Martin S.

New look, a 964 3.8 RS (look alike) tail lacking the air scoops for the 993 RS CS tail and or the GT 2 tail. After a few days at California Speedway running the RS tail, I really missed the downforce of the former 993 GT2 tail. You enter the Turn 2 corner at 135 mph, + if you have the guts.

I have replaced the faux side skirts with Porsche Factory 993 RS/CS side skirts, and a one piece GT2 front splitter from Gert Carnewal, made in Germany. The wing is four (4) way adjustable. Hopefully this is it in the way of configuration changes. Hopefully. The progression of changes:

1. Stock
2. 993 RS....several times
3. 993 RS CS
4. Present 993 Hybrid aero

Kein_Ersatz

AZ Targa

Do you know the difference in the specs between the 964 rs tail and the 993 gt2 tail relating to downforce?

Looks good Martin!

Martin S.

it to my tail. According to a Porsche Tech Bulletin WKD 499 620 2006, the 993 RS Club Sport tail, with 9 degrees of down angle, will produce 160 Lbs of downforce at 270 kph (162 mph) and the front splitter will reduce lift to 35 Lbs at this same speed (Producing 0 downforce only reduction in lift).

How you get the HP to get around the drag produced by 9 degrees of down angle is beyond me. Those monster air scoops on the Club Sport tail have got to be drag inducing.

Perhaps one of our Rennlist pals van provide the dimensions of the Club sport wing?

Bill Verburg

Here's the aero for a 993RS/CS at stock ride height and rake and w/ the wing @9°


you can improve this by going lower and adding a little rake or changing the wing angle of attack. These aero bits are very effective

I suspect that the 964RS3.8 biwing does have better drag than the 993RS/CS, but the factory rarely does things that make the car worse, so I haven't made my mind up on that. A friend runs the 964 3.8RS style biwing on his w/ a gurney added, he loves it and has gotten much faster w/ it.

Martin S.

Bill,

This is very helpful information. Is it available in a file where one could manipulate the down angle to calculate the drag and downforce? If I had anything more advanced than Math 1A, I could figure it out from the data supplied on the Bulletin, but alas too much beer, not enough studying.

I have attached the data found in demo the 993 RS Bulletin (2006). What is interesting is the statement, "The modified front spoiler, combined with the fixed rear spoiler and the adjustable rear wing, produces high down-force at low drag values."

Bill Verburg

Here's the aero for the 964 3.8RS and for 993 RS/CS in one place, I was looking at the previous chart and noticed that it was labeled mph but the data had been from a kph data set so I just redid them both in mph, the 993 blade angle is 6 the 964 3.8RS is unknown

AZ Targa

Thanks guys!

trophy

Great info Bill,

How do you ready the Drag lb? Is this equivalent of "adding" that much weight to the car?

The 964 3.8rs is surprisingly neutral when it comes to lift front and rear, would be interesting to see what the numbers are for a stock 964 in comparison.

Rockit

Car and wing look great!!!

Bill Verburg

here's the 964aero w/ the wing up at all speeds, the 964 has one of the best aero profiles I've seen, it is much slipperier than a 964 3.8RS because of the smaller frontal area


drag is the resistance to forward motion in #s, the lift #s either add to the weight pushing down if negative or subtract from the weight pushing down if positive

993RS/CS at 100mph has 175# of drag, 17# of lift in front and 78# of extra down force in back, and believe me you can feel it. When I went from RS to RS/CS aero it allowed me to get on the gas much earlier and carry much more speed thru corners, the faster you go the faster you can go.

Martin S.

Most informative...great info....

I know the feeling of trepidation with a 993 RS wing VS a RS Club Sport. The latter is confidence inspiring.

rg0115

Sehr gut mein freund. Ein super tolles Rennauto

ToSi

double check your unit conversions, I think you're off by a factor of ~2. Martin's PDF has the correct N to lbf conversion factor, 6 deg should be 120lbs @ 168mph.

Bill Verburg

If you had bothered to read post#7, where I explained that the axis was incorrectly labeled and posted the corrected chart in mph. You would not have had anything to carp about.