OZ951

After doing a bit of searching I didn't find any references to canards or dive planes being available for 944s. I'm interested in experimenting with some on my track car when I add a rear wing. Can anyone steer me towards a supplier(s) ?

TIA

Paulyy

Kelly, I know a guy who would make them from carbon fibre. Usually makes them for your car though. He has made a set for a CGT front end. PM me your email and i'll send you though a few photos. I also can send him a message asking if he still has the moulds for them if you think you could make them work.

rlm328

There are several generic canards out in the market place. You will need to modify them for your needs. For example, http://aprperformance.com/racing-pro...umper-canards/

OZ951

Thanks for the leads.

333pg333

While I think it's fine to experiment with these sort of things I can also confirm that back in 2014 when we 'unwrapped' V4.0 of my car we put our own large twin dive planes on the front. (pictured) We clearly thought this would provide plenty of downforce to assist the splitter. As it turned out, we were actually getting front end lift at the end of Eastern Creeks main straight! This was confirmed through data from the suspension pots. I have a pic at home showing the front lifting up on the same straight. Very disconcerting leading into T1.

We then consulted a legit Aero guy rather than using our homespun guesstimates and he couldn't believe how good a time we were getting with the imbalance like that. He since had us remove those diveplanes and also build a proper splitter which redressed the balance measurably. In discussions with him he explained there are no generalisations or assumptions when it comes to Aero. Something that works on one car may have less or even negative effects on another. Again, IMHO, I think an 'active' splitter will be a better part to focus time/money on.

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade. Just passing on a bit of info. :-)

951and944S

Not disagreeing 100% with your post, but the fact that you removed the dive planes "and built a proper splitter" at the same time makes a data-less conclusion that dive planes = bad.

In the late 90's, the Merc CLK GTR and Porsche 911 GT-1 both had front end lift problems when following in traffic. At top of Mulsanne crest at Lemans which famously caused the cars to lift into the air and tumble end over end, the Porsche at Road Atlanta. The immediate "fix" (although rushed) was to add frontal dive planes.

The placement of yours, for all you/we know, may have created a high pressure point that hindered the normal exit of air trying to escape the front wheel wells.

These parts are universally used among a wide range of race cars, some not, which is why I agree that all cars are not the same.

On the format that you guys run.....usually there is open track and way less nose-tail following in what is considered proper "racing" (turbulent air which was really the demise of the GT-1/CLK).

Likewise, and definitely not attempting to demean time attack, it's a genre all it's own, but engine mods that work for you and your segment of motorsport, same as aero, are not necessarily the bible with cars that run 90 minutes at race engine speeds, in traffic of up to 60 cars on track vying for position versus virtually clean laps selected by open traffic with a medium warm up lap leading up to - and a cool down lap leading back into the pits.

T

951and944S

BTW - Aerodynamics, even with all modern tools, software, etc., etc. remains a black magic art.

Case in point, a rules change in F1, which unarguably have the fields' top engineers/technicians brings 10 different chassis/body configuration interpretations to a given rule set.

If aero were all just scientific, all 10 teams would reach the same scientific conclusion per rule set and all 10 cars would arrive in Melbourne identically prepared. But they are not.

If your legit aero guy would be honest, sometimes things are just stumbled upon by accident that work 100% to the desired effect, things that would not normally be suggested by modeling software and likewise, sometimes ideas that are conceived, tested in a virtual reality and "proven" to be legitimate add-ons are then proven the opposite in real world racing.
Ex- barge boards circa early 2000s, Rubens Barrichello once lost one/both in off track incident and proceeded to do faster lap times without them.

T

V2Rocket

relevant to this discussion...(watched Grand Tour last night)...
clarkson's solution to the front end of his buggy getting light at speed

951and944S

LOLZ....!

Not a Simon McBeath pupil....!

T

OZ951

Thanks for your input Patrick, I'd read through some threads where you'd shared your experiences including the one where you revised your design after experiencing notable lift at SMSP and included the nose high pic. Your experience and the experiences of pretty much everyone I've spoken to about aero (including a WTAC guy who took his car to Japan for wind tunnel testing) demonstrate that theory is one thing and on track adjustment and results are another. I'll be constrained to an aero solution that fits within a reasonably constrained set of class rules and I expect it will be a long process of trial and error to get something that feels adequately balanced.

I've been running a splitter on my car since 2003 and I have some thoughts around how I can tweak tweak that a little further. I don't plan to be installing any suspension travel data logging but I do know a few photographers with long lenses I'll call upon to capture some information for me

951and944S

Aww....this could have turned into a good weekend free time killer discussion.

So that's it, you are satisfied that canards are not beneficial...?

Bummer...., guess I'll have to go wake up the torque vs horsepower threads.....or maybe #2 rod bearing....

T

OZ951

Absolutely not accepting that canards are not beneficial. I accept that Patrick has a view but I will experiment to find what works best for my car (as I always have). By way of an alternative opinion, one of the key guys who I was talking to about aero recently has won the world time attack challenge in Sydney several times - we had the discussion about aero, wind tunnels, theory, reality, trial and error and Porsches after he had been working on my car setup all morning. He was of the opinion that canards would be beneficial (along with a few other things). The other guy I've been talking to runs a high end composites fabrication business in Sydney dealing with race cars and racing yachts so he had some helpful insights to offer on the subject as well.

... long story short, everyone has a view

333pg333

Agree with what you're all saying. There are definitely no absolutes and that's why I mention that it was only on my car that I was passing off our experience. Having said that, I had communication with Simon McBeath before linking up with the current Aero guy and he also remarked that dive planes were at best, more of a final tuning possibility rather than something that can provide a major benefit. Or words to those effects.

There's a lot of race cars out there that choose not to use them so I suppose there may be some validity in this. But overall, 'suck it and see' is probably the philosophy I'd use. I'd also reiterate that if you can employ diffuser/s in the splitter you will see some good gains.

On a side note it would be interesting to hear about your experience with those that were involved in the Tilton car? :-)

333pg333

https://rennlist.com/forums/944-turb...ace-track.html

Paulyy

Aren't they suppose to be vortex generators? To generate vortexes on the side of the car, now allowing air to get underneath