Body !!! What's the best ?
08-04-2006, 10:08 PM
#76
Another Point......
If I may I would like to pick up something that Data pointed out earlier concerning the underside of the car and its effect Aerodynamically.
The underside of the car being pitted with voids etc will actually have an adverse effect to the air and the way we would like the air to flow under the car.
These voids and irregularities will actually create an increase in air pressure just where you don't want it............ under the car ! A totally smooth underside is of most benefit. Speeding up the air flow, creating low pressure.
Although, saying that, the undersides of our cars in comparrison to full size Sedan's are relatively smooth. So I will reserve judgment until I'm able to test out these things...
Tony
The underside of the car being pitted with voids etc will actually have an adverse effect to the air and the way we would like the air to flow under the car.
These voids and irregularities will actually create an increase in air pressure just where you don't want it............ under the car ! A totally smooth underside is of most benefit. Speeding up the air flow, creating low pressure.
Although, saying that, the undersides of our cars in comparrison to full size Sedan's are relatively smooth. So I will reserve judgment until I'm able to test out these things...
Tony
08-18-2006, 12:38 AM
#77
heres a couple of pic of one of the bodies that Ive painted for Max Sae-Jeng for the worlds, its a Blitz Mazda 6
08-19-2006, 11:47 AM
#78
nice paint job
08-19-2006, 12:03 PM
#79
Who distributes the Blitz bodies ? I'd like to have my LHS carry these bodies.
08-19-2006, 05:18 PM
#80
Originally Posted by twan
nice paint job
08-19-2006, 05:32 PM
#81
Tech Fanatic
I tried the Parma Type M body yesterday. I did not like it much. It's very stable and is not aggressive. Without changing anything, i put a Protoform Mazda 6 back on, and it felt aggressive again. This was on a large track with medium traction..
08-19-2006, 06:50 PM
#82
ok....here we go.
I have now been able to get a rolling road. With the new high speed fan I have, I can now get some worthwhile information on bodies and thire aerodynamic sig's.
I will be running only bodies in ROAR spec condition and on a G4s.
I have done this work before on Renault touring cars having worked for Renault Motorsport UK. So I know what to look for.....
I will get some bodies to use in the next couple of weeks.
I will be looking at the Stratus 3.1, Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Nemesis and just for comparison, a Concept Mustang....
............
Accuracy could be a problem as differences in data could be as little as a few grammes
But I will be as accurate as possible.
Tony
P.s: Excelent photo's Chris and a great paint job !!
I will be running only bodies in ROAR spec condition and on a G4s.
I have done this work before on Renault touring cars having worked for Renault Motorsport UK. So I know what to look for.....
I will get some bodies to use in the next couple of weeks.
I will be looking at the Stratus 3.1, Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Nemesis and just for comparison, a Concept Mustang....
............ Accuracy could be a problem as differences in data could be as little as a few grammes
But I will be as accurate as possible.
Tony
P.s: Excelent photo's Chris and a great paint job !!
08-19-2006, 07:18 PM
#84
Here is my new parma-m body. Got to try it out. Was good , at least I think. I upgraded quite a few things on my car so it was hard to tell. But from what I can tell it was a great body and I performed the best I have so far.
So ill be sticking with the parma-m from now on. Its a great body, seems to be like everyone says. All around good downforce like the 3.1.
Also I have less decals on this body , less paint...but less cuts and it weighs about 105g vs my 110g 3.1 stratus. Id say they are both about the same thickness. Allthough it seems the design of the parma might make it more durable.
The rest is about the same. Both bodies are good , but I think the parma might have the edge. Ill be swapping bodies back and forth soon with the current setup to get a direct reading from the bodies themselves.
08-19-2006, 08:16 PM
#85
Originally Posted by Artificial-I
Here is my new parma-m body. Got to try it out. Was good , at least I think. I upgraded quite a few things on my car so it was hard to tell. But from what I can tell it was a great body and I performed the best I have so far.
So ill be sticking with the parma-m from now on. Its a great body, seems to be like everyone says. All around good downforce like the 3.1.
Also I have less decals on this body , less paint...but less cuts and it weighs about 105g vs my 110g 3.1 stratus. Id say they are both about the same thickness. Allthough it seems the design of the parma might make it more durable.
The rest is about the same. Both bodies are good , but I think the parma might have the edge. Ill be swapping bodies back and forth soon with the current setup to get a direct reading from the bodies themselves.
08-20-2006, 02:33 AM
#86
Originally Posted by Artificial-I
Here is my new parma-m body. Got to try it out. Was good , at least I think. I upgraded quite a few things on my car so it was hard to tell. But from what I can tell it was a great body and I performed the best I have so far.
So ill be sticking with the parma-m from now on. Its a great body, seems to be like everyone says. All around good downforce like the 3.1.
Also I have less decals on this body , less paint...but less cuts and it weighs about 105g vs my 110g 3.1 stratus. Id say they are both about the same thickness. Allthough it seems the design of the parma might make it more durable.
The rest is about the same. Both bodies are good , but I think the parma might have the edge. Ill be swapping bodies back and forth soon with the current setup to get a direct reading from the bodies themselves.
08-22-2006, 08:27 AM
#88
info'
Hi,
Artificial-I.
Not so much "incorrect" as not accurate enough.
We are only talking of grammes of aerodynamic forces acting on the bodies of these cars.
The difference between positive and negative lift can be as little as 4 - 5 grammes !!
Before with the Mazda 6 and Stratus 3.1 bodies I origially tested I could not
get accurate enough data to confirm actual down force or not.
Thats now changed!
With the rolling road I will also be able to get 'Airdam' effect on the cars..... ground effect.
Just to give a little insight into what real effect this can have even on our cars.
Putting on the Stratus 3.1.
Chassis ground clearence----5mm
Car in race trim with 50% fuel load.
35mph road speed with corresponding wind velocity.
Front of body was placed firstly at chassis ground clearence, then placed with front airdamas close to rolling road as possible without interference.
(Approx' 0.4mm)
The front C-l went from +0.5 to -0.8 !!!
This equates to actual downforce generation!
Now get this.............. with body clips removed and everything else unchanged, C-l changed to +0.75 and -0.25 in the same test !!
I know, I'm a little bit of a geek, but if you don't want these results just say.
Tony
Artificial-I.
Not so much "incorrect" as not accurate enough.
We are only talking of grammes of aerodynamic forces acting on the bodies of these cars.
The difference between positive and negative lift can be as little as 4 - 5 grammes !!
Before with the Mazda 6 and Stratus 3.1 bodies I origially tested I could not
get accurate enough data to confirm actual down force or not.
Thats now changed!
With the rolling road I will also be able to get 'Airdam' effect on the cars..... ground effect.
Just to give a little insight into what real effect this can have even on our cars.
Putting on the Stratus 3.1.
Chassis ground clearence----5mm
Car in race trim with 50% fuel load.
35mph road speed with corresponding wind velocity.
Front of body was placed firstly at chassis ground clearence, then placed with front airdamas close to rolling road as possible without interference.
(Approx' 0.4mm)
The front C-l went from +0.5 to -0.8 !!!
This equates to actual downforce generation!
Now get this.............. with body clips removed and everything else unchanged, C-l changed to +0.75 and -0.25 in the same test !!
I know, I'm a little bit of a geek, but if you don't want these results just say.
Tony
08-22-2006, 09:19 AM
#89
From the sounds of it before you were making negative downforce. This sounds pretty incorrect to me , not just inaccurate.
I think best bet is to keep your data private until you can get conclusive results, rather than take us through this learning process. I think the obvious is that an rc car handles better once a lexan body is on top of it. Pointing to the theory that they do create downforce.
Not that Im bashing your work , but quite obviously you got some bugs to work out and posting data thats not even near correct isnt going to help anyone. In fact its going to throw us off as your posting it as correct.
If someone didnt read this thread thoroughly they might be under the wrong impression and then that information spreads and well , I just dont like hearing things from someone thats completely wrong and im sure you as well.
If you can please go back and edit out your data until you feel confident in your results.
I think best bet is to keep your data private until you can get conclusive results, rather than take us through this learning process. I think the obvious is that an rc car handles better once a lexan body is on top of it. Pointing to the theory that they do create downforce.
Not that Im bashing your work , but quite obviously you got some bugs to work out and posting data thats not even near correct isnt going to help anyone. In fact its going to throw us off as your posting it as correct.
If someone didnt read this thread thoroughly they might be under the wrong impression and then that information spreads and well , I just dont like hearing things from someone thats completely wrong and im sure you as well.
If you can please go back and edit out your data until you feel confident in your results.
08-22-2006, 09:24 AM
#90
This is very interesting !!!
Am I right in assuming that the body mounted lower gives us down force and down force is reduced when we raise the body.
This is with a body that has been cut according to the cutting lines on mold.
If we lowered the body as low as possible and trimmed the lower edges to get the necessary ground clearance ,would this make a difference as well ???
Am I right in assuming that the body mounted lower gives us down force and down force is reduced when we raise the body.
This is with a body that has been cut according to the cutting lines on mold.
If we lowered the body as low as possible and trimmed the lower edges to get the necessary ground clearance ,would this make a difference as well ???