That's absurd, a 600hp+ car that weighs less than 2000lbs is going to murder a normal car in a straight line, even if it does have over 800hp.
I understand perfectly what new equipment can do. It doesn't change the fact that one is a race car and one is a roadcar.
"Hundreds of metres."
I'd like to see a 918 outbrake a 2J by over 600 feet into ANY corner. (carbon ABS breaking vs metal calippers...)
Trail braking has been a thing since the start of racing, and a car specifically designed to have a giant sucker fan on the back isn't going to be outdone by a little wing of a roadcar. Especially when the entire racecar is designed as a wing.
Nurburgring times mean nothing, but if you want to argue with that...
Just under 7 minutes on the short version, (time? car? what???) whereas the 2F did the the 2km longer version in the mid 8s in the 60s.
Subtract about 40 seconds to cover the extra distance and the times are the same.
But that's the 2F, the 2J had the extra downforce of the fan.
It was also in the 1000km race, so they weren't going on a flying lap.
Plus the track was a lot rougher and slower.
Plus the Porsche cheats anyways. (??? engine swapping and save hacking? lol)
Race cars are an entirely different breed from supercars that have to be able to run reliably day in day out.
A lot of cars are a box at the back, including race cars. It's not totally bad. Sharp edges mean clean separation. The only problems at the back of the 2J are the spoiler and lack of pressure recovery surfaces, but the rear area doesn't seem terribly high. The rear wheels are also covered which is very good for areo. The wheels can't have air stagnating on them and there is no where for pressure to build up in the wheel well.
Fan pushing air out the back is thrust. That's negative drag.
How?
What lack of downforce?
I admit that I'm not particularly well read up on aerodynamics (though you're doing a good job dismissing out of hand someone in this thread who pretty much is), so can you explain how almost completely eliminating low pressure air from under the car would make it slower? All it would do is increase rolling resistance, which is a negligible factor in top speed compared to actual drag.
1000+ pounds at 0 mph. For sure, even the F1 cars by the end of the following decade had a lot more when they were up to speed. And when Group C finally rolled around, even the lowest drag Le Mans configurations of those would match the 2J past probably 140. But those were, like the 2J, race cars; and their development followed through from that.
The 2J had rear tires that were over 3 feet wide, was run through a 3 speed gearbox with an ultra wide first gear and had over a thousand pounds of downforce when you launched it from a standing start. How does wheelspin factor into this?
The McLaren P1 is claimed to be around 1200 pounds of downforce at 160 MPH (at which point the spoilers begin trimming themselves, cutting downforce, to decrease drag). The Dodge Viper ACR, which isn't technically even street legal in the high downforce configuration, also produces around 1200, only at 150 MPH (and since the Viper uses straightforward aerodynamic aids, that would only increase as it approaches its top speed). Both of those would be about in line with what the 2J would be producing at 120 MPH (though the Chaparral would have a much lower increase as speed went up). That's not counting the various "could drive upside down!" statements from companies like Saleen and Apollo. Now, for sure, those cars produce far more downforce using spoilers and the like than the Chaparral did, since not using those kinds of aerodynamics was the entire point.
The fans get all of the headlines as being the thing banned, but remember that even though the FIA banned moveable aerodynamic devices (and did so the year before the 2J debuted, in response to everyone copying the earlier 2G) and violating the moveable aerodynamics rule was why the 2J was banned, they still allowed the more straightforward BT46 just under a decade later and the 2J was initially allowed to race. With the 2J, the main issue was the skirts, and the way they were used on the body:
I admit that I'm not particularly well read up on aerodynamics (though you're doing a good job dismissing out of hand someone in this thread who pretty much is), so can you explain how almost completely eliminating low pressure air from under the car would make it slower? All it would do is increase rolling resistance, which is a negligible factor in top speed compared to actual drag.
1000+ pounds at 0 mph. For sure, even the F1 cars by the end of the following decade had a lot more when they were up to speed. And when Group C finally rolled around, even the lowest drag Le Mans configurations of those would match the 2J past probably 140. But those were, like the 2J, race cars; and their development followed through from that.
The 2J had rear tires that were over 3 feet wide, was run through a 3 speed gearbox with an ultra wide first gear and had over a thousand pounds of downforce when you launched it from a standing start. How does wheelspin factor into this?
The McLaren P1 is claimed to be around 1200 pounds of downforce at 160 MPH (at which point the spoilers begin trimming themselves, cutting downforce, to decrease drag). The Dodge Viper ACR, which isn't technically even street legal in the high downforce configuration, also produces around 1200, only at 150 MPH (and since the Viper uses straightforward aerodynamic aids, that would only increase as it approaches its top speed). Both of those would be about in line with what the 2J would be producing at 120 MPH (though the Chaparral would have a much lower increase as speed went up). That's not counting the various "could drive upside down!" statements from companies like Saleen and Apollo. Now, for sure, those cars produce far more downforce using spoilers and the like than the Chaparral did, since not using those kinds of aerodynamics was the entire point.
My question to you is, how much downforce do you think any of those produce at, say, 70? The Nurbugring is a fast track, but it's by no means a bunch of sweeping turns.
The fans get all of the headlines as being the thing banned, but remember that even though the FIA banned moveable aerodynamic devices (and did so the year before the 2J debuted, in response to everyone copying the earlier 2G) and violating the moveable aerodynamics rule was why the 2J was banned, they still allowed the more straightforward BT46 just under a decade later and the 2J was initially allowed to race. With the 2J, the main issue was the skirts, and the way they were used on the body:
They moved dynamically in accordance with what the car was doing through a direct connection to the suspension arms, in order to keep the seal underneath the car as tight as possible to the ground (but not suffer from the stability problems that so thoroughly plagued the ground effects era of F1). They also had springs in place to push them to a certain height when the suspension was level. This was more advanced than the "sliding skirts" in the F1 cars of the late 1970s, which simply rested on the ground and moved with the motion of the car body, and thus were spared the FIA's ire for a few years. And the skirts articulating in response to the suspension motion did constitute a moving aerodynamic device, no doubt. A 2J with the skirts simply sliding like they were on the Brabus BT46B (and other contemporary F1 cars) may have worked, but removing the skirts outright would not have. Plus remember that Jim Hall became disillusioned with the politics in the sport (namely McLaren throwing their weight around despite winning pretty much everything until Porsche arrived) after he had already sunk a ton of money into the 2J's development, and decided to just leave rather than fight to make the 2J legal.
If there was a way to more transparently state "I can't defend the statements of fact I made earlier in the thread," I daresay I would have trouble thinking of it. Though this came close:
First of all, the way the car is modelled in GT6 is irrelevant to the discussion about the car's real life capabilities. Second of all, not having downforce points in the tuning menu does not mean that the car does not have downforce at all because the downforce that the 2J posesses is not comparable to the downforce every other car (including the X1) in the game posess (nor did it mean such in GT4, GT5 or GTPSP, though for those three games it was because the menu simply didn't measure downforce that wasn't adjustable).
You didn't explain anything. You stated that it was bad (and you actually said the opposite of that anyway: )
And both times when questioned why you were making such statements you said "stop multiquoting".
Because you keep failing to actually explain what it means. The fact that the car PP does not take into account the downforce in the same way that it does for cars that have wings and spoilers does not mean that the downforce is not simulated (and any peek into GT5 hybriding would have shown that PD have multiple ways of representing downforce values that would work better than simply inaccurately representing it as being of the wings and spoilers variety), else the car would not be the absolute monster that it is.
Nothing is taken out of context. Breaking up a quote makes it clearer if anything since the link between statement and response is plainly clear.
So it has downforce, but not front/rear bodywork downforce. This is in general good for top speed (although incorrect, as the rear of the car clearly has a spoiler, and if I remember correctly GT6 now should show downforce for fixed devices) and has no bearing on PP if the fan is included in PP.
They are supporting evidence, and I like the attempt at objective numbers, but I don't think they can be called complete proof until the two cars in question run side by side on the same day. The 2J was at a point in development where it wasn't clear if it was running to its potential and the design of the car would make its performance compared to other cars vary wildly with track. In general, the slower the track, the better the 2J would be expected to do because as mentioned, it has a crushing downforce advantage at low speeds. On contemporary tires, it won't make as much use of that downforce as it could with modern tires, but there is no modern road car that can match that low speed advantage.
You first said that in the exact same post where you claimed that the power numbers in the game were also made up.
Because you said so multiple times before jumping off to the real life comparisons you started making.
I assumed you were talking about the real 2J because you've spent the entire time comparing the 2J's real life performance on tracks not in the game to other real life cars' performance on tracks not in the game.
Because if people do it the statements of fact that you make that are erroneous stand out, I'm guessing. I note how deftly you attempted to avoid responding to any of the specific things in the post you quoted above, too.
And I already explained why this statement was false. Rolling resistance has an effect on top speed so low that it could be considered negligible; far far less than the drag that would be in place if the car was producing 1000+ pounds of downforce with traditional aerodynamics.
You've demonstrated the 2J runs similar lap times to an LMP, a little slower. Showing that hidden 40pp is there. Now compare to a 650pp race car.
This comparison doesn't really work. The vacuum is moving so slowly that there is no drag, the "engine" powering it (a person) is many times weaker than a car engine, and the surface may be much softer which makes rolling resistance stronger.
