80s aero, anyone have any idea? (pics, long post)
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
From: austin, tx, usa
80s aero, anyone have any idea? (pics, long post)
im trying to figure out the original intent that the engineers had for the stuff they put on these cars? obviously it was not the most efficient design since you dont see anything like this anymore, but i am still curious as to what they were accomplishing/trying to accomplish with the aero mods on these cars. any help would be appriciated!
On the red car, there is the 80s style front splitter. From what I understand, this design makes slightly more downforce than more commonly seen front splitters of today, but a lot more drag. can anyone confirm this? The red one has some panels on the side which look like an attempt to duct air into the radiator, while the white one does not.
The red car's hood has many, many louvers, which i guess just have the same purpose as today (keep pressure down, cooling) but for some reason on this car they went to the extreme; the design looks like it would create unneccisary(sp?) drag.
The white car's hood venting does not look so traditional, however. small louvers placed behind the headlamps i can recognize, but i have no idea what the intention was with the rest of the mouldings. any ideas?
On the fenders of both cars and leading up the windshield are flaps. these look to channel air either between the hood and up the windshield, or down along the fenders. what is the point of this? i guess it helps to cut down on turbulence, but the drag it creates is not worth the tradeoff? correct?
both cars run massive rear spoiler "assemblies". why would you want to run a spoiler on the trunk, and again another spoiler on top of that? wouldnt you just increase the size of the main foil? the only idea i can think of is that there was some class restriction on the size of a single air foil and that to create more rear downforce, two wings had to be run? also on the red car, what is the point of the little extra wings on the side of the main foil perches? ive seen these on quite a few aluminum ricey wings, what is the original intent of these pieces?
regarding the fenders, on the front fender it makes sense to leave the rear of it open to release pressure from the wheel well (i think) but on the rear fenders, why are they left exposed like a huge scoop? possibly to cool the rear brakes or somthing?
finally, the wheels. I cannot really tell the size of the wheels on the white car, but on the red car, it looks as though the rear wheel is a larger diameter. why is this? i know that using larger wheels will give the car a higher top speed, at the cost of additional weight. is this what they were trying to accomplish? also, the wheels are super staggered offset, i suppose this is because the class the cars were running in did not allow for modification of the control arms. every current car that i have seen tends to run high offset in the front with low offset in the rear. The longer arms in the front allow for stronger triangulation, making the front more during higher angle turns. the rear running low offset, i have no idea on this... lastly, on the red car, what was the intent with the design of the wheels? were they shaped as such to possibly blow air on to the brakes? hm
if anyone could answer even one of these questions (i know there are a lot of them) i would be very greatful
thanks again!
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
From: Fort Worth, TX
Re: 80s aero, anyone have any idea? (Buttcrack)
Comments in bold.
Originally Posted by Buttcrack
im trying to figure out the original intent that the engineers had for the stuff they put on these cars? obviously it was not the most efficient design since you dont see anything like this anymore, but i am still curious as to what they were accomplishing/trying to accomplish with the aero mods on these cars. any help would be appriciated!
On the red car, there is the 80s style front splitter. From what I understand, this design makes slightly more downforce than more commonly seen front splitters of today, but a lot more drag. can anyone confirm this? The red one has some panels on the side which look like an attempt to duct air into the radiator, while the white one does not.
It does generate downforce by having side "wings" to keep the air from spilling over the splitter. The idea is to further make the air "pack up" ontop of the splitter to create a greater pressure differential. You're correct in that it does make more drag.
The red car's hood has many, many louvers, which i guess just have the same purpose as today (keep pressure down, cooling) but for some reason on this car they went to the extreme; the design looks like it would create unneccisary(sp?) drag.
The white car's hood venting does not look so traditional, however. small louvers placed behind the headlamps i can recognize, but i have no idea what the intention was with the rest of the mouldings. any ideas?
My guess is that they are just raised "rear facing ducts" that utilize the low pressure area created after a hump like that on a flat surface. This would create a greater pressure differential across the duct, making it flow more air.
On the fenders of both cars and leading up the windshield are flaps. these look to channel air either between the hood and up the windshield, or down along the fenders. what is the point of this? i guess it helps to cut down on turbulence, but the drag it creates is not worth the tradeoff? correct?
I think they were again trying to "pack" the air up ontop of the hood/windshield area to create downforce. It would create a fair amount of drag, but not a horrible amount. It also probably doesn't generate much additional downforce either.
both cars run massive rear spoiler "assemblies". why would you want to run a spoiler on the trunk, and again another spoiler on top of that? wouldnt you just increase the size of the main foil? the only idea i can think of is that there was some class restriction on the size of a single air foil and that to create more rear downforce, two wings had to be run? also on the red car, what is the point of the little extra wings on the side of the main foil perches? ive seen these on quite a few aluminum ricey wings, what is the original intent of these pieces?
Looks like the spoilers were designed within the restrictions of the class. So they put as much additional surface area on them as possible within the rules.
regarding the fenders, on the front fender it makes sense to leave the rear of it open to release pressure from the wheel well (i think) but on the rear fenders, why are they left exposed like a huge scoop? possibly to cool the rear brakes or somthing?
I honestly have no idea why they have that much cooling flow back there. It's a front mounted engine, so maybe they are trying to cool the rear differential(if those early Skylines are still AWD). I doubt the rear brakes need that much cooling. The other possibility is that this is a MR engine configuration, but that's pure speculation. Just alot of cooling duct size back there.
finally, the wheels. I cannot really tell the size of the wheels on the white car, but on the red car, it looks as though the rear wheel is a larger diameter. why is this? i know that using larger wheels will give the car a higher top speed, at the cost of additional weight. is this what they were trying to accomplish? also, the wheels are super staggered offset, i suppose this is because the class the cars were running in did not allow for modification of the control arms. every current car that i have seen tends to run high offset in the front with low offset in the rear. The longer arms in the front allow for stronger triangulation, making the front more during higher angle turns. the rear running low offset, i have no idea on this... lastly, on the red car, what was the intent with the design of the wheels? were they shaped as such to possibly blow air on to the brakes? hm
Thinner tire sidewall = higher natural frequency of the tire and less deflection. You can slightly tune the handling characteristics of a car with this and really change how the tires interact with the rest of the suspension. Longer control arms up front give a better camber curve on a double wishbone suspension'd car with lots of aero. Short arms give way too much camber change with changes in ride height due to aero loading, and longer arms help reduce this.
I guess the wheels are trying to cool the brakes, although I have to wonder if they actually did anything. I'd think you'd need a much larger fin surface area to move much air at the rotational speeds most wheels would see. I don't have any numbers though, so just a guess on how effective they are.
if anyone could answer even one of these questions (i know there are a lot of them) i would be very greatful thanks again!
On the red car, there is the 80s style front splitter. From what I understand, this design makes slightly more downforce than more commonly seen front splitters of today, but a lot more drag. can anyone confirm this? The red one has some panels on the side which look like an attempt to duct air into the radiator, while the white one does not.
It does generate downforce by having side "wings" to keep the air from spilling over the splitter. The idea is to further make the air "pack up" ontop of the splitter to create a greater pressure differential. You're correct in that it does make more drag.
The red car's hood has many, many louvers, which i guess just have the same purpose as today (keep pressure down, cooling) but for some reason on this car they went to the extreme; the design looks like it would create unneccisary(sp?) drag.
The white car's hood venting does not look so traditional, however. small louvers placed behind the headlamps i can recognize, but i have no idea what the intention was with the rest of the mouldings. any ideas?
My guess is that they are just raised "rear facing ducts" that utilize the low pressure area created after a hump like that on a flat surface. This would create a greater pressure differential across the duct, making it flow more air.
On the fenders of both cars and leading up the windshield are flaps. these look to channel air either between the hood and up the windshield, or down along the fenders. what is the point of this? i guess it helps to cut down on turbulence, but the drag it creates is not worth the tradeoff? correct?
I think they were again trying to "pack" the air up ontop of the hood/windshield area to create downforce. It would create a fair amount of drag, but not a horrible amount. It also probably doesn't generate much additional downforce either.
both cars run massive rear spoiler "assemblies". why would you want to run a spoiler on the trunk, and again another spoiler on top of that? wouldnt you just increase the size of the main foil? the only idea i can think of is that there was some class restriction on the size of a single air foil and that to create more rear downforce, two wings had to be run? also on the red car, what is the point of the little extra wings on the side of the main foil perches? ive seen these on quite a few aluminum ricey wings, what is the original intent of these pieces?
Looks like the spoilers were designed within the restrictions of the class. So they put as much additional surface area on them as possible within the rules.
regarding the fenders, on the front fender it makes sense to leave the rear of it open to release pressure from the wheel well (i think) but on the rear fenders, why are they left exposed like a huge scoop? possibly to cool the rear brakes or somthing?
I honestly have no idea why they have that much cooling flow back there. It's a front mounted engine, so maybe they are trying to cool the rear differential(if those early Skylines are still AWD). I doubt the rear brakes need that much cooling. The other possibility is that this is a MR engine configuration, but that's pure speculation. Just alot of cooling duct size back there.
finally, the wheels. I cannot really tell the size of the wheels on the white car, but on the red car, it looks as though the rear wheel is a larger diameter. why is this? i know that using larger wheels will give the car a higher top speed, at the cost of additional weight. is this what they were trying to accomplish? also, the wheels are super staggered offset, i suppose this is because the class the cars were running in did not allow for modification of the control arms. every current car that i have seen tends to run high offset in the front with low offset in the rear. The longer arms in the front allow for stronger triangulation, making the front more during higher angle turns. the rear running low offset, i have no idea on this... lastly, on the red car, what was the intent with the design of the wheels? were they shaped as such to possibly blow air on to the brakes? hm
Thinner tire sidewall = higher natural frequency of the tire and less deflection. You can slightly tune the handling characteristics of a car with this and really change how the tires interact with the rest of the suspension. Longer control arms up front give a better camber curve on a double wishbone suspension'd car with lots of aero. Short arms give way too much camber change with changes in ride height due to aero loading, and longer arms help reduce this.
I guess the wheels are trying to cool the brakes, although I have to wonder if they actually did anything. I'd think you'd need a much larger fin surface area to move much air at the rotational speeds most wheels would see. I don't have any numbers though, so just a guess on how effective they are.
if anyone could answer even one of these questions (i know there are a lot of them) i would be very greatful
thanks again!
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 0
From: Greensboro, NC, USA
Re: 80s aero, anyone have any idea? (Def)
Blame this trend on the Porsche 935 - particularly the later derivatives from Kremer.
The rear wing was indeed required to be within the rearward-projected area of the greenhouse so there was some motivation to put additional aero band-aids on the back, to balance the relatively higher downforce that could be made at the front.
The panels that extend the flares into the doors were a rules loophole first exploited by the factory 935/78 (I think was the designation), that they called Moby Dick. Assuming that you needed flares to cover the allowed wheel/tire package, they decreased the total drag of the package significantly.
It's important to remember that even F1 teams didn't have ready access to wind tunnels, to the degree that they do today, "way back then" so aero solutions weren't quite as elegant as we are seeing today. Further, power was typically huge for these turbo GT cars, so they tended to brute force their way through the air, generating downforce by sheer muscle.
You'll find differential, gearbox, and even engine oil coolers back in the rear bodywork, since the front end airflow was primarily ducted to intercoolers and water radiators.
They called those things on the hood "fences" and they were designed to maintain high pressure on top of horizontal surfaces, by preventing spillage.
Note here that part of the reason that the racing bodywork looks so boxy is that the original cars were slab-sided, bluff-nosed pieces to start with. Body bucks were often inelegant affairs, made of 1" urethane board glued together, shaped lightly, then used to pull molds. Even the most sophisticated teams were way short of what we consider to be state-of-the-art today.
Larger diameter tires - complemented with appropriate final drive gearing - was typically thought to provide "more tire" for long races. Most of the international GT events of the period were 1000km deals, as I remember, with the Le Mans 24 being the ultimate goal. That said, I think that these examples are Japanese domestic series car - the "All-Japan GT Championship?"
K
The rear wing was indeed required to be within the rearward-projected area of the greenhouse so there was some motivation to put additional aero band-aids on the back, to balance the relatively higher downforce that could be made at the front.
The panels that extend the flares into the doors were a rules loophole first exploited by the factory 935/78 (I think was the designation), that they called Moby Dick. Assuming that you needed flares to cover the allowed wheel/tire package, they decreased the total drag of the package significantly.
It's important to remember that even F1 teams didn't have ready access to wind tunnels, to the degree that they do today, "way back then" so aero solutions weren't quite as elegant as we are seeing today. Further, power was typically huge for these turbo GT cars, so they tended to brute force their way through the air, generating downforce by sheer muscle.
You'll find differential, gearbox, and even engine oil coolers back in the rear bodywork, since the front end airflow was primarily ducted to intercoolers and water radiators.
They called those things on the hood "fences" and they were designed to maintain high pressure on top of horizontal surfaces, by preventing spillage.
Note here that part of the reason that the racing bodywork looks so boxy is that the original cars were slab-sided, bluff-nosed pieces to start with. Body bucks were often inelegant affairs, made of 1" urethane board glued together, shaped lightly, then used to pull molds. Even the most sophisticated teams were way short of what we consider to be state-of-the-art today.
Larger diameter tires - complemented with appropriate final drive gearing - was typically thought to provide "more tire" for long races. Most of the international GT events of the period were 1000km deals, as I remember, with the Le Mans 24 being the ultimate goal. That said, I think that these examples are Japanese domestic series car - the "All-Japan GT Championship?"
K
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,987
Likes: 1
From: Centreville ,VA, USA
Re: 80s aero, anyone have any idea? (Knestis)
then you have to ask yourself, "should i really care?"
these cars are cool!!!!! hahahaa
i love the "silhouette" cars from the 80's.
it's all about gran turismo 2, i believe, had these cars.
these cars are cool!!!!! hahahaa
i love the "silhouette" cars from the 80's.
it's all about gran turismo 2, i believe, had these cars.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 11,967
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,178
Likes: 1
From: Raleigh, NC
Re: 80s aero, anyone have any idea? (Willard)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Willard »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=919858
?</TD></TR></TABLE>
LOL... I knew someone had posted the exact same topic. I didn't realize it was the same person...
I knew he was the one who brought us the "big porsche wing" topic.
?</TD></TR></TABLE>
LOL... I knew someone had posted the exact same topic. I didn't realize it was the same person...
I knew he was the one who brought us the "big porsche wing" topic.Trending Topics
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,933
Likes: 0
From: Colorado Springs, CO
Re: 80s aero, anyone have any idea? (Willard)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Willard »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=919858
?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Thanks Will, I thought I was having another case of de ja vu all over again. I had some the other night, freaked me out.
Brian
?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Thanks Will, I thought I was having another case of de ja vu all over again. I had some the other night, freaked me out.
Brian
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
From: austin, tx, usa
Re: 80s aero, anyone have any idea? (Brian*Blue95M3)
yea.. that thread kindof trailed off.. so i made another one, but i had read up a little bit more this time so i had more information. also found some better pics of that red car.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,350
Likes: 1
From: Cerritos, CA, USA
Re: 80s aero, anyone have any idea? (Outsane)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Outsane »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Where McNulty when you need him</TD></TR></TABLE>
Reading about aero, where else?
Reading about aero, where else?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post