Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:20:12 +0100 From: Robert Brown <roxbert.brxownnopsampnet.se> Subject: Re: Some More Pics
**-** wrote: > "Adrian" <spamtrapnopsampman.freeisp.co.uk> wrote in message > news:Xns9444E02303C05adrianachapmanfreeisnopsam133.1.4... > > **-** (m.faulksnopsamternet.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they > > were saying : > > > > > Its not so much downforce I'm after as anti-lift > > > > It's a subtle distinction, but it's *absolutely* the important one... > Indeed! And rather worringly it seems to be the one that most miss. > > > > > Good luck, mate. > > Cheers chap. The original poster's mail describes the problem being a too-light front end at 160+ mph. In his text there is no hint of top speed being reached (he rather implies that the only reason he's not going faster is because the car feels unstable at the front). If this really is a true description, then he needs to counter the front-end lift. Drag, in this case, is a secondary issue. Power appears to not be in short supply here, especially when considering his previous postings on the engine mods done (drool drool). A properly-shaped front air dam (not the cheesy stock version) will reduce the amount of air getting under the car (= lift force) at the cost of very little drag. If he refits the car accordingly, then I am sure that his next post on the subject will be "How can I get faster than 175 mph? Handling is fine ...". Hard to understand his (and Adrian's) subsequent comments that some of us respondents are missing the distinction between negative lift forces and drag. We have answered according to the symptoms described. When you have worked out what problem you really want to describe on this NG, then I am sure you will get responses that you will find relevant and hopefully useful. Good luck. Robert Sweden (have abandoned Saabs in favour of cars with much lower Cd [Audis] ;-)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
