Splitter design function and effects. Experience, Design knowledge?
08-21-2009, 09:12 AM
#61
Mr. Excitement
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I like the red! 
Hey, we are taking about 100mph cars not .85 mach airliners.
Ill bet ANY amount of anything that tape has no bearing on lift or drag on the leading edge of our wings at the speed we travel. there might be a drag factor on a F1 car going 230knots. at speeds down in the 100mph range, it is not physically possible for that much lift to be lost with no other changes but tape on the leading edge. (unless the "tape" was wood strips )
Hey, we are taking about 100mph cars not .85 mach airliners.
Ill bet ANY amount of anything that tape has no bearing on lift or drag on the leading edge of our wings at the speed we travel. there might be a drag factor on a F1 car going 230knots. at speeds down in the 100mph range, it is not physically possible for that much lift to be lost with no other changes but tape on the leading edge. (unless the "tape" was wood strips
)
08-21-2009, 09:23 AM
#62
Lifetime Rennlist Member
With the notable exception of a couple of people, most of the posts in this thread show a nearly complete lack of understanding of basic aero principles and history. But, as usual, if it is said often enough, and loud enough, some take that BS as fact.
Those who have open minds have listened. Others will never open their minds, claiming special scientific knowledge, like those before who "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe and it is flat. Carry on, I offered some insight from some real experts and MK tried to twist what I offered to hold tight to the 'earth is the center of the universe' view (though in this case it is MK is the center of the universe).
Now when do we start claiming that Newton knows all, re-open HP vs. Torque, and 'whip it out' to see who have the bigger one?
Those who have open minds have listened. Others will never open their minds, claiming special scientific knowledge, like those before who "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe and it is flat. Carry on, I offered some insight from some real experts and MK tried to twist what I offered to hold tight to the 'earth is the center of the universe' view (though in this case it is MK is the center of the universe).
Now when do we start claiming that Newton knows all, re-open HP vs. Torque, and 'whip it out' to see who have the bigger one?
08-21-2009, 11:06 AM
#63
Rennlist Member
With the notable exception of a couple of people, most of the posts in this thread show a nearly complete lack of understanding of basic aero principles and history. But, as usual, if it is said often enough, and loud enough, some take that BS as fact.
Those who have open minds have listened. Others will never open their minds, claiming special scientific knowledge, like those before who "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe and it is flat. Carry on, I offered some insight from some real experts and MK tried to twist what I offered to hold tight to the 'earth is the center of the universe' view (though in this case it is MK is the center of the universe).
Now when do we start claiming that Newton knows all, re-open HP vs. Torque, and 'whip it out' to see who have the bigger one?
Those who have open minds have listened. Others will never open their minds, claiming special scientific knowledge, like those before who "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe and it is flat. Carry on, I offered some insight from some real experts and MK tried to twist what I offered to hold tight to the 'earth is the center of the universe' view (though in this case it is MK is the center of the universe).
Now when do we start claiming that Newton knows all, re-open HP vs. Torque, and 'whip it out' to see who have the bigger one?
As I have said in other threads, one day bad advice/information posted here will get someone hurt on track.
The king of bad advice & information--GhettoRacer--is gone. Long live the new king!
Professional Racing and Driving Coach
08-21-2009, 11:36 AM
#64
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
SundayDriver, If this is true, why dont you enlighten us with one single shred of evidence to the contrary to what I have posted. all I have heard from you so far is that you ran into someone (and F1 engineer) and he told you that tape on a wing cost 10% without qualifying it. Those of us with PROFESSSIONAL aero experience, can say that that in itself is a little misleading due to the massive number of variables that can determine lift changes due to changes to an airfoil.
Again, you and VR are the IRONY kings here. wasnt it I that talked about those in history that claimed to be able to observe our surroundings and predict outcomes, without having the understanding of the basic concepts. (ie capernicus vs plato and the sun vs earth centered universe )
Remember, I started this thread to see if any other racers have done this kind of experimenting. In another twist of irony below, you forget that I am trying to gain more information to help my racing efforts. the discussion here prompts further investication in proving or disproving other ways to increase performance in aero.
YOU trash on a pretty good conceptual drawing of how aero works, although it was kind of funny due to the hand drawing nature, say how things are "75% wrong" (paraphrasing of course) and then never once come back with why or what is the correct concept of aero for race cars!
If we are going to discuss , lets discuss. If this is just a platform for you and VR to show your limitless arrogance, then I will end it here.
I challenge you (or VR ) to post one shred of factual information as I have here.
Again, you and VR are the IRONY kings here. wasnt it I that talked about those in history that claimed to be able to observe our surroundings and predict outcomes, without having the understanding of the basic concepts. (ie capernicus vs plato and the sun vs earth centered universe
) Remember, I started this thread to see if any other racers have done this kind of experimenting. In another twist of irony below, you forget that I am trying to gain more information to help my racing efforts. the discussion here prompts further investication in proving or disproving other ways to increase performance in aero.
YOU trash on a pretty good conceptual drawing of how aero works, although it was kind of funny due to the hand drawing nature, say how things are "75% wrong" (paraphrasing of course) and then never once come back with why or what is the correct concept of aero for race cars!
If we are going to discuss , lets discuss. If this is just a platform for you and VR to show your limitless arrogance, then I will end it here.
I challenge you (or VR ) to post one shred of factual information as I have here.
With the notable exception of a couple of people, most of the posts in this thread show a nearly complete lack of understanding of basic aero principles and history. But, as usual, if it is said often enough, and loud enough, some take that BS as fact.
Those who have open minds have listened. Others will never open their minds, claiming special scientific knowledge, like those before who "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe and it is flat. Carry on, I offered some insight from some real experts and MK tried to twist what I offered to hold tight to the 'earth is the center of the universe' view (though in this case it is MK is the center of the universe).
Now when do we start claiming that Newton knows all, re-open HP vs. Torque, and 'whip it out' to see who have the bigger one?
Those who have open minds have listened. Others will never open their minds, claiming special scientific knowledge, like those before who "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe and it is flat. Carry on, I offered some insight from some real experts and MK tried to twist what I offered to hold tight to the 'earth is the center of the universe' view (though in this case it is MK is the center of the universe).
Now when do we start claiming that Newton knows all, re-open HP vs. Torque, and 'whip it out' to see who have the bigger one?
08-21-2009, 11:48 AM
#66
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Yes, dont try what I am testing at home. Leave that to the professionals. when done, you will have the knowledge to build you own splitter that works too.
So far, ive proved that there is a pressure zone at the splitter area and that the under the car pressure is ambient. that the hood vent , routes air flow from the splitter out the hood vents, to relieve vacuum on top of the car. that increasing the splitter size not only increases force on the splitter, over all, not in PSI , and the force is pretty uniform across the splitter.
Now, if this information has provided risk in getting someone hurt, please explain.
Some of the most important advancements in racing has been done with testing like this. Just look at the Gurney flap, it worked and for years, no one really knew why. Im not inventing the wheel, just proving that what we see from the top teams new aero designs do work and for all the right and expected reasons. My job is to find out the structural limitations so that I can build effective aero components that work on the track and cost less to make.
So far, ive proved that there is a pressure zone at the splitter area and that the under the car pressure is ambient. that the hood vent , routes air flow from the splitter out the hood vents, to relieve vacuum on top of the car. that increasing the splitter size not only increases force on the splitter, over all, not in PSI , and the force is pretty uniform across the splitter.
Now, if this information has provided risk in getting someone hurt, please explain.
Some of the most important advancements in racing has been done with testing like this. Just look at the Gurney flap, it worked and for years, no one really knew why. Im not inventing the wheel, just proving that what we see from the top teams new aero designs do work and for all the right and expected reasons. My job is to find out the structural limitations so that I can build effective aero components that work on the track and cost less to make.
08-21-2009, 11:51 AM
#67
Rennlist Member
..
08-21-2009, 12:15 PM
#68
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
So SundayDriver, of all the folks that have posted here, these are my thoughts on their review of the forces and characteristics of a splitter. You say a few are right and a few are wrong. Of all below, do you agree with my assesement of their comments?
Again, Im still waiting for some factual data from you
Yes, good post
No, splitters are not wings (or air foils) and do not create a low pressure zone under the car.
No the splitter doesnt have most of its effect by pushing down on the surface, but by routing the high pressure air to the hood area through those vents or to the sides of the car
Yes, right on
No, tape will not produce a 10% loss in lift, on our wings. that is too general and needs to be qualified much more. very misleading.
all true, but aero efficiency at this level is not what we are talking about here. HUGE differences at 100knots vs 230knots as with an F1 car and their concerns. remember, aero forces goe up with the square of speed. double the speed, 4x the forces and problems
Yes, paint is a minor weight concern with our cars
YES! And those defusers in the front are used for pushing air to the wheel areas for cooling. if vented out to the wheel well or fender rear vents, it also increases downforce even more by taking the air that has reached under the car, and routes it to the wheels and sides.
Yep!
Again, Im still waiting for some factual data from you
When the air flow hits the front of the car, there is a point on the nose where theoretically every molecule of air above that point goes up over the car, and every molecule of air below it goes down and underneath the car. All that a splitter is doing is lowering that point on the nose so that more air is forced up over the car and thus creates more down force on the nose of the car. The splitter is not creating downforce on itself per se, to the degree a rear wing does, but rather affecting the aerodynamics of the entire nose of the car..
Yes, good post
I'm not sure that's really the way a splitter "works". Splitters do act as a wing, by creating a low pressure area underneath and a high pressure area on top. Some good basic info here:
http://www.e30m3project.com/e30m3per...r/splitter.htm
http://www.e30m3project.com/e30m3per...r/splitter.htm
Your splitter would probably be a lot more effective if you plugged up all of those big slots adjacent to it on the bumper (assuming you don't need them all for cooling). A splitter works by creating a high pressure zone that acts down on the lip, right now a lot of your pressure will be escaping through the slots instead of acting on the splitter...
At the front of the car there is the stagnation point. This is the point where the air velocity goes to 0 and the pressure becomes highest (stagnation pressure). This point is located somewhere on the front bumper/airdam. Remember that pressure acts in all directions. By placing a horizontal sheet underneath the stagnation point, the high pressure that is in this area acts on top of the splitter. This creates downforce. You can approximate stagnation pressure by 0.5*density*velocity^2. Take this stagnation pressure and multiply it by the plan view area of your splitter to get a ballpark of the force on the top of the splitter (this assumes atmospheric pressure underneath the splitter - see below).
Additionally, the splitter helps to create low pressure underneath it by forcing the airflow into a narrow gap between the road and the car. By forcing the air through the gap the speed increases. Net effect is you have high pressure above the splitter and low pressure below. However, the pressure below is very dependent on what the bottom side of the car looks like downstream of the splitter...
Basically the splitter is just using the high pressure that already exists at the stagnation point in front of the car and turning it into a downward force. To take full advantage of, and create low pressure underneath requires much more careful consideration.
Either way - putting on a splitter is a very easy way to pick up appreciable front downforce. The bigger the planview area the more downforce. It does not have a significant effect on drag until you start making it ridiculously long. A rule of thumb for a "big" splitter is they usually extend 3-6" beyond the front bumper looking from the top.
Additionally, the splitter helps to create low pressure underneath it by forcing the airflow into a narrow gap between the road and the car. By forcing the air through the gap the speed increases. Net effect is you have high pressure above the splitter and low pressure below. However, the pressure below is very dependent on what the bottom side of the car looks like downstream of the splitter...
Basically the splitter is just using the high pressure that already exists at the stagnation point in front of the car and turning it into a downward force. To take full advantage of, and create low pressure underneath requires much more careful consideration.
Either way - putting on a splitter is a very easy way to pick up appreciable front downforce. The bigger the planview area the more downforce. It does not have a significant effect on drag until you start making it ridiculously long. A rule of thumb for a "big" splitter is they usually extend 3-6" beyond the front bumper looking from the top.
Yes, right on
I would say that ~100 lbs at ~120mph is typical.
Beyond that, be very careful of what you believe about aero. The single most significant aspect of how aero works (or doesn't) on a race car, is focused on the concept of laminar vs. turbulent flow. When I read explanations that never mention that, I pretty much discount what they have to say. The web site with the drawings is about 25% right and 75% barking up the wrong tree.
Here is an example. Most amateurs and many pros put helicopter tape on the leading edge of a wing to protect it. I did that for years. Until I met 2 F1 aerodynamicists in a class. In chatting, they told me that wings work by keeping laminar flow on the wing as long as possible (which I knew). What I didn't understand, and they told me is that the tape (from the back edge) creates a sharp break. This causes separation and turbulence earlier and that little, thin tape can cost 10% of the total downforce on a wing. That helps point out how little most of us really know about aero. It also points out how silly it is to try to measure pressures over a wing or other licked surface without F1 level technology.
Beyond that, be very careful of what you believe about aero. The single most significant aspect of how aero works (or doesn't) on a race car, is focused on the concept of laminar vs. turbulent flow. When I read explanations that never mention that, I pretty much discount what they have to say. The web site with the drawings is about 25% right and 75% barking up the wrong tree.
Here is an example. Most amateurs and many pros put helicopter tape on the leading edge of a wing to protect it. I did that for years. Until I met 2 F1 aerodynamicists in a class. In chatting, they told me that wings work by keeping laminar flow on the wing as long as possible (which I knew). What I didn't understand, and they told me is that the tape (from the back edge) creates a sharp break. This causes separation and turbulence earlier and that little, thin tape can cost 10% of the total downforce on a wing. That helps point out how little most of us really know about aero. It also points out how silly it is to try to measure pressures over a wing or other licked surface without F1 level technology.
Kibort,
I don't find what Sunday Driver wrote about his discussion with 2 F1 aero engineers to be out of the ordinary. They were probably commenting to what they know and that's F1 cars at the maximum levels. On a sports car the level of aero drag would most likely be less because of the lower speeds acheived and naturally the overall difference in shapes.
Look closely at the leading edge of a front or rear wing on an F1 car and more times than not you'll find they don't even paint it in the livery of the rest of the car. Know why? They found that when they painted the leading edge and the paint became chipped up during the course of a race from flying pebbles, debris, etc, that it actually reduced aero efficiency. Just from chipped painted edges!! .
I don't find what Sunday Driver wrote about his discussion with 2 F1 aero engineers to be out of the ordinary. They were probably commenting to what they know and that's F1 cars at the maximum levels. On a sports car the level of aero drag would most likely be less because of the lower speeds acheived and naturally the overall difference in shapes.
Look closely at the leading edge of a front or rear wing on an F1 car and more times than not you'll find they don't even paint it in the livery of the rest of the car. Know why? They found that when they painted the leading edge and the paint became chipped up during the course of a race from flying pebbles, debris, etc, that it actually reduced aero efficiency. Just from chipped painted edges!! .
Not to mention the added weight of the paint 
Assuming that paint's contribution to weight in road cars is indeed insignificant, what about color? My stock chin spoiler is black, but I've been experimenting with white for about a week, (installed in the pics below) and it has definitely improved my commute time to work.
Assuming that paint's contribution to weight in road cars is indeed insignificant, what about color? My stock chin spoiler is black, but I've been experimenting with white for about a week, (installed in the pics below) and it has definitely improved my commute time to work.
Front diffusers are not rare at all - they are used on most every single current prototype car as well as many modern GT type cars. For example, the viper competition coupe uses one and I beileve (although not 100%) so does the Porsche RSR. The old le mans viper GTSR had one too.
.
.
Yep!
Last edited by mark kibort; 08-21-2009 at 01:39 PM.
08-21-2009, 12:17 PM
#69
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
MK,
You "claim" to be a professional. No offense, but what exactly are your qualifications?
You "claim" to be a professional. No offense, but what exactly are your qualifications?
08-21-2009, 12:53 PM
#70
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
In addition Mark, your "fudging" the numbers a bit on the relative speed your projecting on our cars vs. an F1 car. For example:
You cite Knots per hour in "our" cars at 100 knots. That's only 115 mph, relatively slow for some of the straights encountered on many track. I think I read somewhere here on Rl that a GT3 acheived 167 before T10 at RA!!
You also cite 230 knots for the speed of travel in an F1 car. That's 265 mph!!!! F1 cars could only acheive that speed with the removal of the rear wing and in a straight line somewhere like the salt flats as was done by Honda F1 a few years ago. To memory the highest straight line speeds acheived in an F1 car was JPM in a V10 powered BMW many years ago at Monza and that was appx. 220 mph. That's 191 Knots per hour.
SO even if we take a fast time in a "STREET LEGAL GT3" not a full race car, it acheives 145 knots per hour at Road Atlanta.
An F1 V10 powered car at record speed is at 191 knots per hour.
That's a spread of only 46 knots not the 130 knot spread you cite as an example.
You cite Knots per hour in "our" cars at 100 knots. That's only 115 mph, relatively slow for some of the straights encountered on many track. I think I read somewhere here on Rl that a GT3 acheived 167 before T10 at RA!!
You also cite 230 knots for the speed of travel in an F1 car. That's 265 mph!!!! F1 cars could only acheive that speed with the removal of the rear wing and in a straight line somewhere like the salt flats as was done by Honda F1 a few years ago. To memory the highest straight line speeds acheived in an F1 car was JPM in a V10 powered BMW many years ago at Monza and that was appx. 220 mph. That's 191 Knots per hour.
SO even if we take a fast time in a "STREET LEGAL GT3" not a full race car, it acheives 145 knots per hour at Road Atlanta.
An F1 V10 powered car at record speed is at 191 knots per hour.
That's a spread of only 46 knots not the 130 knot spread you cite as an example.
08-21-2009, 12:58 PM
#71
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
15 years in the design, development and marketing of industrial automation and air flow based cooling components.
My main qualifications here in this discussion, is producing the imperical tests that prove some of the basic known aerodynamic concepts. As we have seen, aero as it relates to sports cars has taken a huge leap due to computer modeling, and proof of concepts in the wind tunnel.
My main qualifications here in this discussion, is producing the imperical tests that prove some of the basic known aerodynamic concepts. As we have seen, aero as it relates to sports cars has taken a huge leap due to computer modeling, and proof of concepts in the wind tunnel.
08-21-2009, 01:11 PM
#72
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
You're taking your eye off the ball. I was just discussing the values with a NASA engineer and those were the numbers we guessed at. The point is, 10% of downforce lost due to tape on the leading edge is a stretch. All you need to do is put the .5mm edge on a leading edge in a simulator and see what the L/D characteristics change to.
Now, as far as the speed you "encounter" its not the speed you encounter that we are concerned with , its the speeds you encounter in the turns, or during the banking. The point was that the speeds we achieve, even at the super speed ways are far below the speeds where a piece of tape will effect downforce that much. again, i guess it also depends on the thickness of the tape. . at speed, since most the amount of drag is due to lift, that might not be a bad thing. (kind of a dynamic wing attitude adjustment ) as you know, this "tape" would then be parasitic drag, which is far less than drag due to lift.
Hey, maybe you have just discovered something. you use this thick tape on super speedways to keep the cars front end from getting light at 170mph, due to the increased effectiveness of the rear wing in general, at a slight expense due to drag.
You see, this is the way you make improvements to a cars performance. Understanding the concepts is key to success.
The fastest F1 car is only 190mph? I thought it was well over 220mph. I guess they are do "dirty" due to aero, vs indy and nascar.
Now, as far as the speed you "encounter" its not the speed you encounter that we are concerned with , its the speeds you encounter in the turns, or during the banking. The point was that the speeds we achieve, even at the super speed ways are far below the speeds where a piece of tape will effect downforce that much. again, i guess it also depends on the thickness of the tape.
. at speed, since most the amount of drag is due to lift, that might not be a bad thing. (kind of a dynamic wing attitude adjustment ) as you know, this "tape" would then be parasitic drag, which is far less than drag due to lift.Hey, maybe you have just discovered something. you use this thick tape on super speedways to keep the cars front end from getting light at 170mph, due to the increased effectiveness of the rear wing in general, at a slight expense due to drag.
You see, this is the way you make improvements to a cars performance. Understanding the concepts is key to success.
The fastest F1 car is only 190mph? I thought it was well over 220mph. I guess they are do "dirty" due to aero, vs indy and nascar.
In addition Mark, your "fudging" the numbers a bit on the relative speed your projecting on our cars vs. an F1 car. For example:
You cite Knots per hour in "our" cars at 100 knots. That's only 115 mph, relatively slow for some of the straights encountered on many track. I think I read somewhere here on Rl that a GT3 acheived 167 before T10 at RA!!
You also cite 230 knots for the speed of travel in an F1 car. That's 265 mph!!!! F1 cars could only acheive that speed with the removal of the rear wing and in a straight line somewhere like the salt flats as was done by Honda F1 a few years ago. To memory the highest straight line speeds acheived in an F1 car was JPM in a V10 powered BMW many years ago at Monza and that was appx. 220 mph. That's 191 Knots per hour.
SO even if we take a fast time in a "STREET LEGAL GT3" not a full race car, it acheives 145 knots per hour at Road Atlanta.
An F1 V10 powered car at record speed is at 191 knots per hour.
That's a spread of only 46 knots not the 130 knot spread you cite as an example.
You cite Knots per hour in "our" cars at 100 knots. That's only 115 mph, relatively slow for some of the straights encountered on many track. I think I read somewhere here on Rl that a GT3 acheived 167 before T10 at RA!!
You also cite 230 knots for the speed of travel in an F1 car. That's 265 mph!!!! F1 cars could only acheive that speed with the removal of the rear wing and in a straight line somewhere like the salt flats as was done by Honda F1 a few years ago. To memory the highest straight line speeds acheived in an F1 car was JPM in a V10 powered BMW many years ago at Monza and that was appx. 220 mph. That's 191 Knots per hour.
SO even if we take a fast time in a "STREET LEGAL GT3" not a full race car, it acheives 145 knots per hour at Road Atlanta.
An F1 V10 powered car at record speed is at 191 knots per hour.
That's a spread of only 46 knots not the 130 knot spread you cite as an example.
08-21-2009, 01:27 PM
#73
Rarely does the guy doing the marketing do the design and development. Seeing as how you were the marketing manager, not the engineer I fail to see how this is relevant.
08-21-2009, 01:35 PM
#74
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
In my case I was involved with design as well and spent a good deal of time in working the lab working with the test equiment to proving design ideas.
Now, what is relevant, is that I'm bringing basic concepts to the table with some imperical tesing results. Lets focus on those.
If you have found any errors of my analysis or the review of the basic theories, I think we would all like to see them. After all, it helps us all, if we are trying to make progress with our cars in the areas of aero.
I have provided :
pressure tests at locations all over the front of the race car
splitter design, tests, failures and re-configurations with sucess.
wing theory charts and values
pictures of pro teams and their configurations
Is there anything else you would like to see?
Now, what is relevant, is that I'm bringing basic concepts to the table with some imperical tesing results. Lets focus on those.
If you have found any errors of my analysis or the review of the basic theories, I think we would all like to see them. After all, it helps us all, if we are trying to make progress with our cars in the areas of aero.
I have provided :
pressure tests at locations all over the front of the race car
splitter design, tests, failures and re-configurations with sucess.
wing theory charts and values
pictures of pro teams and their configurations
Is there anything else you would like to see?
08-21-2009, 01:40 PM
#75
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Thanks for the post. thost are some great shots! That is something I havent thought about. using defuser ducts to further aid brake cooling ( i have a couple of small defuser ducts that come stock on the 928 for brake cooling ) The concept is to grab the air that does end up under the car and put it to work, and then get rid of it to the sides. Ive already got the 944GTR type side fender openings from discussions in other threads, mainly for fitting larger tires up front. Now, I find that there is a big advantage, probably near as good as the hood vent for adding downforce and adding brake cooling as well.
Front diffusers are not rare at all - they are used on most every single current prototype car as well as many modern GT type cars. For example, the viper competition coupe uses one and I beileve (although not 100%) so does the Porsche RSR. The old le mans viper GTSR had one too.
Here are some detailed pictures of the front diffuser of the Audi R8
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/audir8-01-3.html
New acura p1 car diffuser
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/AcuraARX-01-5.html
As well as every other prototype car on the grid for the past 10 yrs...
And here's a picture of the old viper GTSR front splitter/diffuser - circa 1997 or so.
Here are some detailed pictures of the front diffuser of the Audi R8
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/audir8-01-3.html
New acura p1 car diffuser
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/AcuraARX-01-5.html
As well as every other prototype car on the grid for the past 10 yrs...
And here's a picture of the old viper GTSR front splitter/diffuser - circa 1997 or so.