MINI Cooper S with John Cooper Works G_P Tuning Kit

[Tonyt3]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fabio

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

Havent heard that ( which i would be very surprised at in itself) do you have any links to reports of such happenings...?

[Wobert]

Quote: Originally Posted by Paul Mullett

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?

The downforce is the resultant of the drag........you were mentioning weight, which isn't the same thing as downforce.......if the wing does add downforce, then the force pushing the rear tyres into the road will increase, the weight of the car does not....

[BigMarsh]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonyt3

Havent heard that ( which i would be very surprised at in itself) do you have any links to reports of such happenings...?

http://www.wreckedexotics.com/special/enzo/

"A witness claimed that he saw the car go airborn due to excessive speed which is why the crash occurred in the first place."

I saw this a couple of weeks ago, I think there are a couple of stories like this, all of them with pics of a completely destroyed Enzo.

[northandy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonyt3

Havent heard that ( which i would be very surprised at in itself) do you have any links to reports of such happenings...?

I am surprised to hear it, but I guess when you think of the essence of how ground effects work, using an undercar venturi to effectively pull the car onto the ground at high speed, if that was lost for whatever reason driving could become very interesting at those high speeds although the vision of an enzo becoming airboure is something I just cant get my head round....

I know its different but I remember a rear wing coming off an F1 car a few years back. on a straight the wing detached (after a shunt at the previous corner) and as soon as the wing came off the car lost control and spun off the track...

[Paul]

I know it's not the same thing, that's why I put it in quotes, meant as a "virtual" weight, not actual weight, weight. I did a physics a-level I'll have you know.. (Not that you'd know it)

The way a wing works, with the increase in air flow/pressure/speed etc, I was trying to visualise it into an easy to understand form.

[northandy]

Quote: Originally Posted by BigMarsh

http://www.wreckedexotics.com/special/enzo/

"A witness claimed that he saw the car go airborn due to excessive speed which is why the crash occurred in the first place."

I saw this a couple of weeks ago, I think there are a couple of stories like this, all of them with pics of a completely destroyed Enzo.

thats quite an interesting read !

[Tonyt3]

Quote: Originally Posted by BigMarsh

http://www.wreckedexotics.com/special/enzo/

"A witness claimed that he saw the car go airborn due to excessive speed which is why the crash occurred in the first place."

I saw this a couple of weeks ago, I think there are a couple of stories like this, all of them with pics of a completely destroyed Enzo.

Well, I dont want to start some kind of disagreement here, but it clearly states the car became airbourne after hitting a bump in the road. It doesnt say "the car was just going along and all of a sudden became airbourne for no apparant reason other than the designer forgot to put on a rear wing....."

if your doing 162mph in any car, with rear wing or not, and you hit a bump in the road, your going to become airbourne. The fool driving the car was doing so on a road not designed for these speeds.

I agree with Northandy in respect to the sudden lack of downforce from loss of the ground effect, would cause very interesting results (isnt this also what was eventually attributed to the reason Ayrton Senna crashed - loss of ground effect due to the car fully bottoming out, caused by lack of air pressure in the tyres due to the fact the car had been run at slow speed behind the safety car for a prolonged period of time....?). However, the loss of down force would have been caused by the bump in the road, not the lack of a rear wing.

Certaily, loss of a rear wing on a car that is designed to have one from the start causes all sorts of grief.

At the end of the day, just about every Ferrari crashed on a public road would have one root cause to the incedent - a bloody rich fool showing off and exceeding his competency levels in terms of driving skills!!!

[Fabio]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonyt3

Well, I dont want to start some kind of disagreement here, but it clearly states the car became airbourne after hitting a bump in the road. It doesnt say "the car was just going along and all of a sudden became airbourne for no apparant reason other than the designer forgot to put on a rear wing....."

if your doing 162mph in any car, with rear wing or not, and you hit a bump in the road, your going to become airbourne. The fool driving the car was doing so on a road not designed for these speeds.

I agree with Northandy in respect to the sudden lack of downforce from loss of the ground effect, would cause very interesting results (isnt this also what was eventually attributed to the reason Ayrton Senna crashed - loss of ground effect due to the car fully bottoming out, caused by lack of air pressure in the tyres due to the fact the car had been run at slow speed behind the safety car for a prolonged period of time....?). However, the loss of down force would have been caused by the bump in the road, not the lack of a rear wing.

Certaily, loss of a rear wing on a car that is designed to have one from the start causes all sorts of grief.

At the end of the day, just about every Ferrari crashed on a public road would have one root cause to the incedent - a bloody rich fool showing off and exceeding his competency levels in terms of driving skills!!!

your right agreeing with Northandy, that was the point i was making in the first place but i feel that supercars that have the rear wings, e.g carrera GT, slr wont have as dramatic crashes if they hit a 'bump'

[northandy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonyt3

At the end of the day, just about every Ferrari crashed on a public road would have one root cause to the incedent - a bloody rich fool showing off and exceeding his competency levels in terms of driving skills!!!

[Tonyt3]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fabio

your right agreeing with Northandy, that was the point i was making in the first place but i feel that supercars that have the rear wings, e.g carrera GT, slr wont have as dramatic crashes if they hit a 'bump'

Does the SLR wing not deploy just for braking...? Or is it one of these speed variable jobs...?

Of course, what we forget is that the McLaren F1 started all this off, by not having a rear wing. It was only fitted with one for racing, to give traction, which hit the top speed really badly.

Personally, i think supercars should have stupidly big wings - the F40 being the prime example. i felt cheated when the enzo came out without one.....

[dukesantos]

Wings are useful at higher speeds, but the variable ones don't come up until 100 k/hr-62 mph on the Chrysler Crossfire or even faster on the Porsche Boxster, as examples. I really wonder is there is a good reason to go beyond the size of the current JCW wing on the GP. The MINIs that are racing don't seem to have big wing issues, some though are working on lower rear diffusers and front ducting for cooling and air intake charge.

[DinkaDonka]

After seeing the car on 5th gear last night , albeit briefly , it is growing on me more and more , get some 18" anthracite OZ ultraleggeras of in lieu of those hideous wheels with a substantial drop in ride height it will look amazing.

I know modificatin wont be taken lightly by many but if i do take the plunge this car will become a project of mine to make it into something even more special and make it the 250/260 HP it should have been in the first place hmmmmmm

Paul

[Paul]

I think it looks better in the metal than in photos for sure.

[Fabio]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonyt3

Does the SLR wing not deploy just for braking...? Or is it one of these speed variable jobs...?
........................

I think your right about the SLR wing is for braking , but i was just stereotyping Supercars

[LMB]

Quote: Originally Posted by Paul Mullett

I think it looks better in the metal than in photos for sure.

I really wish I could have made Geneva to see it for myself.