69427
The Artist formerly known as Turbo84
Don Sherman article on corvette adaptive aerodynamics.
https://www.hagerty.com/articles-vi...uggest-chevy-is-getting-tricky-with-downforce
Just some thoughts/comments on a couple items in the link:
The variable ride height system. Unless the ride height change is just a temporary thing to get over some speed bumps, I've always wondered what the weight/complexity is of a system that allows the ride height to be changed (ie: dropped for track days) without causing the suspension geometry to go all to hell.
The (IIRC) second to the last drawing shows a wing on top of the car. I have kicked around that idea for the past twenty years. I don't care to permanently change the body styling of my car, so a temporary wing that "plugs" into the t-top roof structure appeals to me. What has stopped me so far is any actual data to show that the item would work decently on an older C3, given the "steep" windshield angle (possibly requiring a higher wing height to engage the air coming off the windshield) and the crappy aero shape behind the rear window. Also, a wing that high does cause a moment arm that tries to lift the front end, negating some of the downforce that the centered position tries to put on both axles. IIRC, the Chaparral 2H had a center mounted wing. I recall there were multiple teething pain issues with that car, so I don't know if that wing ever got a real chance to show its worth/potential.
If I had private access (to get away from all the "ricer" comments from others in attendance) to a track or large skidpad, I'd sure like to play with a "bolt-on" wing there to see if it was a productive use of additional weight and drag on the car.
Last edited: