Ford planning LeMans Return + Ford GT revival

  • Thread starter Slash
  • 824 comments
  • 71,772 views
It should be pretty obvious the data T10 & Ford are interested in will be from the fastest drivers in the game & how they set up the car for different tracks. Could give Ford an insight on if the setups are anything they should consider simulating themselves, or even physically testing.
 
image-jpg.425447


Man that's ugly active aero, couldn't they have make it look slightly less like bus stop bench...
All the aero design of the car is rather simplistic but there's no sense in getting P1 complicated if you can get the same net effect without that much effort.
 
Why not? Just add some slots for them to sit in.

There's probably no need for endplates. The endplates in effect just make the existing horizontal surface more efficient. Had they decided it needed more downforce, they'd have extended the wing over more of the car's width, but for the stability the car requires they get what they need from that centre section. With tyres that wide and the suction that diffuser provides, the road car doesn't need any extra grip, but high speed stability is what pushes them to create extendable wings.
 
Right, the endplates wouldn't make a huge difference and increasing span would be more beneficial. However, I don't think endplates would have been out of the question just because the wing is integrated. On the performance side of things it's a case of diminishing returns, but this is a $400,000 or so car.

I wouldn't think the car needs to raise the wing for stability in the first place. 200+ mph stability can be achieved without a wing. If the raised wing truly is necessarily it probably means there is a decent amount of front downforce that needs to be balanced out. If you're really being practical, you could just use a fixed wing at that point. If top speed was a goal you could perhaps get away with active angle of attack adjustment. A wider fixed wing with endplates would be less draggy for the amount of downforce produced anyway, and if you kept the same area by shrinking the chord you could increase your pitch moment by moving the wing back and achieve desired balance with even less drag.
 
Right, the endplates wouldn't make a huge difference and increasing span would be more beneficial. However, I don't think endplates would have been out of the question just because the wing is integrated. On the performance side of things it's a case of diminishing returns, but this is a $400,000 or so car.

I wouldn't think the car needs to raise the wing for stability in the first place. 200+ mph stability can be achieved without a wing. If the raised wing truly is necessarily it probably means there is a decent amount of front downforce that needs to be balanced out. If you're really being practical, you could just use a fixed wing at that point. If top speed was a goal you could perhaps get away with active angle of attack adjustment. A wider fixed wing with endplates would be less draggy for the amount of downforce produced anyway, and if you kept the same area by shrinking the chord you could increase your pitch moment by moving the wing back and achieve desired balance with even less drag.
I think Ford know best.
 
I'm employed with no desire to change jobs. On a side note manufacturers don't do all their work in house, so not working for Ford isn't an impediment to engineering this car or other cars. I'm not familiar with the GT program so I don't know how much Ford sent off to other companies to work on. They have off lifted some work on other cars, like the Mustang, to aerodynamic specialists.
 
I think Ford know best.
Shame Ford didn't hire you, better send them your CV.

Funnily enough, aerodynamic principals and the engineering behind it to leverage those principals are the same whether you work for Ford, another car company, or at another company that utilizes aero engineering in their products.

Everything @Exorcet has said are completely valid, and are based off of different scenarios from different engineering requirements. Obviously, Ford met the engineering requirements that they set out, but just because Ford met them does not mean there aren't different and equally valid ways or methods to reach the same requirements.
 
Am I the only person who thinks that anything weighing over the 1.5 tonne mark is still extremely heavy? 1310kg is just about right for a car like that, to me at least. We've had so many luxo-barges weighing in at the 2000kg mark that anything nearer to a tonne is viewed as exceptionally light, rather than normal.
 
hsv
Am I the only person who thinks that anything weighing over the 1.5 tonne mark is still extremely heavy?
Probably.

I mean, with all the tech cars have now it is very difficult for them to all be sub 1000 Kg but they're a massive improvement on older cars, especially when it comes to high performance cars like this.
 
I mean, with all the tech cars have now it is very difficult for them to all be sub 1000 Kg but they're a massive improvement on older cars, especially when it comes to high performance cars like this.
But on the other hand, production methods and materials have improved drastically in the last 15 years. Fuel economy is a high priority for manufacturers; cutting down the flab is more than worthwhile.
 
hsv
But on the other hand, production methods and materials have improved drastically in the last 15 years. Fuel economy is a high priority for manufacturers; cutting down the flab is more than worthwhile.
Who's to say they aren't doing that?

I mean, look at what the Countach weighed, now look at what the Aventador weighs. Now factor in the tech on board the 700, and the 4wd.
 
Who's to say they aren't doing that?
I wasn't trying to say that - I was making the point that they sort of cancel each other out. Cars are getting loaded with more features, but unnecessary weight is being cut down at the same time.
 
hsv
I wasn't trying to say that - I was making the point that they sort of cancel each other out. Cars are getting loaded with more features, but unnecessary weight is being cut down at the same time.
The tech both has benefits and has become expected by the people buying the cars. As long as a piece of tech has either of those things going for it, it won't be cut out.

So, like it or loathe it, it's happening because it is seen as necessary weight.
 
hsv
unnecessary weight is being cut down at the same time.
Not really, no. The tech is there for weight reduction but it's expensive. Meanwhile, the tech to add loads of electronics, including heavy wiring, is cheap and everyone wants it. I do agree, though, that modern cars are generally very heavy.
 
hsv
Am I the only person who thinks that anything weighing over the 1.5 tonne mark is still extremely heavy? 1310kg is just about right for a car like that, to me at least. We've had so many luxo-barges weighing in at the 2000kg mark that anything nearer to a tonne is viewed as exceptionally light, rather than normal.
Yeah, but you have to keep in mind sports cars in general have increased in size quite a bit.

The Last Ford GT for example was massive and basically dwarfed a 458 in size.

Not sure how this Ford GT measures up dimension wise though, if its smaller then the last one then given the lighter materials and smaller engine I can see it.
 
Yeah, but you have to keep in mind sports cars in general have increased in size quite a bit.

The Last Ford GT for example was massive and basically dwarfed a 458 in size.

Not sure how this Ford GT measures up dimension wise though, if its smaller then the last one then given the lighter materials and smaller engine I can see it.

How...I think your scale is off. Here is an Image of one next to a 430 (I know not exactly a 458)

8461893176_cb831b57b9_b.jpg


The GT seems far more slimming

Founds a 458 and it still seems more bloated but more stout than the GT. GT seems like a boat in length.

attachment.php
 
Yeah, but you have to keep in mind sports cars in general have increased in size quite a bit.

The Last Ford GT for example was massive and basically dwarfed a 458 in size.

Not sure how this Ford GT measures up dimension wise though, if its smaller then the last one then given the lighter materials and smaller engine I can see it.

Here's how it compares to the old cars, best I could find so the perspective might be off:
wall-pictures-89973.jpg
 
Back