Would a rear spoiler give me an advantage in 1/4mile?

35
Nepal
Himalayas
ElusiveYeti
Would I gain any kind of advantage by putting a rear spoiler on my Barracuda for 1/4mile drag racing? I don't know if a 1/4 mile is enough for a rear spoiler to have any effect.
 
ElusiveYeti
Would I gain any kind of advantage by putting a rear spoiler on my Barracuda for 1/4mile drag racing? I don't know if a 1/4 mile is enough for a rear spoiler to have any effect.

Could reduce drag. Aero starts working around 40 mph.
 
It would only start improving rear grip after you don't need it any more, unless you've got 800+ HP with comfort tires.
 
Furinkazen
No. Spoilers add downforce that slows you down.

Some reduce drag while increasing downforce. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but it has to do with equalizing pressure from under the car, make the car more slippery.

For a direct answer: test it. Report what you find.
 
In real life, a spoiler will increase the downforce produced as speed builds up.
In GT5, the aero seems to be simulated as dead weight on the car, meening that if the spoiler creates 100 kg downforce @ 200 km/h, it creates the same amount of "downforce" even when going really slow.

So yes, in GT5, a rear spoiler can improve your 1/4 mile time since the increased "weight" will give you better traction.. Depending on the car ofc.. But at least a more powerful one where tyres tend to loose grip.
 
No. Spoilers add downforce that slows you down.



S2
It would only start improving rear grip after you don't need it any more, unless you've got 800+ HP with comfort tires.



Could reduce drag. Aero starts working around 40 mph.


LOL

this is why you need to ask questions in the Drag racing forum, because people here are just wrong

Yes, the wing makes the Cuda much faster, by my testing, about .024 Which is atleast a car length 👍

Wings make most RWD cars faster in the 1/4
 
I tend to use spoilers on cars with FR drivetrains like Dodge & Chevrolet, I need the wheels to stop spinning & gaining more traction with the tarmac to lay down the power as soon as possible and a spoiler helps that to happen, it's down to personal choice on how much downforce you use.

4WD's don't really need a spoiler either, power is splitt between all four wheels so traction is at a maximum from near enough the start.
 
seanneedscar
LOL

this is why you need to ask questions in the Drag racing forum, because people here are just wrong

Yes, the wing makes the Cuda much faster, by my testing, about .024 Which is atleast a car length 👍

Wings make most RWD cars faster in the 1/4
How was my statement wrong?
 
Probably because GT5 aerodynamics are at a kindergarten level.

It's hard to apply real aerodynamics to this game. I've heard, but not tested that aero helps you significantly more than it should from zero mph (which is the only speed where aero does nothing at all). I don't think that downforce is a constant across all speeds, or the X1 and 2J would not be very unique. Induced Drag is basically non existent in GT5 as well.

Also, there is no minimum speed where aerodynamics kicks in, so states like aero works at 40 mph and above generally don't make sense.
 
LOL

this is why you need to ask questions in the Drag racing forum, because people here are just wrong

Yes, the wing makes the Cuda much faster, by my testing, about .024 Which is atleast a car length 👍

Wings make most RWD cars faster in the 1/4

I've done testing and run with a group of Australian tuners on GTP at SSR7 and found that spoilers do increase drag and reduce speed. That's the whole point of a spoiler... to sacrifice some straight line speed so it can turn better. In Drags your not turning. So the need for a spoiler is erased.
 
Last edited:
I've done testing and run with a group of Australian tuners on GTP at SSR7 and found that spoilers do increase drag and reduce speed. That's the whole point of a spoiler... to sacrifice some straight line speed so it can turn better. In Dags your not turning. So the need for a spoiler is erased.

..but he just said he tested it and got a better time with one?
 
So funny cars dont need wings?

Well in GT5 your not putting 8,000hp down to tarmac. IRL of course you do to press the car down to the ground, but only at such high power levels...

@Santos, perhaps, but also he is referring to 1/4 mile times. Over a mile or so, spoilers don't help.
 
Exorcet
Also, there is no minimum speed where aerodynamics kicks in, so states like aero works at 40 mph and above generally don't make sense.

True, but under 40 mph they can hardly be measured without sophisticated equipment, and resistance is minimal.

Santos i7
..but he just said he tested it and got a better time with one?

Likely due to reduced drag, and not increased grip.
 
Drag.jpg


A spoiler, right?

Is it there to reduce the drag? Judging from the angle of the spoiler, and where it's placed (right on top of the rear wheels), I don't think it's there to reduce the drag.
I think it's there to add pressure on the rear wheels. So while I think it adds drag, the increased pressure on the rears does more good than drag harms the total time in this case.

The difference between this spoiler, and a spoiler in GT5 is that in-game, a spoiler helps much more with traction for highpowered cars at lower speeds.

Why not do an in-game test? 💡

Try a 1/4 mile with a car that spins off the line just too much for getting an optimal time.
Keep the throttle at 100% all the time (to erase all parameters but the spoiler).
Test once without a spoiler, and the next test with a spoiler.

My guess is that the basic aero calculations that PD use (my personal opinion) to simulate downforce will in this case add pressure to the rear wheels even from 0-low speeds. And therefore, the traction off the line will be better, and total time will be faster.

If I'm correct, the time with the spoiler should be the faster one. 👍

I'd just like to add that there's no prestige in this for me.. If I'm wrong, so be it. But I've been trying to figure the PD aero calculations out for a while, and can't come to any other conclution than that PD simulates aero as "weight".
Hence why you can't notice any difference in top speed when comparing minimum to maximum aero for a car (cause obviously, IRL, a spoiler that adds drag will increase the top speed, no doubt).
Weight slows the acceleration, not the top speed (a part from it takes longer to reach top speed).. So that's basically why I think aero in GT5 acts as dead weight on to the car.
 
Last edited:
True, but under 40 mph they can hardly be measured without sophisticated equipment, and resistance is minimal.
No, you can't say that.

F = .5*rho*V*V*Area*coefficient

As long as the area or the coefficient is large enough, you can generate force at whatever speed you want. A low speed car would have very different aerodynamic features compared to a LMP or F1 car most likely, but it's impossible to say that aerodynamics are worthless at speed X without at least defining the specific car.

Likely due to reduced drag, and not increased grip.

I don't think that's the case in GT5. The drag change caused by aero parts is usually very small, and I have never seen any evidence of GT aero parts reducing drag. Also getting a spoiler to reduce drag is more difficult than just generating downforce. It adds surface area which equates to more skin friction, if it does produce downforce (and it probably will because it will reduce drag by creating a low pressure region behind the car that will ease the adverse pressure gradient that natrually occurs at the tail) it will produce induced drag. You have to get around all that before you can reduce drag. I doubt PD tried to model any of those tradeoffs.

But even if it was, it was still the spoiler's doing.

I'd just like to add that there's no prestige in this for me.. If I'm wrong, so be it. But I've been trying to figure the PD aero calculations out for a while, and can't come to any other conclution than that PD simulates aero as "weight".
Hence why you can't notice any difference in top speed when comparing minimum to maximum aero for a car (cause obviously, IRL, a spoiler that adds drag will increase the top speed, no doubt).
Weight slows the acceleration, not the top speed (a part from it takes longer to reach top speed).. So that's basically why I think aero in GT5 acts as dead weight on to the car.

Downforce is weight. There is absolutely no difference between the two. Weight has no direct effect on acceleration or top speed. Mass does. The lack of effect on top speed seen in GT5 comes from poor modeling. GT5 does have induced drag, but it is many many times weaker than it should be, so it seems almost non existent.
 
Last edited:
Upps.. Noticed a HUGE typo in the text you quoted from me: Namely:
"IRL, a spoiler that adds drag will increase the top speed, no doubt"
Should ofc be: "decrease"

Sorry about that.

Downforce is weight. There is absolutely no difference between the two. Weight has no direct effect on acceleration or top speed. Mass does. The lack of effect on top speed seen in GT5 comes from poor modeling. GT5 does have induced drag, but it is many many times weaker than it should be, so it seems almost non existent.

Yes, DF is weight..
The only difference is that weight is weight, and "weight" due to downfore increase as speed builds up.
Drag is what's most important when it comes to top speed.

IRL: A car is not moving, the spoiler does'nt affect the car at all (minus the actual weight of the spoiler. Take that aside.). As the airflow increases as speed builds up, the spoiler generates more and more drag (weight that's multiplyed as spped builds up).
That's why a spoiler DO have an impact on top speed IRL.

In GT5, according to me: A car is not moving, the spoiler does put weight/pressure (A part from the actual weight of the spoiler. I'm not sure this is modelled at all in GT5. Probably not.) on the car. And since the spoiler adds DEAD (again, according to me) weight to the car, the weight is the same no matter the speed.
It's like you having a briefcase in your trunk, it won't increase in weight as speed builds up, right?

Finally:
According to me, a spoiler adds DEAD weight that does'nt increase as sped build up, in contradiction to how it works IRL.

Proof:
None, expet the fact that top speed is not affected at all from the aeroe settings in GT5. Hence why I assume the spoiler simulates dead weight.
I've also (without proper testing in the area) noticed that increased DF reduce the loss of grip from a standing start. Where a spoiler in real life should not have an impact..
 
Last edited:
Yes, DF is weight..
The only difference is that weight is weight, and "weight" due to downfore increase as speed builds up.
Drag is what's most important when it comes to top speed.

IRL: A car is not moving, the spoiler does'nt affect the car at all (minus the actual weight of the spoiler. Take that aside.). As the airflow increases as speed builds up, the spoiler generates more and more drag (weight that's multiplyed as spped builds up).
That's why a spoiler DO have an impact on top speed IRL.

The drag isn't weight, at least not along the vertical axis like the gravitational weight and aerodynamic weight (downforce). A great deal of the drag is generated from lift, but not directly from the actual lift force. The drag is kinetic energy imparted to air. The fact that lift is a function of speed doesn't cause it to lower top speed or acceleration, as if you build an infinite aspect ratio wing (hard to do), you would get a V^2 lift dependence and zero induced drag.

In GT5, according to me: A car is not moving, the spoiler does put weight/pressure (A part from the actual weight of the spoiler. I'm not sure this is modelled at all in GT5. Probably not.) on the car. And since the spoiler adds DEAD (again, according to me) weight to the car, the weight is the same no matter the speed.
It's like you having a briefcase in your trunk, it won't increase in weight as speed builds up, right?

Finally:
According to me, a spoiler adds DEAD weight that does'nt increase as sped build up, in contradiction to how it works IRL.

Proof:
None, expet the fact that top speed is not affected at all from the aeroe settings in GT5. Hence why I assume the spoiler simulates dead weight.
I've also (without proper testing in the area) noticed that increased DF reduce the loss of grip from a standing start.

It's easy to show that aero isn't dead weight in GT. The 2J and X1 (though the latter is supported by wings) are the only "dead weight" cars. the 2J's lateral grip isn't speed dependent. It's the only one. The other cars need to gain speed to gain grip (especially clear with the F1 cars), so aero does have a speed dependence (the X1 would like the 2J if you could remove the wings). Also, with the X1, the speeds and downforce are so great, GT's tiny drag force is actually easily visible.

You could recreate the weak GT5 drag model even with a hyper realistic aerodynamics model by scaling the induced (or overall) drag with a tiny number. In reality, there is a connection between lift and drag, but they are distinct things. In the computer world, we can manipulate them independently because of this. This is what happened in GT5. For some reason, PD completely marginalized aero part drag. The intent seems to be making things easy and uncomplicated instead of realistic.

But your basic point stands, GT5 is just wrong when it comes to aerodynamics.
 
It's easy to show that aero isn't dead weight in GT.

Really?

Either way, the aero modelling is more similar to dead weight than anything else, even if it's not exactly acting like dead weight IMO. 👍

And to spell it out more accurate. I can feel difference in latteral grip with a higher aero setting, yes. But that still does'nt proove that the aero is anywhere near correct (Not saying this is your opinion).

If it was anywhere near true to real life, top speed would be affected by a huge difference in aero settings, but that's not the case. The case is that there's no difference at all.

Weight (mass) have a huge impact on acceleration in contradiction to what you say is the case.
A negative impact.
However, if the weight helps the car to gain traction, the acceleration can improve, but that has nothing to do with wether the actual downforce affect acceleration or not. Cause in this case, I'm not discussing downforce.. I'm discussing downforce in GT5 -> Huge difference.

It's a pretty complex subject, but fun to discuss. 👍
Or not complex.. I mean, it's physics.. But it's so much more than pure physics related to aero that comes in to play when we're discussing a cars performance.

Physics are (as you might now):
A cars weight does'nt have an impact on top speed.
Power to drag has.
I.e Bugatti Veyron.. Heavy car, powerful car, very low drag. 👍

A cars weight have huge impact on acceleration.
I.e Car A and Car B have identical engines and drivetrains, drag, wheeldimentions etc.
Car A weigh 1000 kg, and car B weigh 2000 kg.
Car A will accelarate much quicker, but both cars will reach the same top speed.

And this is my point, and what I tryed to say in the first place:
If your car lacks grip in a slippery slope IRL, you ask your brother to sit on the trunk = His weight will help to improve the cars traction, and from that accelerate better.
And that's pretty much what I've experianced so far playing GT5.. Adding DF tend to help grip levels even at the lowest speeds. Hence my opinion that the aero settings act more like dead weight than anything else.

But I'll do some proper testing, cause this discussion made me want to try it out properly. 👍

I'll use the Route X obviously (Acceleration test).
I'll pick a car that loose too much grip for optimal performance @ 100% throttle, but still don't lack so much grip that a bit of extra weight won't make a difference.
I'm thinking I should use the Pagani Zonda R on Racing Mediums or Racing Hards.
Start in 2'nd gear (To eliminate the first gear switch from the equation). Full throttle from get go (To eliminate that aspect from the equation as well), see what times I get with aero at Maximum, Medium and Minimum, and post it here.
I'll make sure to tweak the gearing so that I don't need to change to 3rd before I hit the 400m mark. Doing it like this eliminates everything but the impact of the aero setting. 👍

Going to be interesting. :cheers:
 
Weight (mass) have a huge impact on acceleration in contradiction to what you say is the case.

This is important and probably why we disagree. Weight is not mass. Weight doesn't change acceleration, but mass does.

A 2000 kg car weighs about 19620 N in 1 g gravity. It weighs 9810 N in .5 g gravity. It will accelerate at the same rate in both cases (once the tires have full traction).


I'm not discussing downforce.. I'm discussing downforce in GT5 -> Huge difference.

Yes, a very big difference. I'm comparing the two. GT5 does not do aerodynamics very well. However it seems to capture the basic speed dependence of lift.

It also seems to have some strange effect even at zero speed added to this though, which is what you are talking about here:

And this is my point, and what I tryed to say in the first place:
If your car lacks grip in a slippery slope IRL, you ask your brother to sit on the trunk = His weight will help to improve the cars traction, and from that accelerate better.
And that's pretty much what I've experianced so far playing GT5.. Adding DF tend to help grip levels even at the lowest speeds. Hence my opinion that the aero settings act more like dead weight than anything else.

Perhaps downforce never goes to zero. Maybe it looks like this:

1zdbqu0.png


But I'll do some proper testing, cause this discussion made me want to try it out properly. 👍

I'll use the Route X obviously (Acceleration test).
I'll pick a car that loose too much grip for optimal performance @ 100% throttle, but still don't lack so much grip that a bit of extra weight won't make a difference.
I'm thinking I should use the Pagani Zonda R on Racing Mediums or Racing Hards.
Start in 2'nd gear (To eliminate the first gear switch from the equation). Full throttle from get go (To eliminate that aspect from the equation as well), see what times I get with aero at Maximum, Medium and Minimum, and post it here.
I'll make sure to tweak the gearing so that I don't need to change to 3rd before I hit the 400m mark. Doing it like this eliminates everything but the impact of the aero setting. 👍

Going to be interesting. :cheers:

This should be helpful. The Zonda is a good choice as it has a wide range of downforce settings. I wonder if Racing tires will be too grippy though, I'm not sure. This will show the effect of the aero on grip, but it won't tell us if aerodynamics is modeled as a constant "dead weight" or if it's speed dependent. It also won't tell us what is happening at launch. The only way to test the dead weight idea is to take the car through a series of corners that require different speeds and then comparing the average g forces seen. To test the launch downforce, drag race your car's ghost. One of them should have maximum downforce, and the other the opposite. If GT5 gives you non zero downforce at zero mph, the car with the higher downforce setting should jump ahead at the start instead of starting with the same initial acceleration and gradually pulling ahead.
 
Yes OP, as Denilson pointed out, it's possible that adding a wing can reduce your 1/4 times because downforce does not begin as "0". What it actually is we don't know, but a car with a wing gets more rear traction even from a standing start, than one without. There is some reduced high speed however so you'll have to test it and find out if the added traction offsets the lower top speeds.
 
Exorcet: If you're refering to "mass" as something with a drag coefficient, I agree.

In physics, mass is always mass no matter what, I know.. But let's say we skip gearing, wheel diameters, traction, drag, lost power in the drivetrain, friction, the whole chabang, how would you calculate acceleration?

Newton:
a = F/m

a = acceleration
F = Combined forces of all power available
m = mass

So in my world, when trying to calculate how fast something will accelerate (note that I do not take gearing, wheel diameters, traction, drag, the whole chabang in to concideration), I'll put the power where F is, a will give me the acceleration, and what should I put as "m".. I'd say weight..


Ok, so I did the test a few hours ago.

This is the results:

Car:
Pagani Zonda R '09
Bhp: 712
PL: 91,9%
Weight: 1070
DF: Run 1, Minimum. Run 2, Maximum
Mods: Fully Customisable Transmission, Fully Customisable LSD, Fully Customisable Suspension Kit, Brake Balance Controller.

Tranny set to 330 km/h in both runs (Identicat trannys used ofc. 👍 )

Run 1:
0-400m: 10.110
DIFF: 7.632
0-1000m: 17.742
0-100km/h: 3.156
0-200km/h: 7.092
Max G-Force: 0.98

Run 2:
0-400m: 10.051
DIFF: 7.650
0-1000m: 17.701
0-100km/h: 2.965
0-200km/h: 7.010
Max G-Force: 1.00

We can see that the car with minimum aero is faster from 400-1000m by 0.018, and the car reach 200 km/h roughly 3 seconds before the 400m mark, and should reach around 230-250 (I did'nt check this) when passing the 400m mark. To me, if the drag was accurate, it would be a larger gap for the minimum aero car.. But then again, it probably did'nt have the same speed initially.. So.. :indiff:

So, while the car with maximum DF is faster in all areas, I still have to say that GT5 simulates drag better than I thought. It's defenetly not "dead" weight as I initially presumed (Ok, I dod'nt think it was dead weight, but more dead weight than a spoiler in real life would function).

Analyze:
1. The OP's question have been answered. => Yes, higher rear aero can improve your 1/4 mile time.
2. By looking at the G-Force meter, it's obvious that the car with more aero get better acceleration. And since the highest G-Forces occur in the initial fase of a cars acceleration, it's clear that aero does act as dead weight, at least partially (But still less than I expected).
On the other hand: Initially, I felt little difference in the loss of grip from 0.. And the fact that the 0,98/1,00 figure was first when the car had reached about 60-65 km/h (40 mph), It's not unlikely that the spoiler did generate enough downforce because of the speed to make it grip.. So I'm still not convinced at all.

And while looking in my rear view, the ghost (car with minimum downforce) did gain quite a bit as I approached the 1000m mark. So it seems that drag is a factor.. Wich is really strange, cause I and a lot of others have done a lot of testing on this area, where we all agreed that aero asettings did NOT affect the car in higher speeds. :confused:
It was some time ago we did those tests, so perhaps it was fixed in an update/patch?


Conclution:
Aero in GT5 does'nt seem to be simulated as dead weight. But it seems that it's simulated as "semi" dead weight if that makes sence..
Aero in GT5 seem to simulate drag to some extint.
I do however don't believe that the actual programming have anything to do with how aero function irl. It must be some kind of simplification from PD's part.

If I'm allowed to guess..
I'd say the programming should look similar to:
X aero @ 0-50 km/h = Y amount of extra dead weight
X aero @ 51-100 km/h = Z amount of extra dead weight
and so on.. Perhaps in smaller steps, but just to show you what I'm trying to say here (Yes, this is not my domestic language).
But then again, it would make you have sudden loss of grip in a corner as soon as you go below a specific speed.. So it's probably not calculated exactly like this either.. :indiff:
But I think it's at least somewhere along that line..

So above, we have the downforce calculations..
So how is drag calculated..?
Perhaps PD just reversed the numbers from the downforce calculation?
So while 0-50 km/h add weight, it reduce the drag coefficient by steps as well.

It seems that what ever you try to test when it comes to PD and GT5, things seem to be done in steps..
Like if you're driving a non run in engine in a 300km race. The car gradually gains power, but it's not seen on the straights.. There's no difference in top speed. Ok, by the end of a 300 km race, the oil would be dirty with 100 km left.. But before that, the car shoukld ofc reach a higher speed. But it does'nt.
But, when you exit the race, and go back in, all of a sudden, it is faster on the straight..
Same with fuel loads.
It does'nt seem to affect the car gradually. It seems to affect the car in steps of 25-33 litres at a time..

I hope this post was at least partly intersting. 👍
 
Last edited:
Exorcet: If you're refering to "mass" as something with a drag coefficient, I agree.
I don't know what you mean by that exactly.

In physics, mass is always mass no matter what, I know.. But let's say we skip gearing, wheel diameters, traction, drag, lost power in the drivetrain, friction, the whole chabang, how would you calculate acceleration?

Newton:
a = F/m

a = acceleration
F = Combined forces of all power available
m = mass

So in my world, when trying to calculate how fast something will accelerate (note that I do not take gearing, wheel diameters, traction, drag, the whole chabang in to concideration), I'll put the power where F is, a will give me the acceleration, and what should I put as "m".. I'd say weight..

That all sounds correct except the last line. You can't put the weight of the car into the F=ma formula, it won't mean anything. Weight can only go into the F portion of the formula because weight is a force and not a measure of matter. If you want to factor aero parts into acceleration, it's like this:

F=ma

m = mass of the car, this doesn't change (except for fuel)
F = Engine force - Drag
D = Drag = Parasite drag + (LiftCoefficient^2/2*pi*AR*e)*rho*A*speed^2

So

(Engine force - Parasite drag +(LiftCoefficient^2/2*pi*AR*e)*rho*A*speed^2) = ma

None of the aerodynamic forces appear in the mass term because they aren't mass.


Conclution:
Aero in GT5 does'nt seem to be simulated as dead weight. But it seems that it's simulated as "semi" dead weight if that makes sence..
Aero in GT5 seem to simulate drag to some extint.
I do however don't believe that the actual programming have anything to do with how aero function irl. It must be some kind of simplification from PD's part.

I don't think your test can shed any light on the dead weight issue. Eventhough the downforce car experienced a higher peak g, that doesn't mean that downforce was available at 0 mph. The Viper ACR should produce 40 lbs of downforce at just 30 mph, which can make a noticeable different in traction. The Zonda probably produces a lot more (though how much it has in GT5 is unknown), and the better peak g could be a result of better traction after the launch and not at launch.

GT areo is certainly simplified, but the basic functions, like lift and drag relationships aren't very complicated. GT seems to get the basic relationship correct, however the drag is much, much weaker than it should be for whatever reason.

See this video:

At 6:30, the Jaguar is used and the car sees increasing peak accel as speed rises, probably because of gradual downforce gains.

 
As I stated several times in my post: "It seems", "if I'm allowed to guess", "perhaps" etc indicates that I don't know things as a fact. 👍

That all sounds correct except the last line. You can't put the weight of the car into the F=ma formula, it won't mean anything. Weight can only go into the F portion of the formula because weight is a force and not a measure of matter. If you want to factor aero parts into acceleration, it's like this:

F=ma

m = mass of the car, this doesn't change (except for fuel)
F = Engine force - Drag
D = Drag = Parasite drag + (LiftCoefficient^2/2*pi*AR*e)*rho*A*speed^2

So

(Engine force - Parasite drag +(LiftCoefficient^2/2*pi*AR*e)*rho*A*speed^2) = ma

None of the aerodynamic forces appear in the mass term because they aren't mass.

No, I did not want to calculate aero.. That's why I said "Ignore drag, wheeldimentions, loss of grip, power losses thru the drive train etc".
So basically, if I set up an example?

Car A: 1400kg, 200 bhp @ 6000 rpm, and 300Nm @ 3000-4500 rpm
Car B: 1400kg, 200 bhp @ 6000 rpm, and 300Nm @ 3000-4500rpm
Both cars are identical, the only difference is that in Car A, the driver is alone without any luggage, while Car B is packed with 1 driver, 4 passanger and loads of stuff in the trunk, making Car B much heavier.
So, the cars end up side by side at a traffic light, both drivers want to win this street drag race.
At the given time:
Car A: 1500kg, 200 bhp @ 6000 rpm, and 300Nm @ 3000-4500 rpm
Car B: 2000kg, 200 bhp @ 6000 rpm, and 300Nm @ 3000-4500 rpm

How will this drag race end?
If it's not because of the higher weight, why does Car B loose this one?
Remember, both cars are identical. And for the sake of the example, remove loss of traction, weight distribution etc.




I don't think your test can shed any light on the dead weight issue. Eventhough the downforce car experienced a higher peak g, that doesn't mean that downforce was available at 0 mph. The Viper ACR should produce 40 lbs of downforce at just 30 mph, which can make a noticeable different in traction. The Zonda probably produces a lot more (though how much it has in GT5 is unknown), and the better peak g could be a result of better traction after the launch and not at launch.

GT areo is certainly simplified, but the basic functions, like lift and drag relationships aren't very complicated. GT seems to get the basic relationship correct, however the drag is much, much weaker than it should be for whatever reason.

I'm not startig an argument.. I'm really interested. 👍
 
Last edited:
If aero downforce = dead weight, then:

Large quantities of rear downforce would lead to oversteer characteristics as well as traction benefits, akin to RR cars (RuF).

But,

In GT5 you end up with marginal understeer produced by the additional grip produced from the downforce.

Obviously not dead weight, then?

:boggled:
 
Back