MKIII aerodynamics question

suprageezer

New Member
Aug 27, 2005
778
0
0
Southern California
Like Poodles said our cars came from a different time, they came from the Ground Effects era that was later abandoned due to what happens when a car using ground effects gets sideways. Way back during that era if you were into racing you would have seen that, once they realized the cost of getting sideways instantly was death for many famous drives they changed to what they use to day which if you compare the cars is very different. Both Racing Aerodynamic eras had wind tunnel testing but remember computers have never dreamed up creative ways to keep a car stuck to the ground and slipping thru the air with as little a CD as possible, WE dream these ideas up today just like yesterday and use computers to either prove them or disprove them. On the supra wings if you know anything about the aerodynamic shape of a wing, not talking spoilers here, that the Supra wing is nothing similar to aerodynamic, I believe it was nothing more than a trim piece. It has the same curve at the leading edge as it does on the trailing edge and in between is the same thickness from what I’ve seen. If you look at the wing I currently use and I aint saying mine works wonders, but it does have an aerodynamic shape. All I’m looking for is a cheap decent look that actually does something and some downforce when I hit it at high speed. As I mentioned in post once if anyone tried to convince you things hanging off the back of your car doesn’t have any effect you invite them for a ride in the passenger seat roll the window down and do 80 and have them stick their arm out the window, then they'll see the light, let alone at 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160 mph, cause you know we all do 80 on a regular basis. On the MK4 CD I swear I read an article years ago it had at the time the lowest CD ever.
 

flight doc89

Registered Murse
Apr 21, 2006
227
0
0
Bessemer, Alabama, United States
figgie said:
not going to happen

that requires wind tunnel testing and that is not cheap. You could run simulation software but that is not cheap either.
^werd.

Get a buddy or two with GOOD video cameras and stable hands. tape yarn strings to the car and videotape at different speeds. that'll give you a good idea of flow direction and turbulence vs laminar

Has anyone experimented with using vortex generators on mkiii's?
 

theprodigy79

Irish Cream
Mar 5, 2007
221
0
0
44
Centreville, VA
I have somewhat of a (potentially) stupid question...

When talking about unit differences in the 1/100th cD range between these vehicles (that's .0X)... How much do these differences really account for in "real life" driving? At the track?

I ask because my 2004 Solara has a cD of only .28-.29, and it amazes me that (according to the numbers posted on the previous page) even the MKIV had a cD around .31-.32... I know times have changed and technology / design has advanced and improved, but one's a "supercar", while the other's a 2 door Camry... And if you think about it, the MKIV ended production (in Japan) only 2 years before the Gen2 Solara hit production...
 

flight doc89

Registered Murse
Apr 21, 2006
227
0
0
Bessemer, Alabama, United States
joe_katz_book.jpg

i just ordered this. <$40 at BaM


http://www.aeroseminars.com/
^This guy is awesome, check back at the website often in case he has a seminar near you. His regular seminars cost a pretty penny and go all day, or you can find one of his free sponsored seminars and still learn a LOT. When I went, the (free) seminar lasted like 4 hours, talkin aerodynamics and how to make your car stick the whole time (oh and free food :)). You'll need a technical understanding of fluid dynamics to understand everything (that's why i didn't understand everything :) ), and so i wouldn't pay for one of his full day seminars unless you had a semester or two in that area under your belt, but, if you can, definitely go to the free seminar
 
Last edited:

Supracentral

Active Member
Mar 30, 2005
10,542
10
36
theprodigy79 said:
I ask because my 2004 Solara has a cD of only .28-.29, and it amazes me that (according to the numbers posted on the previous page) even the MKIV had a cD around .31-.32... I know times have changed and technology / design has advanced and improved, but one's a "supercar", while the other's a 2 door Camry... And if you think about it, the MKIV ended production (in Japan) only 2 years before the Gen2 Solara hit production...

Yea, but the MKIV has actual down force. Your Solara doesn't. Fuel economy was the design goal on the Solara. High speed stability was the design goal on the MKIV.

If you were local I'd take you for a top speed run in a MKIV. You'd be amazed how stable a MKIV is at 150+ mph.

It's one of the real problems with the MKIV. You'll be driving thinking you are doing 80 mph and you look down and realize you are doing 125+ mph.
 

figgie

Supramania Contributor
Mar 30, 2005
5,224
16
38
49
Twin Cities, Minnesot-ah
flight doc89 said:
^werd.

Get a buddy or two with GOOD video cameras and stable hands. tape yarn strings to the car and videotape at different speeds. that'll give you a good idea of flow direction and turbulence vs laminar

Has anyone experimented with using vortex generators on mkiii's?

or the "cheapest" way.

a standalone that can read aerodynamic pressure differntial on about 8 channels and then a standalone that can actually read that data. Done.

as an example.

efi techology and motec both have some aerodynamic aquisition modules.
 

Big Wang Bandit

You Can't Quit Me Baby
Feb 21, 2006
7,551
0
0
35
San Ramon, CA - 925!
SupraCentral hit it dead on. I mean the Honda Insight has possibly the lowest DC out of any car, ever produced. But if you could gt that thing to speed, it wouldn't last.

You need to make sacrifices, to make gains. Adding that gigantic wing, raises the DC. but its useful, providing downforce. Im not sure what kind of underbody aerodynamics an A80 has, but im sure, that could cause a higher DC, while giving it some downforce. Think Ferrari Enzo Ferrari style.
 

flight doc89

Registered Murse
Apr 21, 2006
227
0
0
Bessemer, Alabama, United States
figgie said:
or the "cheapest" way.

a standalone that can read aerodynamic pressure differntial on about 8 channels and then a standalone that can actually read that data. Done.

as an example.

efi techology and motec both have some aerodynamic aquisition modules.

If you gots teh cash, definitely go for that. The yarn's only pro's are cheapness and being able to collect more information per run. If you gots teh mad patience, you can use that standalone to plot those pressure numbers on a 3d model
 

CRE

7M-GE + MAFT Pro + T = :D
Oct 24, 2005
3,485
0
0
Denver, CO
When it comes to the stock spoilers they're ineffective in regards to downforce becuse they're situated right in the middle of the second largest low pressure area around the car. They'd have to be placed a good 6" higher to create any *appreciable* downforce. The stock units are indeed largely only there for looks, and a rather small reduction in drag.

As for testing, in order to test what I'm looking for I've already found the sensors I need and a program I think I can use to log up to 16 channels... but at ~$30 per sensor, I'm probably only going to be running 2 or 3. This is probably going to have to wait a little while.


Oh, and yarn isn't going to tell me what I'm looking for.
 

Poodles

I play with fire
Jul 22, 2006
16,757
0
0
42
Fort Worth, TX
the spoilers work

look at the back bumper of a wingless and notice how it doesn't get as dirty as quickly as a car with a wing

noticed this with my friend matt's N/A and my turbo (both 89's)

the dust and dirt settle on the bumper easier with the wing, so it is doing something...
 

CRE

7M-GE + MAFT Pro + T = :D
Oct 24, 2005
3,485
0
0
Denver, CO
Well, first off, not once did I say they "don't work". I said "they're ineffective in regards to down force". The faster a vehicle moves the greater the negative pressure in the rear and any down force that may have been generated lessens as a result, UNLESS the wing is located high enough to be removed from the low pressure zone... ours aren't. Our spoiler is located in a low pressure zone and as such any down force created will be minimal in most conditions.

I did also state that the MKIII's "spoilers reduce drag". I didn't deny this, however, here too the effectiveness isn't the greatest... but in this realm it does make a difference the faster the vehicle moves until you reach a certain point --> (The physics of which I don't completely understand. I think it's because the negative pressure zone expands too much for the area of the spoiler to counteract or stabilize.). At this point depending on the design of the spoiler it may actually increase drag.

Second, there seems to be some confusion about the differences between something that's installed to reduce drag and something that's installed to provide down force. They're VERY different and operate quite differently.

The spoilers on the MKIII (and most other cars while we're at it) are 90% looks and 10% drag reduction, if that.

I'm not surprised the wingless accumulates less dust than a car with a spoiler, the aft airflow is more turbulent... how much more I couldn't say, it depends on more factors than most of us are aware (myself included).



I admit that I could be completely wrong on ALL of this. I've done a lot of reading on the matter and I do believe the sources, of my admittedly limited understanding, to be accurate. But, if you do some reading on race car design, wind tunnel testing, flow maps and results you'll see the negative pressure area isn't just some imaginary concept that automotive designers fight with to pad their budgets. The best and most helpful reading are from wind tunnel tests where they document/publish the changes from one speed to the next... there's an amazing difference from one speed to 5MPH higher, and sometimes things go VERY differently from what you'd expect. Such as the wing you were counting on to provide enough down force to keep a car grounded is no longer outside of the low pressure zone and the ass end of the car is 100lbs lighter (relatively).
 

Poodles

I play with fire
Jul 22, 2006
16,757
0
0
42
Fort Worth, TX
yeah, I hear yah

a simple spoiler stops the natural lift caused by the low pressure zone, it doesn't really cause "downforce" but it does keep it stable at speed

I dunno about the pre-89 wings, but i know the 89+ ones do have some thought put into them...
 

CRE

7M-GE + MAFT Pro + T = :D
Oct 24, 2005
3,485
0
0
Denver, CO
Poodles said:
a simple spoiler stops the natural lift caused by the low pressure zone, it doesn't really cause "downforce" but it does keep it stable at speed

That much I'll concede... to a degree.
 

bigaaron

Supramania Contributor
Apr 12, 2005
4,692
1
0
49
Pomona, CA
www.driftmotion.com
johnathan1 said:
I have an old japanese article where they use the HKS speed cut defenser on a white 87...and it hits around 150MPH...and you can literally see the front header panel lifting up two inches in the center from the pressure. :)

If you guys wanna see it, I'll scan it in.:)

Dude like it's totally been soooooooooooooo long we've been waiting now bro!
PICS or BAN!
 

ma71supraturbo

Supramania Contributor
Mar 30, 2005
975
0
0
Redding, CA
www.geocities.com
Couple quick notes on comparing cars:

Most new cars have much, much more streamlined underbodies. This is one of the main strides in the last 10-15 years.

Cd numbers by themselves are not that helpful without also knowing the frontal area. The MK2 mr2, for instance, has a relatively poor Cd (for sports cars) but has less drag than most cars out there because it has so little frontal area


For the MK3 Cd... MotorTrend said "Beside the small "Turbo" badge on the rear valance panel, the only other exterior styling giveaway is the rear deck spoiler that cuts Cd from 0.34 to 0.33." November 1986
(BTW -- I have never come across data suggesting the 1989 facelift improved Cd)
 

CRE

7M-GE + MAFT Pro + T = :D
Oct 24, 2005
3,485
0
0
Denver, CO
True, but when referring to changes from additions to the same vehicle they can be a bit more helpful... how much difference is the important factor. I do agree though, it's very important to remember that a .01 difference on one vehicle might not mean anything noticeable at all where it could be a big step forward with another. So, how much does that .01 mean in regards to the MKIII?
 

Keros

Canadian Bacon
Mar 16, 2007
825
0
0
Calgary
I make no claims to be an expert on the subject, but this is what I've come to know about drag/downforce:

Drag is how easily a car "slips" through the wind, and coefficient of drag (Cd) is a quantitative measure thereof... Typically manufacturers try to reduce drag by keeping a very thin layer non-moving air on the vehicle, so that moving air doesn't actually touch the paint, making the car "frictionless" in a sense. This is the best way to get a low Cd.

Downforce is completely different from drag in that more is better but more slows you down. Many super cars like the Vyron, Mclaren F1, ect, may double, triple and may even quadrouple their weight when they reach top speed due to downforce created by positive pressure above the car and negetive pressure below the car (opposite of an airplane's wing). This of course causes the car's engine to have to work much harder at high speeds to overcome both the battle with the wind (as that the low Cd created by still air may dissapear at certain speeds as vortexes of air torrent around the vehicle) and the increasing downforce (causing the vehicle to weigh more).

So, from this, I would say that having a low Cd will give better fuel economy and better overall performance (accelerate faster, high top speed due to less wind resistance). But without downforce, the car would lift off the road... which would be bad. I'd be much more interested to see how much downforce Supra generations can generate through their overall design, rather than just the spoiler. The overall design of the car should/will produce more downforce than just a spoiler... I've always thought spoilers to augment downforce not be the endall be all of downforce creation.