Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: Group-C real life info

  1. #31
    hmmm the 905 was part of the cars of the new regulations (Group-1), not Group-c

  2. #32
    I asked about front downforce on Group C cars. I received interesting replies:


    Facebook groups

    Following Mulsanne's corner data, sprint configuration (high downforce) had more % of front downforce than Le Mans configuration (low downforce).
    How is this achieved? I had the idea that front downforce is not adjustable, while rear wing had many positions. So, how could they earn front downforce? Is by means of ride height, rake? Front splitters?

    Rand Lampard: C) all of the above
    Kelly Smith: Change the entire nose with a different angle wing...
    Gary Peck: Good answer Rand
    Martin Thoene: All of the above, plus sometimes front ends have subtle differences in profile that are not immediately obvious.
    Rand Lampard: all of the above includes 'everything'.
    Rand Lampard: Not laughing. You gave three examples of how they may have arrived at the downforce level/split that Mulsanne's Corner claims. I said that all three of those (and more) would have the desired effect and were probably used. Sprint races you can afford to run at a lower ride height and accept a bit more abuse to the floor/skids. Rake? Yes, also. Splitters were/are another commonly adjusted element. TWR probably had different tunnels just for LeMans (and other tracks 'different' enough to require them). Martin pointed out front end profiling. Agreed, possible. Another fairly big one would be the fender vents - none for LeMans.

  3. #33
    As usual a great Chris Harris test of the Jaguar XJR-9

  4. #34

  5. #35
    C11 engineers speak about its characteristics and new features after the already succesfull C9

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts