Gather Car A&Q CarGather.com

A&Q about Lotus

Q: Originally Posted by RacyTracy Heck, I would imagine a serious autocrosser would put dog poop on their car if it would give them a lower time. The speculation about this wing reminds me of an old NASCAR story.

It was about 30 years ago, and I can't remember who it was, but at one of the races, a car showed up with a "vinyl roof". Rumors were about that it improved aerodynamics similar to the dimple on a golf ball. Everyone laughed about it. The car won the race. The next major race had many of the cars showing up with vinyl roofs. It did absolutely nothing, and the original car had the vinyl roof installed as a "joke" and to see who would copy it...

I don't know if that is a true story, or just one of the legends, but stuff like that went on all the time back then.

Maybe Robert and company just added the wing to "psych" everyone else...
A:
Originally Posted by Scott Bowman The Elise with the giant wing is in the trophies--both drivers--as of the end of day one runs in Topeka. The wing must be doing some good. Check the results at scca.com for today's action.
Fred and Robert 3rd and 5th, after the 1st day!

I spoke with Fred after their test day with the wing. At the time, he was in the middle of using areo software to mazimize the downforce at the expected cornering speeds for the nationals. I don't remember what downforce he came up with, but it was much more than the 30lbs of weight the wing added to the car.

It ain't pretty, but it is functional. I have to hand it to both Robert and Fred for the idea and it's execution. With the limited time they had to prepare, I think they did an outstanding job. To top it off, they are both driving well.

To all the critics: Racing is not a beauty contest where subjective scoring counts.
A:
Originally Posted by TimMullen The COG is not just determined by the weight of the part (the wing and support in this case), but by it's weight and moment arm (distance from the COG). The higher the weight (mass) and the higher the weight (distance) the greater the change in the COG. I'm aware of how moment of inertia is calculated. I did study mechanical engineering for a couple years, ya know. I didn't specify the significance of the height of the wing because I wasn't calculating the moment of inertia of the wing as an independent entity, but suggesting that it be considered a piece of the vehicle, with the entire center of gravity for the vehicle being recalculated with the wing in place, which would necessarily involve both mass and position.
A:
Originally Posted by TimMullen But... Unlike most wings (like those in the list of photos), this wing is placed between the wheels providing it's down force to both wheels - notice that many of those other cars have their wings actually extended out behind the car - behind the rear wheels. This may add weight to the rear, but actually lightens the load on the front wheels - not a good thing if you have a car that may tend to understeer... The Elise is a mid-engine car with a heavy weight bias to the rear wheels. It would therefore benefit more from downforce distributed evenly between the axles.

The other cars shown are mostly FR cars, with weight bias to the front or at best 50/50 distribution. Some of them are known to have significant oversteer (Z06, for example). Therefore, they would benefit more from downforce focused on the rear axle.
A:
Originally Posted by transio The other cars shown are mostly FR cars, with weight bias to the front or at best 50/50 distribution. Some of them are known to have significant oversteer (Z06, for example). Therefore, they would benefit more from down force focused on the rear axle. Focused on the rear axle is one thing, behind the rear axle is another. It's simply a matter of a lever - if you push down the part behind the pivot (the rear axle in this case), it lifts the front. Even if it's only a little. Placing the wing over the rear axle concentrates all the down force there, without removing "weight" from the front.

Originally Posted by transio I'm aware of how moment of inertia is calculated. I did study mechanical engineering for a couple years, ya know. I didn't specify the significance of the height of the wing because I wasn't calculating the moment of inertia of the wing as an independent entity, but suggesting that it be considered a piece of the vehicle, with the entire center of gravity for the vehicle being recalculated with the wing in place, which would necessarily involve both mass and position. But the point is, the height of the addition mass is significant to the shift in the COG. 40 pounds located on the floor of the car would lower the COG. 40 pounds exactly at the COG won't change the height of the COG. 40 pounds raised 10 feet above the floor of the car will raise the COG. You get the idea.

But it all seems to be mote in this case anyway - from the reports, it's working...
A:
Originally Posted by TimMullen ...- from the reports, it's working...

The car also has 300HP (or so I am told) slicks and all kinds of other goodies.

I am not sure that your statement has been proved

BTW is that a touring wing
A:
Originally Posted by transio Where did I imply that?
He contested the efficiency, and you replied as if the owner had done the mathematical calculations and aerodynamic testing.

But since neither did their research, both are equal in the regard of presumptions. One thought it was the best, the other thought it wasn't.
A:
Computer modeling was done.

Robert is normally significantly faster than Fred, since Fred is newer at this sport. Fred is very close to the class winning time and Robert is slightly behind due to issues with ice mode. They are doing very well.
A:
Originally Posted by Randy Chase Fred is very close to the class winning time and Robert is slightly behind due to issues with ice mode.
Wow, have they tried disabling the A/L?
A:
Originally Posted by transio Really? Well, being ET's self-proclaimed genius, why don't you explain it to the rest of us morons who think it'll improve his times? Show your math, please, oh aerodynamics guru. Wind-tunnel tests would be appreciated, too... I'm sure you have some on hand, being a genius expert engineer college freshman and all. ouch steve, its like having all the expert driving advice from this same guy who knows everything, AND then tells us about his FIRST track day, and asks us to show him the lines on the course.
beware NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER.
I wouldnt have seen it if you didnt quote it, as my ignore list does have a resident on it.
you nailed it on the head transio...............it shows that one must consider the source when getting "expert advice" off the internet.
its ashame, as sometimes i have seen it dealing with issues of personal safety, and thats just not cool
I think I should ask him about fish questions too, as i have only been doing this as my work for a living since................he was born.
A:
Originally Posted by AnsisK He contested the efficiency, and you replied as if the owner had done the mathematical calculations and aerodynamic testing. No, I did not. Please show any part of my post that was doing anything but questioning Val's baseless criticism of the wing...

Originally Posted by AnsisK But since neither did their research, both are equal in the regard of presumptions. One thought it was the best, the other thought it wasn't. Robert and Fred DID do research. Just because they don't have a wind tunnel at their disposal doesn't mean they didn't test the device in other ways, as has been discussed above.
A:

A:
Originally Posted by Randy Chase Computer modeling was done.

Regarding the airflow or the placement/fitting?

transio - I'm sure you know what I mean, you do not need to make me quote anything. This isn't my business either, so that's all I'll say.
A:
Originally Posted by Randy Chase Computer modeling was done....
I think I found it here
A:
Originally Posted by Patricko I think I found it here
A:
Originally Posted by AnsisK transio - I'm sure you know what I mean I know that you misinterpreted what I said.
A:
Originally Posted by transio I know that you misinterpreted what I said.
Did you say something
A:
Originally Posted by Val Doesnt take a genius to realise its not gonna work. That is if you have any idea about aerodynamics...

Lol some of you guys take this serious

Im sure this was done as a joke, since its quite obviuos that no-one would be serious with this wing.
Sorry, but you are WRONG

edited by randyc
A:
Originally Posted by fzust Sorry, but you are .....

A:
Ok, yes this was my car with the BFW. Ended yesterday with 3rd for me and 5th for Robert. I was Robert's tire warmer, which for those that don't do auto-x is the first guy to run in a 2 driver car. He gets the tires up to race-temp with his first run. Thus the A-player(second driver) supposedly gets 3 runs with good tires. I say supposedly we because the tire choices are so limited for the Elise we are running the same cantilevered slicks that Randy is running. The new surface is complete ****. Very, Very slippery. Everyone is having trouble and we went to a very soft setup(so did everyone else.) The problem is that it does not build heat very well.

I went so far as to buy some Hoosier A6 auto-x tires and borrowed wheels from a SS Elise guy! Ultimately, Robert and I decided to go with what we know and run the slicks. Fortunately yesterday was pretty warm and although my first run was a throw-away, we got some pretty good grip for the later runs. Robert had ice-mode ABS issues. He is a better, more aggressive driver and thus it happened more to him. He would have easily been in first going into today if it was not for ice-mode! The good news is that when the tires were hot and we didn't have ice-mode, the car was a freaking monster! The FF turbo has been tuned to 101 octane race gas and had just craploads of power. Our competition was a totally built from ground up Monster C5 Z06 XP race car of Stan Whitney, and Richard Beecher's gorgeous 911 RSR Race car, and another 911 race car. We had so much power and with the wing, we were hitting the rev limiter in every slalomn. The wing was amazing, slaloming was effortless(unless you are an XP competitor for next year, then it was all just a joke like the idiot-mad russian mentioned previously.)

However, today was nothing less than a disaster. 20 degrees colder, we could not get enough heat in the tires. I had no tires for 2 runs, with ice-mode so bad, I plowed not only through the pivot cone, but also through the wall of directional cones behind it. Robert had Ice-mode twice. Allow me to make a brief rant.

"Lotus, Ice-mode exists. Seriously, we had dinner last night with SuperStock, A-Street Prepared, F-Prepared, and X-prepared class drivers and there was a strong consensus that this is costing titles and championships. I strongly believe based on Robert's driving, ICE mode cost him the national championship this year! He had the times if we hadn't coned or thrown off line so badly. Do you understand the concept of "Race on Sunday, sell on Monday? I would love to campaign a Lotus for XP(Extreme Prepared next year, but I will most likely do a Porsche or a Corvette, because they understand the above concept.(early Z06s had an ice-mode issue, but Chevy fixed it.) I understand American's and their silly auto-crosses are quaint and all, but in the states, auto-cross is the gateway drug of motorsports. You are SCREWING YOURSELVES IN THE US MARKET!!! Let's find out how badly screwed the FP and SS guys are tomorrow and Friday."

Anyway, I ended up 7th(We protested a car for an illegal splitter and although they said we were correct and the protest was upheld, they did not DQ the 2 drivers, so we finished out of the trophies.") Robert did better than I did, but not enough to overcome the first day.

The good news is Randy had A6s and hopefully can drive around the Ice-mode.

Many thanks to Steve O. for the use of his A-mod main wing element, it really helped, too bad we couldn't put the rest of it together.