Downforce, specifically front...

  • Thread starter Thread starter wmwolverines
  • 9 comments
  • 3,838 views
W

wmwolverines

Messages
43
I would like it as an option for all cars (even if its a lowly 10-15) as I can add a front air dam and splitter to any vehicle to improve its aerodynamics and handling dramatically...

Most of my frustrations with tuning are cars with no front downforce. Give me some front downforce via racing modification or a race car and I see a dramatic change in a cars handling and ability to tune it to my tastes.
 
Er....kinda failing to understand the point of this, what exactly is it about downforce for the front you're trying to talk about?
 
wmwolverines
I would like it as an option for all cars (even if its a lowly 10-15) as I can add a front air dam and splitter to any vehicle to improve its aerodynamics and handling dramatically...

Most of my frustrations with tuning are cars with no front downforce. Give me some front downforce via racing modification or a race car and I see a dramatic change in a cars handling and ability to tune it to my tastes.
Click to expand...

Easy solution. Take 10kg of weight off the car, put 10kg ballast at the front. Hey presto :D
 
I've been wondering about ballast on the front.. since the ballast will still be there under low speed corning and braking and theoretically should alter the low speed handling.. but does it in GT5?

I had 50-100 ballast on the front of my Enzo and F40 before I completely retuned both cars... even then it wasn't really planting the front... :/
 
Downforce increases exponentially with speed, if you have 10 lb's of downforce at 60 mph, your going to have 50 lb's at 90 mph, 150 lb's at 120 mph. Ballast does very little to nothing to solve the handling and grip issues of many cars in this game...

zo6 - Front downforce imo is a very important and critical aspect of tuning your cars handling ability on a race track. GT5 not allowing most cars to be able to upgrade its aerodynamics by having front downforce is a significant mistake.
 
Last edited:
I think only having downforce on the rear is just a waste. Since gt 5 has few cars with decent bodykits, it just makes cars look ricey IMO.

Besides, wouldn't having rear downforce alone make the front wheels go light and make you understeer? Or does the game just add more grip/understeer without affecting it?.
 
Sol_Badass
I think only having downforce on the rear is just a waste. Since gt 5 has few cars with decent bodykits, it just makes cars look ricey IMO.

Besides, wouldn't having rear downforce alone make the front wheels go light and make you understeer? Or does the game just add more grip/understeer without affecting it?.
Click to expand...

It's not quite that simple because the rear-only downforce doesn't generate absolute grip.

In that kind of situation you'd be more likely to be balancing the rear wing for cornering at the extra speeds that your other upgrades provide which will be over-and-above the car's normal cornering speeds.
 
there are ways to eliminate understeer with sheer mechanical grip, have a look in the tuning forum it changed my life :) I thought I had some idea about tuning but I was not going in the right direction, there are tuners here who can turn a turd into jet fighter!!
 
wmwolverines
Downforce increases exponentially with speed, if you have 10 lb's of downforce at 60 mph, your going to have 50 lb's at 90 mph, 150 lb's at 120 mph. Ballast does very little to nothing to solve the handling and grip issues of many cars in this game...
Click to expand...

This is clearly wrong. Down-force has dimensions of force, ie (Mass)(Distance)/(Time)^2. We also know exponential functions only accept unit-less arguments, as simply expanding it as a Taylor polynomial would result in units that do not converge. The point being you can typically assume down-force is proportional to the velocity squared.
 
Cauchy
This is clearly wrong. Down-force has dimensions of force, ie (Mass)(Distance)/(Time)^2. We also know exponential functions only accept unit-less arguments, as simply expanding it as a Taylor polynomial would result in units that do not converge. The point being you can typically assume down-force is proportional to the velocity squared.
Click to expand...

That's correct, the potential downforce squares with fluid velocity across the plane.

That's why incidence alterations create exponential 'change' (inside the non-stall envelope) but velocity squares 'change'.
 

Latest Posts

Back