Questionable modifications: pictures inside!

  • Thread starter -Fred-
  • 38,803 comments
  • 2,744,791 views
Zychotic1
several divisions require full factory interior on touring cars...

thus the only questionable thing I see is the fact that all that is done to an automatic trans car (yes it has paddle shifters but thats not the point)
Click to expand...
Oh and to address this, I’d rather have a paddle setup on track compared to a manual. There’s even someone who’s is swapping a 7 speed dual clutch auto into an S2000 in my class in order to improve lap times.
 
Last edited:
I have full respect for the personal preference and potential advantages for flappy paddles.... it was just the only thing I was able to see as potentially questionable.

and when you throw something like a 7 speed into the equation the math does itself.

personally I myself just can't stand flappy paddles... I'm too old school to keep my hands in proper position to hit the paddles (left hand almost always at 10:30 no matter how much I try to correct myself). I'd be all in for a rally style sequential... but no paddles for me
 
Zychotic1
I have full respect for the personal preference and potential advantages for flappy paddles.... it was just the only thing I was able to see as potentially questionable.

and when you throw something like a 7 speed into the equation the math does itself.

personally I myself just can't stand flappy paddles... I'm too old school to keep my hands in proper position to hit the paddles (left hand almost always at 10:30 no matter how much I try to correct myself). I'd be all in for a rally style sequential... but no paddles for me
Click to expand...
Understandable, sequentials are outlawed in my class sadly. It’s actually a big talking point right now because if they’re allowing something like a dual clutch to go into a car that never came with one, then cars that it would be impossible to have one swapped in should be allowed to have a sequential. That’s the argument atleast. It makes sense in the way that it would keep the lap times closer and more competitive. The class above me does allow them though and there’s a few guys with rally style sequentials in things such as twin turbo corvettes as an example. Really cool stuff going on.
 
@Zychotic1 yeah man I'm still not seeing it. In the image you provided I can't tell if those are extending past the overall width, and if they are it's only just barely. Even then, that was about two decades ago and I'd like to think that the understanding of aerodynamic effects has come a long way since. Everything that I have learned in my engineering curriculum tells me that extending the frontal area of the car for downforce gains is not worth the drag, except for say a rear wing where you're gaining abhorrent amounts of downforce for the little bit of extra frontal area. Not only are you getting downforce induced drag from the device itself but you're also getting extra pressure drag since you've effectively increased the size of the bluff body.

For reference there's been a case study about how much drag is contributed by exterior mirrors of a car, and they can contribute up to 7% of the overall drag across the whole vehicle. That doesn't sound like a lot but if your car makes 500 lbs. of drag at top speed, that's 35 lbs pulling you back from the mirrors alone. If that speed is about 150 mph that is equivalent to a loss of 14 horsepower. The bottom end of the case study was a 2% contribution which is still 4 horsepower. This is the reason why most purpose-built racing cars are trying to minimize the size of their mirrors, hide them behind other more efficient aerodynamic devices, or just remove them entirely.

Not here to hate, that really just does not look right to me. Just because it makes downforce doesn't mean it's helping.
 
what your missing in your equation is the position of the planes...
in terms of sheer efficiency or overall top speed you are absolutely correct.

however the foreward/rearward placement of whatever downforce generator affects cornering balance of the vehicle... more surface space on the front end results in a greater downward push on the front wheels to increase traction...

I'm going to just spitball this so the numbers won't make sense...but,
lets say you have a 2" wide canard that'll generate 40lbs of downward force at 100mph turn "X" the highest speed you'll be able to hold the turn would be 70mph,
now add another 2" of width and call it 80lbs of downforce, now you can run that same turn at 100mph and stick just fine.

now for our example lets say the track has ONE long straight and 14 turns... lets say the canards drag you down 8mph overall top speed (but only starts slowing you down toward the top end of that spectrum) yet every single one of those turns you can run 10-20mph faster than without the canards...
the car able to carry its higher speed through the corners will beat the snot out of the "faster" car in the total lap run.


I was born and raised in Indianapolis... wings and wickerbills are daily language to me lol

also if you really pay attention, you'll notice that most race cars will run a different combination of wings/wickers/canards at almost every track
 
Last edited:
Whitetail
@Zychotic1 yeah man I'm still not seeing it. In the image you provided I can't tell if those are extending past the overall width, and if they are it's only just barely. Even then, that was about two decades ago and I'd like to think that the understanding of aerodynamic effects has come a long way since. Everything that I have learned in my engineering curriculum tells me that extending the frontal area of the car for downforce gains is not worth the drag, except for say a rear wing where you're gaining abhorrent amounts of downforce for the little bit of extra frontal area. Not only are you getting downforce induced drag from the device itself but you're also getting extra pressure drag since you've effectively increased the size of the bluff body.

For reference there's been a case study about how much drag is contributed by exterior mirrors of a car, and they can contribute up to 7% of the overall drag across the whole vehicle. That doesn't sound like a lot but if your car makes 500 lbs. of drag at top speed, that's 35 lbs pulling you back from the mirrors alone. If that speed is about 150 mph that is equivalent to a loss of 14 horsepower. The bottom end of the case study was a 2% contribution which is still 4 horsepower. This is the reason why most purpose-built racing cars are trying to minimize the size of their mirrors, hide them behind other more efficient aerodynamic devices, or just remove them entirely.

Not here to hate, that really just does not look right to me. Just because it makes downforce doesn't mean it's helping.
Click to expand...
That’s not entirely true as downforce and drag isn’t that simple of a concept to just have a blanket statement saying that the drag isn’t worth the downforce. Some of the fastest time attack cars in the world have aero that extends the front portion of the car. When you have the power to overcome the drag, the downforce is completely worth it depending on the track. I can tell you though that on a track like Road America, we run a lower drag and downforce setup compared to tighter more technical tracks.
 
@Zychotic1 now we're dabbling into circuit efficiency and weighting. This is why I mentioned in my first post that I'd like to hear the owner's justifications for the aero bits that are on the car. It seems that the components that I'm taking the most issue with are actually to help generate side force since it has a long flat plane on the outside, kind of like the rear wing end plates. Even then, I still don't think they're 100% right since you'd want them to be as flat down the side of the car as possible to minimize the gain in frontal area.

Your theoretical scenario also makes sense, but it is important to remember that there will always be downforce and drag pull no matter that the speed is, so knowing exactly (or approximately in an amateur setting) how much downforce and drag they are adding to the equation is paramount to determine if they're efficient enough to be worth it. In motorsports the metric for aerodynamic efficiency is L/D (lift/drag) and that's how circuit efficiency is also labeled. Not really applicable to club racing since simulation software is required to generate circuit efficiency numbers, but the principle is the same. If you're at a track that his a high efficiency (Monza) it's actually more beneficial to take all of the downforce widgets off of the car than say a track like Laguna Seca or Singapore, where the efficiency number is lower due to the relatively smaller straights and fast corners.

I feel like if having those wide extensions were really worthwhile they'd be seen more often in racing.

I'm just going off of the things I have learned in my curriculum, nothing and no one is infallible but if I don't raise those questions then I'd be buying into ignorance. Also, I'm too from Indianapolis. Race cars ftw!
 
Last edited:
now we seem to be all on the same page with the pros/cons/ reasons...

I'll add in some cases the sideplates of canards are more intended to maintain the airflow over the top instead of off to the sides. not entirely sideforce but not-not sideforce either
also in some cases they'll have an intentional odd curve to generate a venturi effect to force the air to "skip" over certain sections (wheel well openings for example)

there really is a whole lot more to it than anyone could feasably learn in anykind of classroom environment...

I learned more about aero in the world of R/C racing than I ever would have suspected possible... the difference you can change in performance characteristics from a 1cm canard glued to the front of a 1/10 scale or 2mm shaved off the top edge of rear wing etc. etc. had drastic effects on the cornering characteristics




and the big reason we don't see them more on race cars is... rules and restrictions. as Fortbo mentioned some of the fastest Time Attack cars (aswell as pikes peak hill climbers) run MASSIVE wings/canards/ various fins as their division has no limitations on aerodynamics
 
And now for some actual questionable modifications. I can assure yous that none of these are properly-built amateur touring cars

q2w9vjmcgps51.jpg






5uei2tu0m4p51.jpg




Florida plates on it too, how predictable.



6XsvwPm1ABB4IhU5iANcklaNOxWVs3BgrFedteuwtys.jpg


This was a Fiero.

6bffjj7oaqo51.jpg


 
I think the car could be a few inches higher but other than that this is possibly the best looking custom Diablo I have ever seen:

lamborghini-diablo-slammed-on-turbofan-wheels-looks-radical_4.jpg


With the new proportions this would've been a good car to make mid engined:

mazda-mx-5-miata-pickup.jpg
 
GranTurNismo
5mr5v1jb0c261.jpg
Click to expand...

Another angle
mzn602jb0c261.jpg


This is a good example of a questionable modification because the effort is actually pretty decent for a replica though still awful. Wondered why there were halfway decent replicas of the McLaren F1 and even the 911 GT1 but none of the CLK-GTR.


If they started with a prototype style chassis like the Superlite SLC and lengthened it it would've came out much better, I still give them a 6/10 for the effort though but a 2/10 for overall appearance as it's not pleasing on the eyes IMO.
Stangnant-SL-C-3_e4bbe50e47a1a7b5de93f94f7d58d876.jpeg
 

Latest Posts

Back