Welcome to GTPlanet!
Create Your FREE Account

Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="MatskiMonk, post: 12312536, member: 125118"] I think this could just be down to the fact that you only see two numbers that relate to what is otherwise a set of complex equations. Personally, I wouldn't take it mean that the Enzo has 0 number of front downforces, and 200 rear downforces... I'd take it that the car physics model has xxxx units of downforce in total evenly spread across the front and rear, on top of which there is an additional 200 units at the rear... so lets say the car has 1000 downforces inherent in it's design, so 500 front, 500 rear... except the car actually generates more at the back... so there is effectively this +200 rear figure, so the car actually had 500/700. So the question then becomes, why do some cars have additional figures front and rear. Well, I suggest that the inherent car physics model number of downforces (xxxx above), is proportional to the cars Cd or CdA values. It could be cars with a lower CdA cannot mathematically achieve a high front or rear downforce number, without the boosting of the figures we see in the tuning screen. I'm not stating this as a fact but I think it holds up with the Enzo and MacF1 examples. .. but like I say Aero is complex, the fact that the tuning screen units are dimensionless is telling. Consider for a moment that 200kg of downforce is entirely speed dependent, air pressure dependent, and headwind dependent... so whatever units they are in the tuning screen, they aren't likely to be kg or N. In vehicle dynamics, *I believe* such things are talked about as Coefficients of Lift... much the same way as coefficients of drag... and that the actual values for 'downforce' a.k.a. negative lift are generated using the same equations... so it would make more sense for them to actually be related to cL. .. There's also intuition vs expectation vs perception vs experience at play here. [/QUOTE]

Verification