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 think this is as best as it gets since she's still heavily camo-flashed. It could look different when revealed but this will give you an idea for now.
What do you think?
It’s an excellent rendering. Corvette has been copying Ferrari a long time so I think the front end is possible.
I’d like to see C2 style fenders on it w high peaks.
You must be insane if you think the Ford GT looks like a "roach" or not as good as that Aria.
If you make the damn thing one curve from the front bumper across the windshield, the roof, the boattail all the way to the Kamm back - it looks like a cockroach with paint. REAL cars have character in the form of singularities in the second derivative of the slope from the front to the back. Cockroaches don't !! (Ignore the antennae and the legs - only off-road cars have these).
Sure looks like a Vette. I think you are onto something.
g
It should look a lot like a corvette it's design theme and inspiration are from the 40 plus year old "Aero Vette, XP-882, a beautiful design and at one point was considered to be the next Vette in 1972.
Here is an article on it.
After playing with this photo in Preview, I think I see some features under the "Burka". I think the inlet is very similar to the Aria concept car. The headlights are clearly visible and look a lot like the C7. Also, I can barely see the outline of the crossed flags emblem on the C7 shaped nose.
I'd like to get a good shot with my Leica, but they don't drive new cars in tenting material around here. Oh well.
After playing with this photo in Preview, I think I see some features under the "Burka". I think the inlet is very similar to the Aria concept car. The headlights are clearly visible and look a lot like the C7. Also, I can barely see the outline of the crossed flags emblem on the C7 shaped nose.
I'd like to get a good shot with my Leica, but they don't drive new cars in tenting material around here. Oh well.
Deja vu...or maybe I just dreamed that I posted a possible logo at the front in this image...yesterday.
If you make the damn thing one curve from the front bumper across the windshield, the roof, the boattail all the way to the Kamm back - it looks like a cockroach with paint. REAL cars have character in the form of singularities in the second derivative of the slope from the front to the back. Cockroaches don't !! (Ignore the antennae and the legs - only off-road cars have these).
Give me a break. The GT is so incredibly innovative in its use of the buttresses. The aero is amazing.There's nothing like it. Having said that, I don't expect a $70k ME Vette to be as radical as a $500K Ford GT.
Roaches don't go and win the 24hours of LeMans first time out.
So according to you how are these any different??
Give me a break. The GT is so incredibly innovative in its use of the buttresses. The aero is amazing.There's nothing like it. Having said that, I don't expect a $70k ME Vette to be as radical as a $500K Ford GT.
Roaches don't go and win the 24hours of LeMans first time out.
So according to you how are these any different??
The Aria’s are not butt-ugly. Also I have a MSAE and design fighter jets and I can tell you those buttresses might make sense for a medieval cathedral but just add drag to the car. They are there so the rear wheel houses don’t look so goofy. The Porsche 919 is the most successful modern sports racer in history and it has the teardrop shaped fuselage but no buttresses. It is MUCH faster than the La Fordoracha.
The Aria’s are not butt-ugly. Also I have a MSAE and design fighter jets and I can tell you those buttresses might make sense for a medieval cathedral but just add drag to the car. They are there so the rear wheel houses don’t look so goofy. The Porsche 919 is the most successful modern sports racer in history and it has the teardrop shaped fuselage but no buttresses. It is MUCH faster than the La Fordoracha.
Mr. Jet Fighter Designer, are u seriously suggesting that the Ford GT team has no knowledge of aero?? You don’t realize that the buttresses are there for the purpose of channeling air to the rear wing for downforce?
Maybe its because they want to keep the car on the ground and you design things that are supposed to leave the ground.
This could help enhance your MSAE credentials:
Two things are facts. Ford designed their latest Ford GT to win LeMans, only secondarily as a customer car. They have openly and repeatedly so stated. And second, they knew what they were doing, for they handily won it with that car. Kudos to Ford. Mission accomplished.
As to why GM is a year later than some expected with the ME, was that GM once they saw how handily Ford won LeMans with the new GT 40 their first year, GM said to themselves that we need to make sure our new ME can do that also, including developing our new aero package to insure we succeed at LeMans (and they patented that package on March 23, 2017). Now, as weather permits, they will be, during 2018, testing and fine tuning the ME on “high speed” locations, which, no surprise, is a primary characteristic of LeMans.
And for those who are doubting what one new location might be, let us not forget the “exceptionally close relationship” between GM, Spring Mountain, Ron Fellows, Corvette owner track school, and more:
Additionally another high speed location is, as Doug Fehan has openly shared, the NCM Motorsports Park track — which currently has the longest track straightaway in North America. And we all know Doug’s relationship to Corvette racing LOL..., as well as his being on the Board of Directors of NCM’s Motorsports Park.
And all the above is consequently why we (Corvette customers) are getting a 2020 model year ME and not a 2019 model year ME. GM has this all figured out, and we going to be the fortunate owners of our 2020+ ME’s.
Mr. Jet Fighter Designer, are u seriously suggesting that the Ford GT team has no knowledge of aero?? You don’t realize that the buttresses are there for the purpose of channeling air to the rear wing for downforce?
Maybe its because they want to keep the car on the ground and you design things that are supposed to leave the ground.
This could help enhance your MSAE credentials:
Show me ONE race car that has buttresses. It's a STYLING feature NOT a aerodynamic device. I think it's ugly. Channels cause high drag in any vehicle because they increase both wetted area and the velocity through the channel. Bad idea. The upside down wing is what keeps the cockroach on the ground. Nuff said.
Show me ONE race car that has buttresses. It's a STYLING feature NOT a aerodynamic device. I think it's ugly. Channels cause high drag in any vehicle because they increase both wetted area and the velocity through the channel. Bad idea. The upside down wing is what keeps the cockroach on the ground. Nuff said.
Ford disagrees with you:
A great example of the engineering ingenuity that went into the Ford GT, the buttresses add strength to the chassis and guide airflow over the car while contributing to drag reduction and efficient airflow management. They also reduce the coefficient of drag and contribute to the downforce that optimizes handling and performance.
Overall, I really dislike Ford products, but I find the Ford GT beautiful.
Overall, I really dislike Ford products, but I find the Ford GT beautiful.
Sure they do......why doesn't Porsche or Dallara or anyone else use them ? Don't take the word of the marketing dept. as Gospel. The buttresses are there to sell cars to, mostly, non-engineers.
Get a copy of this book. Read it and make your own calculations and then decide for yourself what makes sense. I already have.
I'm afraid you are. Jim Hall, Bruce McLaren, Chapman, Brabham, etc. discovered in the 70s that auto aerodynamic design objectives are vastly different to aircraft design objectives. 15 000 hours TT, 8 years air force, advanced aerobatic instructor, mech. engineer and much CFD work. What did they discover? What is different to a car wing and an aircraft wing in the way they create lift?
The best Porsche engineers designed this car and the best Ford engineers designed their car.
What is the major problem in auto earo considerations including passenger cars?
On the Ford GT buttresses, they may or may not reduce the drag. If they do, it's minimal. What matters first and foremost is downforce. One thing I know about rear wings is that they have to get clean air. In almost all cases the main way to get clean air is to get it from above. So if Ford really did want big downforce they'd use a large wing mounted high. It makes most sense to make it fixed. So I bet...ahh...here is the Lemans winner, big wing, mounted high, large wing span. It turns out it is the same as any other car!
Not much has changed about rear wings over the last decade. The most clever idea I thought came from the Lambo guys, stalling a properly functioning large fixed wing is probably the best way to reduce drag and create downforce.
My beef with the buttress is that they minimize the area available for heat exchangers. I bet if the racing team had their way they'd close em up and get some large HEs in there.
Winning Lemans is about consistency, I think the rules hamper fast cars enough to come down to consistency almost every time. I wouldn't look at Lemans to get the top tricks, and certainly not in the class the Ford GT runs, maybe LMP.
On the Ford GT buttresses, they may or may not reduce the drag. If they do, it's minimal. What matters first and foremost is downforce. One thing I know about rear wings is that they have to get clean air. In almost all cases the main way to get clean air is to get it from above. So if Ford really did want big downforce they'd use a large wing mounted high. It makes most sense to make it fixed. So I bet...ahh...here is the Lemans winner, big wing, mounted high, large wing span. It turns out it is the same as any other car!
Not much has changed about rear wings over the last decade. The most clever idea I thought came from the Lambo guys, stalling a properly functioning large fixed wing is probably the best way to reduce drag and create downforce.
My beef with the buttress is that they minimize the area available for heat exchangers. I bet if the racing team had their way they'd close em up and get some large HEs in there.
Winning Lemans is about consistency, I think the rules hamper fast cars enough to come down to consistency almost every time. I wouldn't look at Lemans to get the top tricks, and certainly not in the class the Ford GT runs, maybe LMP.
At last a dude who understands the issue. The buttresses are a styling gimmick and (potentially) a way to structurally tie the top of the rear wheel houses to the tub to make the car a bit stiffer. Nothing more.
My big beef with the Ford GT is that it was a way to try to get an LMP1 / Dpi entry into the GTLM category by pretending it was a production car. It was not. It is a purpose built race car that has two seats and was made (barely) street legal. The end result was both a lousy, uncompetitive LMP1 / Dpi car and an noisy, uncomfortable passenger car. I'm not impressed.
Both the Dallara chassis that Cadillac and others have used in DPi, and the Porsche chassis used in their THREE successive LeMans championships are VASTLY better race cars. The 919 has, in my opinion, joined the 917, 956 and the 962 as the best endurance race cars of all time.
All the hype that Ford has put out about winning LeMans again after 50 years is just BS. The Ford GT won the LMGTE Pro category, BUT they finished 44 laps and 372 miles behind the LMP1 winning Porsche 919. Their qualifying lap time was over 32 seconds SLOWER. That is not "winning" in my book. It is "marketing". The Ford IS a great Saturday afternoon, have fun, track car. Nothing wrong with that, but I'd venture a guess that you could buy or build one the goes a lot faster and costs a lot less than a half million dollars. You would just have to put it on a trailer to take it home.
The most innovative guy in sports car racing aerodynamic development is Jim Hall. If you look at the Chaparral's - they wrote the book for everyone else, to this day. His variable incidence rear wing mounted directly to the suspension uprights was brilliant as was his "suction car". Both were subsequently outlawed. BTW, he started out with an AE background. No coincidence. He is one of my heroes.
Show me ONE race car that has buttresses. It's a STYLING feature NOT a aerodynamic device. I think it's ugly. Channels cause high drag in any vehicle because they increase both wetted area and the velocity through the channel. Bad idea. The upside down wing is what keeps the cockroach on the ground. Nuff said.
Yup, I agree. The new GT looks good from certain angles, but when I see that ginormous flying buttress the look totally degrades in my view. I like the first GT so much more than this latest one.
At last a dude who understands the issue. The buttresses are a styling gimmick and (potentially) a way to structurally tie the top of the rear wheel houses to the tub to make the car a bit stiffer. Nothing more.
My big beef with the Ford GT is that it was a way to try to get an LMP1 / Dpi entry into the GTLM category by pretending it was a production car. It was not. It is a purpose built race car that has two seats and was made (barely) street legal. The end result was both a lousy, uncompetitive LMP1 / Dpi car and an noisy, uncomfortable passenger car. I'm not impressed.
Both the Dallara chassis that Cadillac and others have used in DPi, and the Porsche chassis used in their THREE successive LeMans championships are VASTLY better race cars. The 919 has, in my opinion, joined the 917, 956 and the 962 as the best endurance race cars of all time.
All the hype that Ford has put out about winning LeMans again after 50 years is just BS. The Ford GT won the LMGTE Pro category, BUT they finished 44 laps and 372 miles behind the LMP1 winning Porsche 919. Their qualifying lap time was over 32 seconds SLOWER. That is not "winning" in my book. It is "marketing". The Ford IS a great Saturday afternoon, have fun, track car. Nothing wrong with that, but I'd venture a guess that you could buy or build one the goes a lot faster and costs a lot less than a half million dollars. You would just have to put it on a trailer to take it home.
The most innovative guy in sports car racing aerodynamic development is Jim Hall. If you look at the Chaparral's - they wrote the book for everyone else, to this day. His variable incidence rear wing mounted directly to the suspension uprights was brilliant as was his "suction car". Both were subsequently outlawed. BTW, he started out with an AE background. No coincidence. He is one of my heroes.
I agree with much of what you say, but given the very specific and technical criticisms you have (and this is a fair question):
If you were Ford, and wanted to return to LeMans to win again 50 years after they did in '65-'69, what type of car would you have built (class, chassis, power unit(s)) and why?
