- 35
- 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.
ElusiveYetiWould 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.
FurinkazenNo. Spoilers add downforce that slows you down.
No. Spoilers add downforce that slows you down.
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.
How was my statement wrong?seanneedscarLOL
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
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
FurinkazenIn Dags your not turning. So the need for a spoiler is erased.
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.
So funny cars dont need wings?
Santos, perhaps, but also he is referring to 1/4 mile times. Over a mile or so, spoilers don't help.
ExorcetAlso, there is no minimum speed where aerodynamics kicks in, so states like aero works at 40 mph and above generally don't make sense.
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.
No, you can't say that.True, but under 40 mph they can hardly be measured without sophisticated equipment, and resistance is minimal.
Likely due to reduced drag, and not increased grip.
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.
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.
It's easy to show that aero isn't dead weight in GT.
FurinkazenNo. Spoilers add downforce that slows you down.
Weight (mass) have a huge impact on acceleration in contradiction to what you say is the case.
I'm not discussing downforce.. I'm discussing downforce in GT5 -> Huge difference.
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.
I don't know what you mean by that exactly.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..
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.
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.
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.