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.
These kinds of cars (similar to the ACR) are purpose built for a race track. Hence a rear wing for downforce. They aren't designed to sit in a garage being waxed or drive to Cars and Coffee. Nothing wrong with any of this, but if you don't plan to drive on a race track or don't require the additional downforce provided by a functional wing then you are looking at the wrong car.
Looks very close to what I saw last week. I have a pair of Canon Image Stabilizer Binoculars and was looking at the front end of the ZR1 up close at the Cork Screw where it was going slow. This rendering or whatever it is, appears to be very close to what I saw at Laguna Seca. VERY VERY CLOSE !!!
I've always loved the look of the P GT3. Even though completely different platforms, there's a resemblance in the look, including the wing, the beefy black wheels and tires and the lowered riding height, that excites me...I believe Tadge is a P admirer.
Hope the car looks just like this.
From what I have seen, the goofy spats will remain. Grand Sport cars are selling with them, why would GM spend the money to design another fender?
IIRC, the majority opinion of the initial reason for the spats was to retain the stingray front bumper. Now the bumper has obviously been redone, yet the spats still remain
IIRC, the majority opinion of the initial reason for the spats was to retain the stingray front bumper. Now the bumper has obviously been redone, yet the spats still remain
Wrong, here is the correct technical reason for the spats from Tadge Juechter himself in the Ask Tadge Forum. I suggest you read more of that forum to educate yourself on these aerodynamic functional components.
Quote:
grcor asked:
Can you please tell us why you are not molding the fenders to eliminate the need for spats, protective film, and splash guards?
Quote:
Tadge answered:
All Corvette exterior features and surface shapes are designed for maximum performance and great aesthetics. Around the front wheel openings, both the C6 (Z06, GS and ZR1) and C7 (GS and Z06) feature what you are calling spats arcing down the forward edge. These features create high pressure on the front/top and low pressure on the back/underside resulting in down force and evacuation of hot air from the wheel opening. The aerodynamic studies for both C6 and C7 independently proved their value. To work, they need to be a very specific shape - specifically a sharp break in the surface where the spat meets the fender. I have been asked many times why we couldn't just form that shape from the front fender so it would be all one painted piece instead of looking "tacked on". We looked at that and decided it looked pretty bad when painted bright colors. Your eye is immediately drawn to that feature and it does not look integrated or graceful. Naturally the question is, "If it is so important, why don't we see it on the C7.R race car?" The reason is that the race car sits so low to the ground it can take advantage of even more efficient aerodynamic features such as an "underwing" that sits beneath the front splitter. "Ok, then why don't we see it on other street cars?". Well, actually you do. There are several, typically very serious performance cars that have similar features such as the Porsche GT3RS.
Wrong, here is the correct technical reason for the spats from Tadge Juechter himself in the Ask Tadge Forum. I suggest you read more of that forum to educate yourself on these aerodynamic functional components.
Quote:
grcor asked:
Can you please tell us why you are not molding the fenders to eliminate the need for spats, protective film, and splash guards?
Quote:
Tadge answered:
All Corvette exterior features and surface shapes are designed for maximum performance and great aesthetics. Around the front wheel openings, both the C6 (Z06, GS and ZR1) and C7 (GS and Z06) feature what you are calling spats arcing down the forward edge. These features create high pressure on the front/top and low pressure on the back/underside resulting in down force and evacuation of hot air from the wheel opening. The aerodynamic studies for both C6 and C7 independently proved their value. To work, they need to be a very specific shape - specifically a sharp break in the surface where the spat meets the fender. I have been asked many times why we couldn't just form that shape from the front fender so it would be all one painted piece instead of looking "tacked on". We looked at that and decided it looked pretty bad when painted bright colors. Your eye is immediately drawn to that feature and it does not look integrated or graceful. Naturally the question is, "If it is so important, why don't we see it on the C7.R race car?" The reason is that the race car sits so low to the ground it can take advantage of even more efficient aerodynamic features such as an "underwing" that sits beneath the front splitter. "Ok, then why don't we see it on other street cars?". Well, actually you do. There are several, typically very serious performance cars that have similar features such as the Porsche GT3RS.
You can choose to believe that and I'll choose to believe this........from another thread on the topic.
The GM Corvette engineers actually did want to have a Z06-specific bumper built, which would have been slightly wider and had a larger grille opening. The problem is that GM accountants didn't approve the budget to create the new bumper. It is very costly to do this, as it would have to undergo a full suite of crash-testing and other red tape approvals. So, they did cheap out, and did settle for re-using the base C7 bumper. The spats were an inexpensive way to achieve the aero properties they were looking for, based on a narrow bumper profile. Simply making wider fenders might actually have been worse, getting them to transition well with the narrow bumper. Might even have caused worse aero, for all we know.
You can choose to believe that and I'll choose to believe this........from another thread on the topic.
Like Juechter said, there are other cars with the same aero solution which is absolutely true. Look at the Porsche GT3RS. And where did you drag that comment from on your rebuttal? It obviously came from some forum member here who has no affiliation with Team Corvette and has no engineering or design basis for his assessment.
Old render or not, I like the look of this one. And I can understand how folks don't like the wing, but it's not like the Corvette team is just putting it on there for looks. It'll be a functional piece of the car, just like it is with the ACR.