the percentage results really that helpful without knowing the actual pounds figures to begin with. So if the rear of the car started with 12 lbs of downforce, then the Katech rear spoiler only adds 3 times that much?....yes that is the right direction but will you really notice 30 more pounds of downforce on the rear of the car?
I'm not saying the Katech spoiler/splitter/sideskirts don't help, but it would be helpful to know the starting figures in pounds so you can verify the costs of doing the upgrades. Maybe somebody has those figures and can post them up.
They also mention that although not tested, the vented world challenge hood would have helped a lot with downforce. I would have loved to seen the differences with that on versus off. The wind tunnel is very helpful at getting substantial data, but it is by no means perfect. Molecule compression along the interior tunnel walls changes how the air/aero reacts off the car versus being out on the track with no "side walls" to alter the actual aero results. Even with all the money thrown at aero design in F1, sometimes little drops of colored oil are stilled used on the track to figure out exactly what the air flow is.
02-18-2016, 02:24 PM
