MINI Cooper S with John Cooper Works G_P Tuning Kit

[Fabio]

I wonder has anybody been driving their car with the back seats down and refraining from using the rear wiper when raining

[twig]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fabio

I wonder has anybody been driving their car with the back seats down and refraining from using the rear wiper when raining

We always drive with rear seats down. They are a waste and you can hear the exhaust better.

Rain? You drive in the rain?

[The Red Baron]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fabio

I wonder has anybody been driving their car with the back seats down and refraining from using the rear wiper when raining

.........or not driving in heavy fog!

[Tonyt3]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fabio

I wonder has anybody been driving their car with the back seats down and refraining from using the rear wiper when raining

I have done both. In winter. The photo below shows just how dirty the car can get in winter on British roads. The car was clean before I set out - and this is 110 miles later. Had to use the rear wipers unfortunatly....

My car also increase in power by about 8bhp with the rear seats folded down - I call this Aural Pleasure - (careful, that isn't oral, but Aural ) - the car simply feels more powerful with the increase in noise. With the GP not having sound insulation either, I expect the Aural pleasure to be at least 12bhp. So GP owners are going to feel that their car is running at least 230bhp as compared to a standard Works car. So they wont be at all dissapointed with power output.

[jimskater]

Silly question: Will the new spoiler change the air flow across the back window?

[LMB]

Quote: Originally Posted by jimskater

Silly question: Will the new spoiler change the air flow across the back window?

I think it will.

[northandy]

Quote: Originally Posted by jimskater

Silly question: Will the new spoiler change the air flow across the back window?

It will probably make it worse ...

I'm no aerodynamics expert but the spoiler looks like it will create more dirty air at the back of the car... (i.e. air thats not flowing smoothly over the car)... this will suck up spray from the back wheels onto the rear window...

It seems that minis without rear spoilers suffer much less of the standard mini dirty backside, as soon as you fit a spolier that changes the smooth flow of air over the car...

I do love the GP look, but do think the lack of rear wiper could make it a pain in the *um on a long winter motorway trip...

[Paul]

From the dirty runs I've been on it's usually - no spoiler - chilli spoiler - aero spoiler - s spoiler (cleanest to dirtiest). If the GP spoiler causes more downforce, I'd imagine (as with the list I've posted) it'd be the dirtiest yet? I've not been on a like for like run with anyone with the JCW Spoiler, so no idea if that fits the equation too (ie, dirtier than the S spoiler).

[Tonyt3]

Quote: Originally Posted by Paul Mullett

From the dirty runs I've been on it's usually - no spoiler - chilli spoiler - aero spoiler - s spoiler (cleanest to dirtiest). If the GP spoiler causes more downforce, I'd imagine (as with the list I've posted) it'd be the dirtiest yet? I've not been on a like for like run with anyone with the JCW Spoiler, so no idea if that fits the equation too (ie, dirtier than the S spoiler).

I would concur - the more downforce you create, the more turbulance behind the car, the worse the effect.

i doubt very much that the GP wing was developed so that it reduced this level of downforce, therefore reduced the level of muck on the rear screen, therefore removed the need for a rear wash/wipe. I would guess that the wing was developed either to produce more muck enducing down force, or, alternatively, as a pure marketing ploy and has no difference. I would like to think it was developed for the reason of producing more downforce.

The one thing that we haven't considered is whether the use of underbody aerodynamics could effect all this. However, if the photos from Benvea that show the very small panels under the car are in fact all we are getting, then I cant see this being a factor either.

its interesting that most manufacturers that are developing underbody aerodynamics are removing the need for additional wings, not adding yet larger rear wings to their cars (this ranges from top end ferraris to next gen renault Clios.....)

[Fabio]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonyt3

...................
its interesting that most manufacturers that are developing underbody aerodynamics are removing the need for additional wings, not adding yet larger rear wings to their cars (this ranges from top end ferraris to next gen renault Clios.....)

Those top end Ferraris seem to go air bourne quite easily and they say the big reason for that is the lack of the rear wing.

regarding rear wing , is it true that the more downforce the wing exerts in the car the higher the fuel consumption?? My spoiler on my dads integrale cause be moved around and the position with the most downforce resulted in higher fuel consumption and it was very noticable.

[Tonyt3]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fabio

Those top end Ferraris seem to go air bourne quite easily and they say the big reason for that is the lack of the rear wing.

regarding rear wing , is it true that the more downforce the wing exerts in the car the higher the fuel consumption?? My spoiler on my dads integrale cause be moved around and the position with the most downforce resulted in higher fuel consumption and it was very noticable.

more downforce = more drag = more fuel used to push the car along

not sure if i've heard of any unstable Ferraris due to lack of rear wing latley. The Enzo seems to perform adequatly without one. The cause of a car going 'airbourne' is usually due to lack of downforce at the front.... (like them Le Mans Porsches of a few years ago)....

[Paul]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fabio

Regarding rear wing , is it true that the more downforce the wing exerts in the car the higher the fuel consumption??

Yes, sort of. A good wing (or any thing that adds downforce), is sort of like adding weight to the car (the back of the car in the case of a rear wing), but in relation to speed (when it's needed). So if you go faster, and get more downforce, then in very rough terms, you're increasing "weight" at the rear, and this would effect consumption. I have no idea how much, but I expect very little in terms of the MINI.

[Fabio]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonyt3

more downforce = more drag = more fuel used to push the car along

not sure if i've heard of any unstable Ferraris due to lack of rear wing latley. The Enzo seems to perform adequatly without one. The cause of a car going 'airbourne' is usually due to lack of downforce at the front.... (like them Le Mans Porsches of a few years ago)....

i've heard of 3 Enzo going airbourne, occuring from travelling at high speeds , hitting a big bump. car becomes unstable and under car aerodynamic fails and car takes off , now not 20 feet off the air

[Wobert]

Quote: Originally Posted by Paul Mullett

Yes, sort of. A good wing (or any thing that adds downforce), is sort of like adding weight to the car (the back of the car in the case of a rear wing), but in relation to speed (when it's needed). So if you go faster, and get more downforce, then in very rough terms, you're increasing "weight" at the rear, and this would effect consumption. I have no idea how much, but I expect very little in terms of the MINI.

The increase in fuel consumption is to do with the increased air resistance that is created by the spoiler, not the additional downforce (or "weight" as you call it) it generates.......

The level of resisiance increases by a factor of 3 as the speed increases.....so at higher speeds the "losses" due to the spoiler will be reasonably high, assuming that the spoiler on the GP is supposed to increase downforce, and not just make it look better.....

[Paul]

Aren't the dowforce and resistance basically the same thing, "drag"? I mean, if there was no downforce, it wouldn't cause resistance, downforce does just that (force the car down, like an upside down plane wing) so isn't that a good analogy?

For example, and object with the same frontal (or in fact overall) area wouldn't cause as much risistance/drag if it wasn't wing shaped?