How do you keep the C3 from getting light above 120mph?
05-17-2017, 01:29 PM
#241
Drifting
I gotta wonder if the 78 to 82 have a greater tendency to float vs the 77 and prior body styles.
The Big back window and the the resulting shape more closely resemble the shape of a wing. This would I believe have a greater tendency to create "lift" in a direction that would make the car light on the ground.
With the scoop back design the air might have a greater tendency to turbulate after it cleared the back window spoiling lift. Just an observation of the two shape differences, no Idea if it's valid.
On my 77 I extended the front spoiler (air dam) to increase air flow to the radiator. It may have had the unintended effect of reducing the amount of air flowing under the car as well. I have done 135 MPH in a 30 MPH headwind, so as far as the car was concerned I was doing 165 MPH, and did not experience any float that I could detect. Straight line only of course.
Not done any study on this subject but wouldn't a belly pan reduce drag, but increase the positive pressure under the car creating a greater float tendency? Unless some kind of spoiler was used to divert or ruin the airflow/pressure under the car?
The Big back window and the the resulting shape more closely resemble the shape of a wing. This would I believe have a greater tendency to create "lift" in a direction that would make the car light on the ground.
With the scoop back design the air might have a greater tendency to turbulate after it cleared the back window spoiling lift. Just an observation of the two shape differences, no Idea if it's valid.
On my 77 I extended the front spoiler (air dam) to increase air flow to the radiator. It may have had the unintended effect of reducing the amount of air flowing under the car as well. I have done 135 MPH in a 30 MPH headwind, so as far as the car was concerned I was doing 165 MPH, and did not experience any float that I could detect. Straight line only of course.
Not done any study on this subject but wouldn't a belly pan reduce drag, but increase the positive pressure under the car creating a greater float tendency? Unless some kind of spoiler was used to divert or ruin the airflow/pressure under the car?
My issue with this is just about every supercar ever made has a fastback of some sort style rear window/behind the seats area, which would cause them to lift at the speeds they are designed for and doubt they have any "vortex inducers".
Last edited by Kacyc3; 05-17-2017 at 01:36 PM.
05-17-2017, 02:04 PM
#242
Melting Slicks
I gotta wonder if the 78 to 82 have a greater tendency to float vs the 77 and prior body styles.
The Big back window and the the resulting shape more closely resemble the shape of a wing. This would I believe have a greater tendency to create "lift" in a direction that would make the car light on the ground.
With the scoop back design the air might have a greater tendency to turbulate after it cleared the back window spoiling lift. Just an observation of the two shape differences, no Idea if it's valid.
On my 77 I extended the front spoiler (air dam) to increase air flow to the radiator. It may have had the unintended effect of reducing the amount of air flowing under the car as well. I have done 135 MPH in a 30 MPH headwind, so as far as the car was concerned I was doing 165 MPH, and did not experience any float that I could detect. Straight line only of course.
Not done any study on this subject but wouldn't a belly pan reduce drag, but increase the positive pressure under the car creating a greater float tendency? Unless some kind of spoiler was used to divert or ruin the airflow/pressure under the car?
The Big back window and the the resulting shape more closely resemble the shape of a wing. This would I believe have a greater tendency to create "lift" in a direction that would make the car light on the ground.
With the scoop back design the air might have a greater tendency to turbulate after it cleared the back window spoiling lift. Just an observation of the two shape differences, no Idea if it's valid.
On my 77 I extended the front spoiler (air dam) to increase air flow to the radiator. It may have had the unintended effect of reducing the amount of air flowing under the car as well. I have done 135 MPH in a 30 MPH headwind, so as far as the car was concerned I was doing 165 MPH, and did not experience any float that I could detect. Straight line only of course.
Not done any study on this subject but wouldn't a belly pan reduce drag, but increase the positive pressure under the car creating a greater float tendency? Unless some kind of spoiler was used to divert or ruin the airflow/pressure under the car?
Interesting theory on the aero-back cars; but I think the generalization on years is just too broad given the CID differences within even these years with the various options. My L82 AC 79 has got the pace car-style front spoiler and the rear spoiler that should theoretically make the tendency to float at speed better; not worse.
I admit I'm having a hard time separating features that reduce drag vs. features that reduce lift in my mind. Having a "sharp" feature at the rear of a car, for example, allows the air to smoothly transition off of the rear of the car so maybe this feature of the early C3s is better re CID; I feel the same way about the early rear bumper and CID vs. the curvier rear of the later C3 rear bumpers. --What does that change in CID have to do with decreasing lift? -I'm not clear on that other than the fact that front and rear spoilers on the late C3s supposedly help with both.
Adam
05-17-2017, 03:22 PM
#243
Le Mans Master
Interesting theory on the aero-back cars; but I think the generalization on years is just too broad given the CID differences within even these years with the various options. My L82 AC 79 has got the pace car-style front spoiler and the rear spoiler that should theoretically make the tendency to float at speed better; not worse.
I admit I'm having a hard time separating features that reduce drag vs. features that reduce lift in my mind. Having a "sharp" feature at the rear of a car, for example, allows the air to smoothly transition off of the rear of the car so maybe this feature of the early C3s is better re CID; I feel the same way about the early rear bumper and CID vs. the curvier rear of the later C3 rear bumpers. --What does that change in CID have to do with decreasing lift? -I'm not clear on that other than the fact that front and rear spoilers on the late C3s supposedly help with both.
Adam
I admit I'm having a hard time separating features that reduce drag vs. features that reduce lift in my mind. Having a "sharp" feature at the rear of a car, for example, allows the air to smoothly transition off of the rear of the car so maybe this feature of the early C3s is better re CID; I feel the same way about the early rear bumper and CID vs. the curvier rear of the later C3 rear bumpers. --What does that change in CID have to do with decreasing lift? -I'm not clear on that other than the fact that front and rear spoilers on the late C3s supposedly help with both.
Adam
CID....coefficient of induced drag? Coefficient of drag is the term I'm familiar with. Cd.
I did a bit of reading and car manufacturers try to make cars now with the least drag while trying to maintain the least lift. By reducing drag it often increases lift on the car body, not a good thing at high speed.
The C3 has a relatively high drag number. The 79 was .54 with the rear spoiler. The spoiler was for down force and to spoil the lift created by the rear glass, in the process it created more drag.
A typical Cd for a sedan these days is about .34 and some of the most efeccient Cd's are around .25. So it's easy to see that the C3 was a draggy? car compared to modern cars.
The C4 was a large improvement in drag and I believe the C5 got down to around .3.
Front spoilers or air dams reduce airflow under the car. This reduces the high pressure area that can build up under the car and may reduce drag as well.
Rear spoilers can have two effects. One is to produce down force for the rear, but will also increase drag.
The other is to "spoil" and lift that is created from the air accelerating over the top of the car which has the effect of reducing pressure on the top on the car.
Kayc3 mentions the use of vortex generators on the car. I assume these are the same as on an aircraft. On an aircraft they can serve two purposes. One is mach diversion and the other is to produce vortices of high energy air for control surfaces/ lifting surfaces, making them more effective at low speeds.
The latter is the only thing they could be used for since cars do not have airflow that approaches mach 1.
Based on what I know I'm guessing these high energy vortices from the VG's would flow over the control surface (spoiler) making it more effective in doing it's job. IE more down force.
Last edited by REELAV8R; 05-17-2017 at 04:35 PM.
05-17-2017, 04:41 PM
#244
Le Mans Master
Please bear with me if you've already heard this sermon...
To possibly help clear up any confusion that might have accompanied the general topic of aerodynamics having been brought back to the forefront, I offer the following:
While body shape certainly has an impact on drag coefficient (Cd), it's the pressure differentials (ΔP) generated above relative to those beneath that create or negate either lift or downforce. It is important to keep in mind for our purposes that unlike an aircraft wing operating in free air, a car operates in the condition of ground effect. Thus, one cannot intuit that an overall aircraft wing-like profile will necessarily create lift. Regardless of either its operating condition or profile, if there's higher pressure above a body than beneath, there will be downforce.
Reducing how much air gets under a car with a front dam, reducing under body drag so what air is there can most readily escape, and trapping air above it with a rear spoiler are well known examples of automotive aerodynamics applied. And, of course, there is the wing, inverted to generate downforce in and of itself - although the vast majority of those available on the accessory market are pure rice IMCO. In any event, as ΔP is not a constant value over an entire body at any given speed, taking adequate measures to ensure front/rear aero balance become ever more important as velocity increase, with a bit of bias towards rear downforce typically a good idea.
Vortex generators are only necessary to help keep airflow attached to a surface where its profile would otherwise tend to cause separation turbulence, resulting a significant increase of drag and possible stalling. (Please ignore the European racing community's use of the term "stall", as such use is most often only referring to drag reduction systems (DRS) which do so by means of minimizing a wing's Cd and/or ΔP, either by changing the angle of attack or directing additional air to its underside.)
FWIW to anyone who might still be wondering, yes, the factory Pace Car dam & spoiler aero package is for real. ...tho IMOE the front dam could use some type of additional bracing to keep it from deflecting or even oscillating at genuinely higher speeds. Sorry if I have already covered this, or for having possibly reiterated what others have contributed, but hope it might be worth $.02 to someone.
While body shape certainly has an impact on drag coefficient (Cd), it's the pressure differentials (ΔP) generated above relative to those beneath that create or negate either lift or downforce. It is important to keep in mind for our purposes that unlike an aircraft wing operating in free air, a car operates in the condition of ground effect. Thus, one cannot intuit that an overall aircraft wing-like profile will necessarily create lift. Regardless of either its operating condition or profile, if there's higher pressure above a body than beneath, there will be downforce.
Reducing how much air gets under a car with a front dam, reducing under body drag so what air is there can most readily escape, and trapping air above it with a rear spoiler are well known examples of automotive aerodynamics applied. And, of course, there is the wing, inverted to generate downforce in and of itself - although the vast majority of those available on the accessory market are pure rice IMCO. In any event, as ΔP is not a constant value over an entire body at any given speed, taking adequate measures to ensure front/rear aero balance become ever more important as velocity increase, with a bit of bias towards rear downforce typically a good idea.
Vortex generators are only necessary to help keep airflow attached to a surface where its profile would otherwise tend to cause separation turbulence, resulting a significant increase of drag and possible stalling. (Please ignore the European racing community's use of the term "stall", as such use is most often only referring to drag reduction systems (DRS) which do so by means of minimizing a wing's Cd and/or ΔP, either by changing the angle of attack or directing additional air to its underside.)
FWIW to anyone who might still be wondering, yes, the factory Pace Car dam & spoiler aero package is for real. ...tho IMOE the front dam could use some type of additional bracing to keep it from deflecting or even oscillating at genuinely higher speeds. Sorry if I have already covered this, or for having possibly reiterated what others have contributed, but hope it might be worth $.02 to someone.
Last edited by TheSkunkWorks; 05-17-2017 at 04:46 PM.
The following users liked this post:
ctmccloskey (08-21-2018)
05-17-2017, 06:04 PM
#245
Le Mans Master
To possibly help clear up any confusion that might have accompanied the general topic of aerodynamics having been brought back to the forefront, I offer the following:
While body shape certainly has an impact on drag coefficient (Cd), it's the pressure differentials (ΔP) generated above relative to those beneath that create or negate either lift or downforce. It is important to keep in mind for our purposes that unlike an aircraft wing operating in free air, a car operates in the condition of ground effect. Thus, one cannot intuit that an overall aircraft wing-like profile will necessarily create lift. Regardless of either its operating condition or profile, if there's higher pressure above a body than beneath, there will be downforce.
Reducing how much air gets under a car with a front dam, reducing under body drag so what air is there can most readily escape, and trapping air above it with a rear spoiler are well known examples of automotive aerodynamics applied. And, of course, there is the wing, inverted to generate downforce in and of itself - although the vast majority of those available on the accessory market are pure rice IMCO. In any event, as ΔP is not a constant value over an entire body at any given speed, taking adequate measures to ensure front/rear aero balance become ever more important as velocity increase, with a bit of bias towards rear downforce typically a good idea.
Vortex generators are only necessary to help keep airflow attached to a surface where its profile would otherwise tend to cause separation turbulence, resulting a significant increase of drag and possible stalling. (Please ignore the European racing community's use of the term "stall", as such use is most often only referring to drag reduction systems (DRS) which do so by means of minimizing a wing's Cd and/or ΔP, either by changing the angle of attack or directing additional air to its underside.)
FWIW to anyone who might still be wondering, yes, the factory Pace Car dam & spoiler aero package is for real. ...tho IMOE the front dam could use some type of additional bracing to keep it from deflecting or even oscillating at genuinely higher speeds. Sorry if I have already covered this, or for having possibly reiterated what others have contributed, but hope it might be worth $.02 to someone.
While body shape certainly has an impact on drag coefficient (Cd), it's the pressure differentials (ΔP) generated above relative to those beneath that create or negate either lift or downforce. It is important to keep in mind for our purposes that unlike an aircraft wing operating in free air, a car operates in the condition of ground effect. Thus, one cannot intuit that an overall aircraft wing-like profile will necessarily create lift. Regardless of either its operating condition or profile, if there's higher pressure above a body than beneath, there will be downforce.
Reducing how much air gets under a car with a front dam, reducing under body drag so what air is there can most readily escape, and trapping air above it with a rear spoiler are well known examples of automotive aerodynamics applied. And, of course, there is the wing, inverted to generate downforce in and of itself - although the vast majority of those available on the accessory market are pure rice IMCO. In any event, as ΔP is not a constant value over an entire body at any given speed, taking adequate measures to ensure front/rear aero balance become ever more important as velocity increase, with a bit of bias towards rear downforce typically a good idea.
Vortex generators are only necessary to help keep airflow attached to a surface where its profile would otherwise tend to cause separation turbulence, resulting a significant increase of drag and possible stalling. (Please ignore the European racing community's use of the term "stall", as such use is most often only referring to drag reduction systems (DRS) which do so by means of minimizing a wing's Cd and/or ΔP, either by changing the angle of attack or directing additional air to its underside.)
FWIW to anyone who might still be wondering, yes, the factory Pace Car dam & spoiler aero package is for real. ...tho IMOE the front dam could use some type of additional bracing to keep it from deflecting or even oscillating at genuinely higher speeds. Sorry if I have already covered this, or for having possibly reiterated what others have contributed, but hope it might be worth $.02 to someone.
I will point out that aircraft also operate in ground effect during each takeoff and landing. The effects of ground effect are very noticeable. For an aircraft it amounts to it being able to stay or become airborne at a lower air speed than in free air.
Last edited by REELAV8R; 05-17-2017 at 06:05 PM.
05-17-2017, 07:27 PM
#247
Le Mans Master
IMHO (and I hope I'm correct), the OP along with most if not all of the rest of us involved in this particular discussion who might tend to press the envelope from time to time are reasonably responsible people who have a pretty good grasp on when and when not to do so. Putting myself at risk is one thing. Potentially involving someone else is quite another (racing on a closed course aside).
Anyway, I clearly remember having read in Highlights when I was a wee lad that our Interstate system was being designed and built for safely traveling at 100 MPH. Sadly, many a false low speed limitation has been set to help the lowest common denominator of poorest drivers infesting our roads get themselves from A to B without causing their own demise, and/or at the behest of the insurance lobby who would just as soon we never left the couch. When the defacto national speed limit was finally lifted (I can't drive 55!), it was the insurance industry who fought to keep limits down, despite NHTSA's own documentation that fatalities per mile traveled actually decreased in states that raised them. So typical of trends in our country these past few years to lower standards rather than to raise them. But, that's a whole other can of worms...
Anyway, I clearly remember having read in Highlights when I was a wee lad that our Interstate system was being designed and built for safely traveling at 100 MPH. Sadly, many a false low speed limitation has been set to help the lowest common denominator of poorest drivers infesting our roads get themselves from A to B without causing their own demise, and/or at the behest of the insurance lobby who would just as soon we never left the couch. When the defacto national speed limit was finally lifted (I can't drive 55!), it was the insurance industry who fought to keep limits down, despite NHTSA's own documentation that fatalities per mile traveled actually decreased in states that raised them. So typical of trends in our country these past few years to lower standards rather than to raise them. But, that's a whole other can of worms...
05-17-2017, 08:40 PM
#248
Le Mans Master
Member Since: May 2008
Posts: 8,909
Received 2,657 Likes
on
1,398 Posts
2022 C3 of the Year Finalist - Modified
Ahhhhh....Skunkworks....problem is that the violence and destruction that occurs in a 100 mph accident far exceed what occurs at 55. Its just simple physics. Add to that NO requirement in the U.S. to be trained in handling a car at these speeds, the carnage that would occur on the highways... and does, is all a result of high speeds with unqualified drivers. I think the insurance industry's influence is for a very good reason that does equate to paying claims....called massive hospital bills and death.
I know people like to go fast, and in this forum we have guys who have fast cars, but truth is, not being a p***y, its about responsibility. I have no interest in getting a call from the hospital reporting my daughter was just killed by irresponsible wannabee racers in their Corvettes. Do you?
I know people like to go fast, and in this forum we have guys who have fast cars, but truth is, not being a p***y, its about responsibility. I have no interest in getting a call from the hospital reporting my daughter was just killed by irresponsible wannabee racers in their Corvettes. Do you?
Last edited by Torqued Off; 05-17-2017 at 08:41 PM.
05-17-2017, 10:43 PM
#249
Le Mans Master
OK. "Speed kills!", to recite the old adage. (More often, it's those sudden unplanned stops.) I believe there is likely a clear consensus among this thread's followers that your point has most assuredly been made, sir.
So, let's p l e a s e allow the discussion to get back onto the OP's topic, as his original inquiry wasn't made to induce such judgement calls. Anyway, the subject matter being discussed prior to the finger of condemnation being wagged at those of us who are interested remains a perfectly valid technical one, particularly from the perspective of on-track performance.
Show of hands, how many complete morons here?
Any?
None. That's what I thought.
Thank you.
/Charlie
So, let's p l e a s e allow the discussion to get back onto the OP's topic, as his original inquiry wasn't made to induce such judgement calls. Anyway, the subject matter being discussed prior to the finger of condemnation being wagged at those of us who are interested remains a perfectly valid technical one, particularly from the perspective of on-track performance.
Show of hands, how many complete morons here?
Any?
None. That's what I thought.
Thank you.
/Charlie
The following 6 users liked this post by TheSkunkWorks:
69427 (05-17-2017),
7t2vette (05-19-2017),
Big2Bird (05-18-2017),
Metalhead140 (05-19-2017),
pauldana (05-17-2017),
and 1 others liked this post.
05-17-2017, 10:59 PM
#250
Le Mans Master
I agree, the pace car aero package is as was said, the real deal. I lowered the front of my car and it does have what some would call a hot rod rake and I have to say the car is more stable over 100 m.p.h. as a matter of fact the car seems to settle down and feel much more planted over 100 than at 70. The 550 lb front springs and 360 lb rear springs and QA1 shocks have to help. I don't know about 130 on a road course but on a straight stretch of road I don't think mine would have a problem.
05-18-2017, 09:06 PM
#252
Drifting
It seems like most of the testing has been done on a stock car w/Pace Car kit. When the front is dropped another 2" increasing the rake, as many do. That should add more downforce? Somehow they were doing over 200mph at Le Mans safely. What am I missing?
R
R
05-19-2017, 12:58 AM
#253
Melting Slicks
I'm no so sure if Safely would describe going down the Mulsanne Straight at over 200 MPH in an early C3 with not much more than a chin spoiler. But they did it. By the early mid 70's the wide body cars were designed probably due to the descriptions the drivers had about what the C3 felt like at 220.
05-19-2017, 01:33 AM
#254
Race Director
Member Since: Jan 2000
Location: Corsicana, Tx
Posts: 12,603
Received 1,873 Likes
on
911 Posts
2020 C2 of the Year - Modified Winner
2020 Corvette of the Year (performance mods)
C2 of Year Winner (performance mods) 2019
2017 C2 of Year Finalist
May not help much since I have a C2...which has an even worse reputation for high speed handling issues. But I've been driving mine at insane speeds for 20 years now with no handling issues that would cause me concern. Certainly a C7 would be easier to drive and handle extremely better....but it drives well to me.
I did add a front spoiler recently when I decided to try some high speed events. Not sure it made any real difference but figured it couldn't hurt. I've had it to 160+ many times without it...but things can change rapidly as you go faster and faster. I also have the hood open with extended latches to release air pressure. Again. not sure it's critical...but drives well.
The car has a pretty strong rake to it at rest...but you can see how much lift it's got going down track. As I put my foot in it the nose came up from TQ...and just never came back down.
I only recently changed control arms and dialed in 6.5* caster instead of the 2.5* I had run for years. I like the heavier feel and it is stable.
But it did make 200 MPH at the TX Mile with no other changes except tires rated for the speeds.
First pic is at 170+ mph. You can see the low pressure area causing the soft top to bow up.
JIM
I did add a front spoiler recently when I decided to try some high speed events. Not sure it made any real difference but figured it couldn't hurt. I've had it to 160+ many times without it...but things can change rapidly as you go faster and faster. I also have the hood open with extended latches to release air pressure. Again. not sure it's critical...but drives well.
The car has a pretty strong rake to it at rest...but you can see how much lift it's got going down track. As I put my foot in it the nose came up from TQ...and just never came back down.
I only recently changed control arms and dialed in 6.5* caster instead of the 2.5* I had run for years. I like the heavier feel and it is stable.
But it did make 200 MPH at the TX Mile with no other changes except tires rated for the speeds.
First pic is at 170+ mph. You can see the low pressure area causing the soft top to bow up.
JIM
05-19-2017, 01:45 AM
#255
Drifting
Member Since: Aug 2015
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,939
Received 472 Likes
on
344 Posts
C3 of Year Finalist (track prepared) 2019
Read it before, but enjoyed reading it again. I track my car, and have been a bit over 130 without any stability problems. But I do intend some modifications, including pace car spoilers and probably a splitter like BeeJays at some point. I'm also keen to vent the radiator air through the hood to reduce the amount of air pushed back underneath the car, and probably fit some panels underneath as per 69427. As time and money permit of course!
05-19-2017, 09:40 PM
#256
Le Mans Master
Safety? The question of safety in 1968 and that era have absolutely no relation to today. Those cars were as safe as they could have been back then,today tire development and rim construction were vastly different from today. Those guys went insanely fast in those cars back then were they crazy? By today's standards , maybe.but those guys back then we're the reason things got safer.
thinking about it after my last post I've had my car with 3:55-1 gears turbo 350 trans with 275-60-15 rear tires at 5200 r.p.m somebody want to do some quick math want to figure how fast that would be? My speedo was way off but the point I'm Maki g is I must have been close to the target speed of the op's question, and I don't see that speed being an issue unless every suspension component in the car is total garbage,in which case 40 m.p.h may be unsafe. Am I missing something?
thinking about it after my last post I've had my car with 3:55-1 gears turbo 350 trans with 275-60-15 rear tires at 5200 r.p.m somebody want to do some quick math want to figure how fast that would be? My speedo was way off but the point I'm Maki g is I must have been close to the target speed of the op's question, and I don't see that speed being an issue unless every suspension component in the car is total garbage,in which case 40 m.p.h may be unsafe. Am I missing something?
05-20-2017, 12:38 PM
#258
Drifting
Removable Rear Window?
I have a tough time accepting that the Le Mans cars had that tiny lip on the end of the rear deck acting as a spoiler at 200mph?
Which brings me wondering what removing the rear window would do.
Would it act as a diffuser, or improve the aeros in some other way?
Those that have a removable rear claim the car is much quieter.
Anyone have some experience w/this?
R
Which brings me wondering what removing the rear window would do.
Would it act as a diffuser, or improve the aeros in some other way?
Those that have a removable rear claim the car is much quieter.
Anyone have some experience w/this?
R
05-20-2017, 01:26 PM
#259
Race Director
Thread Starter
What he is not getting is we are only starting to talk at 120... yea, that's nothing... now 140 you will start to feel the lift, and at 160 it's not a Pleasant feel and 180+ is where it gets real...
So yea 120 lol...
Talk to me when your at 150+
So yea 120 lol...
Talk to me when your at 150+
05-20-2017, 03:07 PM
#260
Le Mans Master
Alot.of the old road race cars ran with no roof. The other thing is they were all big blocks, some had aluminum heads but they still carried more weight up front. Sometimes a lighter car causes other problems.
I'm.sorry 120 m.p.h is laughable. My car is what I need it to be at this point in my life. I've never road raced , never had the desire. My cousin was a multi time SCCA world champion which qualifies me for nothing. But in the late 70's early 80's I owned built and drove a somewhat competitive IHRA Pro Stock car.
Here's my point, people have been 160 MPH in all kinds of cars and done it somewhat safely but they were Racers. Some did it on a track with turns others in a quarter mile all were Racers.
I'm.sorry 120 m.p.h is laughable. My car is what I need it to be at this point in my life. I've never road raced , never had the desire. My cousin was a multi time SCCA world champion which qualifies me for nothing. But in the late 70's early 80's I owned built and drove a somewhat competitive IHRA Pro Stock car.
Here's my point, people have been 160 MPH in all kinds of cars and done it somewhat safely but they were Racers. Some did it on a track with turns others in a quarter mile all were Racers.
