CPRacing: V3 Splitter/PICS....
#16
Race Director
Thread Starter
#17
Patrick,
Can you post a close-up pic of a support arm including its attachment detail?
There's no question that the arms have to go to a structural point on the nose. The splitter itself can be sacrificial, but the nose should survive a splitter impact. The pic will help sort out how best to do that. Looks like you have at least two standard length support rods. Would be good to know their min-max adjustment range, and if other lengths are available.
Can you post a close-up pic of a support arm including its attachment detail?
There's no question that the arms have to go to a structural point on the nose. The splitter itself can be sacrificial, but the nose should survive a splitter impact. The pic will help sort out how best to do that. Looks like you have at least two standard length support rods. Would be good to know their min-max adjustment range, and if other lengths are available.
#18
Rennlist Junkie Forever
Here...
Go through the bumper skin to connect supports to actual aluminum bumper like so...
TonyG
But I wonder if the actual splitter is strong enough to support itself? The question would be if it would start to buffet at speed and/or fold under. It might be strong enough by itself not to need the supports since it's not a true splitter.
I'll volunteer to be the test mule. I'll mount one with a camera on it and run it around California Speedway at redline in 5th gear. That will tell the story for sure. Of course.. I'd have to have one to test with :-)
TonyG
Go through the bumper skin to connect supports to actual aluminum bumper like so...
TonyG
But I wonder if the actual splitter is strong enough to support itself? The question would be if it would start to buffet at speed and/or fold under. It might be strong enough by itself not to need the supports since it's not a true splitter.
I'll volunteer to be the test mule. I'll mount one with a camera on it and run it around California Speedway at redline in 5th gear. That will tell the story for sure. Of course.. I'd have to have one to test with :-)
TonyG
#19
#21
BTW, I agree that if possible, following the bumper skin's outline when viewed from above would be ideal. Not just at the nose but the full outline. Having said that CP has been very receptive to my input and I'm very happy to see the closest to what I wanted to design myself.
#22
Rennlist Junkie Forever
BTW, I agree that if possible, following the bumper skin's outline when viewed from above would be ideal. Not just at the nose but the full outline. Having said that CP has been very receptive to my input and I'm very happy to see the closest to what I wanted to design myself.
Personally, I'd like to see how low the the thing is to the ground.
The pics don't show enough info, but it looks a little high. That sucker should be no more than 1.5" off the ground on a lowered car. It's got to be low to be effective.
TonyG
#23
Hmm, I see what you're saying, but in reality even highly developed cars such as the RX8 built by Riley and Scott have the splitter at least 3" off the ground, and it's still extremely effective.
#24
Rennlist Junkie Forever
3" is on high side to be effective as a splitter. At that height, a lot of air is passing under the car, which limits its effectiveness.
And these cars aren't RX8s with their smooth under body belly.
The 944 has a undercarriage that promotes far more turbulence compared to more modern cars (including the RX8).
That said, the solution is to limit the air under the car. Thus the lower the better. And 3" ain't low enough.
TonyG
#25
Rennlist Member
Tony, The red car in the pictures is standard ride height and no reflection of our lowered cars so I wouldn't worry about the height shown in the pics. In fact my concern would be too low and hitting a gator strip at the wrong angle and inflicting some pretty serious damage?
From what I understand the supports may not even be needed according the CPR Pat? That has yet to be fully substantiated on the track, but he's tested them up to some pretty decent speeds. If that is the case then I'd be inclined to run without just to avoid any knock on effects of a incident with the splitter. If it's not able to run without then I would agree with you on them going through the body work onto the subframe too.
From what I understand the supports may not even be needed according the CPR Pat? That has yet to be fully substantiated on the track, but he's tested them up to some pretty decent speeds. If that is the case then I'd be inclined to run without just to avoid any knock on effects of a incident with the splitter. If it's not able to run without then I would agree with you on them going through the body work onto the subframe too.
#26
The Impaler
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
It's still an effective air splitter without being that close to the ground. This type would be much much more effective than the AIR type the protrudes further down than out.
#27
Rennlist Junkie Forever
I don't proclaim the AIR unit to be effective.
By the same token, we don't know if this splitter is effective or not.. either.
But I can tell you that to be effective as a splitter, it's got to move air out from under the car. And a 3" column of air is too much to be truly effective on a 944 undercarriage, which is not smooth by today's standards.
TonyG
#28
The Impaler
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Effective is measurable in terms of lift, downforce, and drag.
I don't proclaim the AIR unit to be effective.
By the same token, we don't know if this splitter is effective or not.. either.
But I can tell you that to be effective as a splitter, it's got to move air out from under the car. And a 3" column of air is too much to be truly effective on a 944 undercarriage, which is not smooth by today's standards.
TonyG
I don't proclaim the AIR unit to be effective.
By the same token, we don't know if this splitter is effective or not.. either.
But I can tell you that to be effective as a splitter, it's got to move air out from under the car. And a 3" column of air is too much to be truly effective on a 944 undercarriage, which is not smooth by today's standards.
TonyG
Even if you had a splitter that only cleared 1", you would need serious ground effects on the sides and a diffuser to make use of that, right?
#29
Race Director
Thread Starter
I go to work for a bit and....damn. All I know is that the handling improved dramatically for me (stock ride height)...especially in the over 60-80mph range (and greater with the speed increase). Where the car used to push in turns at "x" speed, it now did not. The average increase of entry/exit speed was about 10%.
Here is what I can add:
-we found the handling effects to be greatly increased using a mild degree raked splitter, in lieu of a more traditional plane splitter
-the plane splitter redirected @ 13% underneath, the raked version @ 5% underneath
-the unit will not "buckle" under any speed attainable by these cars with or without supports...it is impossible. Yes impossible.
-Technically the sheer point of the hardware would be more relevant than the unit buckling... for arguements sake, calculative measures reflect the unit would reach a viable rate of compromise (mostly be frictional heating) at 436.8821mph.
I'll post some more pics today with better side views.
Here is what I can add:
-we found the handling effects to be greatly increased using a mild degree raked splitter, in lieu of a more traditional plane splitter
-the plane splitter redirected @ 13% underneath, the raked version @ 5% underneath
-the unit will not "buckle" under any speed attainable by these cars with or without supports...it is impossible. Yes impossible.
-Technically the sheer point of the hardware would be more relevant than the unit buckling... for arguements sake, calculative measures reflect the unit would reach a viable rate of compromise (mostly be frictional heating) at 436.8821mph.
I'll post some more pics today with better side views.