The forces dont ignore a car because it looks ricey.
Why cant you imagine them doing anything significant? The air has to do something. however insignificant you may see it. I find it harder to imagine the air doing nothing at all.
The forces dont ignore a car because it looks ricey.
Why cant you imagine them doing anything significant? The air has to do something. however insignificant you may see it. I find it harder to imagine the air doing nothing at all.
are we talking about the same thing. downforce is the opposite of lift produced by a surface right so its like glass half empty = glass half full. less lift = more downforce. less downforce = more lift. its the same thing?
and since noone ever talks about lift values of cars wouldnt it be more correct to use downforce as your value?Lift is the same as negative downforce.
Downforce is the same as negative lift.
Downforce is the same as negative lift.
No - because road cars produce net lift, NOT net downforce. To refer to a car having downfoce is to say it has a NET downforce. Your car's bonnet will create downforce just like a hand sticking out of a window. But the car as a whole does NOT produce downforce.
Re wibbly bits on top of a car - why does the air have to do something. You've already made it quite clear you don't have a vague understanding of aerodynamics or force systems, so why do you think you know about wibbly ricer addons? The air can flow over something creating just drag. Or barely doing anything. A lot of stuff on cars is designed to sell it, not to improve it. How many people would complain if the Evo looked a bit girly but halved the lift - no one would buy it, relatively speaking!!
Re wibbly bits on top of a car - why does the air have to do something. You've already made it quite clear you don't have a vague understanding of aerodynamics or force systems, so why do you think you know about wibbly ricer addons? The air can flow over something creating just drag. Or barely doing anything. A lot of stuff on cars is designed to sell it, not to improve it. How many people would complain if the Evo looked a bit girly but halved the lift - no one would buy it, relatively speaking!!
The car will produce a NET negative downforce overall which you can compare say to the NET negative downforce of another car. So there we go a downforce value that you can talk about and compare to another vehicle that has to get through the same air. Dont you see how silly you sound arguing about the same thing and not realising that everyone talks about downforce but it can also mean a negative NET downforce too. Keep lift for aircraft, downforce is for cars. Thats how it works right?
edit: surely if something is creating lift it is also creating downforce since they are the same thing. One negative one positive? Sorry if I have brought this down to such a stupifyingly basic level for you tristan.
Erm has anyone mentioned the Benoulli (spelling ?) principle yet ?, if not, anyone fancy trying to explain it ?
please please don't ask me too, I'm not a clever man yunno
please please don't ask me too, I'm not a clever man yunno
No. Lift is up, downforce is down. Planes suffer downforce too at times. Or are you always going to refer to decelleration as negative acceleration, minimising as un-maximising, and so on.
Yes, road cars produce net negative downforce. They also produce net negative negative lift etc. Nobody EVER quotes hatchbacks as having downforce, only lift, so it makes sense to refer to it as lift.
Bernoulli's Principle states that for an ideal fluid, zero work being done on that fluid, an increase in velocity occurs simultaneously with a decrease in pressure.
Yeah, and it's that change in pressure on each opposing side of the aerodymanic element is the essential ingredient in lift/downforce, without it there would be no aerodynamic force at all.
erm, maybe that wasn't clear, i'll try again. As the air flows over the top of an airplane wing it moves faster than the air flowing below the wing. the quicker the air travels over a surface the less pressure there is on that surface. So essentially you have more pressure below the wing than above it, and that produces lift. Infact, thats what lift IS.
edit 2: been reading up about this, and it seems what i wrote above is a common misconception about the theory of aerodynamics. It appears the Bernoulli Principle doesn't have as much an influence as was first thought. The only problem is, i can't quite get my head round the genuine theory of aerodynamics, but it's all to do with the direction of the air flowing over the surface and how it's all being deflected. Got me stumped now.
Its not incorrect for someone to be describing the downforce of a car if it is lifting. If a plane cant lift you dont say it has downforce, you say it cant lift. because lift is the value that you want to measure. In a car you want to measure the downforce. so you talk about the downforce wether it be negative or positive.
No you don't. Convention. Speak to automotive engineers of real world, everyday cars. They refer to lift.
A plane, static on the ground, is referred to as having no lift, because that's what it's got. It doesn't have downforce. If it had downforce (which, as I said, planes can suffer from, especially when close to the ground!) you can say it has downforce.
Race cars have downforce (except some at LeMans), road cars have lift. You don't describe F1 cars as having negative lift, do you?
A plane, static on the ground, is referred to as having no lift, because that's what it's got. It doesn't have downforce. If it had downforce (which, as I said, planes can suffer from, especially when close to the ground!) you can say it has downforce.
Race cars have downforce (except some at LeMans
), road cars have lift. You don't describe F1 cars as having negative lift, do you?why would people concern about downforce on a road car when they produce none???
Logically they should concern about lift because lift would make their car unstable.
Rather simple?
Just like you don't go to a bank, draw cash and think oh I have made -200pounds of deposit.
Logically they should concern about lift because lift would make their car unstable.
Rather simple?
Just like you don't go to a bank, draw cash and think oh I have made -200pounds of deposit.
Are lift and downforce seperate forces? I assume no.
So if you talk about one, you are indeed talking about the other at the same time, so both are correct? You cant forgive someone for talking about a cars downforce instead of using the term lift?
Whos pedantic now?
So if you talk about one, you are indeed talking about the other at the same time, so both are correct? You cant forgive someone for talking about a cars downforce instead of using the term lift?
Whos pedantic now?
it's not that I can't forgive, but just doesn't make too much sense is it?
"put in -2 degree of negative camber and deflate the tire by -4 psi and take out -3 piece of sugar in my tea please"
You COULD but I don't see that point that's it.
"put in -2 degree of negative camber and deflate the tire by -4 psi and take out -3 piece of sugar in my tea please"
You COULD but I don't see that point that's it.
You don't have a long career as an engineer ahead of you, do you? Call it what you will. But road cars do not make downforce. With a few exceptions no doubt.
this thread was about bashing people who use the term downforce on a car that has negative downforce, when clearly they should have used the term lift.
hits the nail on the head really.
hits the nail on the head really.
Only you hit the wrong nail, with the wrong tool.
what makes you think I want to be an engineer or any of "in the world of cars" or whatever bollocks you go on about lol. where as i am just chatting bollocks for fun youre making a career out of it?
I was actually very interested in reading these posts and getting to know more about aerodynamics. And as it happens i was completely wrong about the importance of the Bernoulli Principle (been reading up on it) 
Makes me wonder how i ever managed to keep my little FSX Cessna RG in the air.
And if it wasn't for engineers we'd still be sat in our caves wearing animal skins, and finger painting pictures of cats and dogs with mud, on the cave walls.
Makes me wonder how i ever managed to keep my little FSX Cessna RG in the air.And if it wasn't for engineers we'd still be sat in our caves wearing animal skins, and finger painting pictures of cats and dogs with mud, on the cave walls.
I gather a small minority of forum members would like that...very much
There are currently about 6 different theories as to how/why wings work. Most contradict each other. No one actually knows which is right.
As I'm making a career out of it, I like to occasionally educate bricks like you in some things. But if you know jack all, aren't interested etc when why try and make us call lift negative downforce?
I'm not a literary student, but (unlike you) I have some self respect in my typing, and try to use punctuation in the correct places. Nor to I have to resort to the term 'bollocks' when someone else discusses something you will have been taught at the age of 10.
As I'm making a career out of it, I like to occasionally educate bricks like you in some things. But if you know jack all, aren't interested etc when why try and make us call lift negative downforce?
I'm not a literary student, but (unlike you) I have some self respect in my typing, and try to use punctuation in the correct places. Nor to I have to resort to the term 'bollocks' when someone else discusses something you will have been taught at the age of 10.
So you are saying that lift is not negative downforce? That when talking about downforce it can only be positive? Why is that? Where is the rule that says that?
Surely your skillz can educate better than that? Come on explain it. Since im still sitting here non the wiser after all youve said, maybe you should educate yourself on the matter before criticising others and when others try to understand you cant even explain it to them it makes you look a little silly at the end of it. Maybe thats what bugs you, that you cant answer me.
Punctuation and grammar, oh surely the signs of a losing battle.
It's convention. Whilst it's the same, one is a standard way of discussing something, and one isn't.
Just like people don't add negative cold water to coffee, or say that boats negative sink in water. Convention. When you press the loud pedal you accelerate. When you press the brake pedal you decelerate. Not many people say 'he jumped on the brakes and got a huge boost of acceleration', do they.
A downforce is a force, downwards. Downforce is never up, even though negative downforce would be up. Lift is always up - you never say a car (or a plane) has negative lift, even though that would be down.
How simple do we have to make it. Nearly 50 posts further on, and you still sound like a complete thicko on this matter [small disclaimer there, resolving me of blame when you think I've called you a thicko in all areas!].
Just like people don't add negative cold water to coffee, or say that boats negative sink in water. Convention. When you press the loud pedal you accelerate. When you press the brake pedal you decelerate. Not many people say 'he jumped on the brakes and got a huge boost of acceleration', do they.
A downforce is a force, downwards. Downforce is never up, even though negative downforce would be up. Lift is always up - you never say a car (or a plane) has negative lift, even though that would be down.
How simple do we have to make it. Nearly 50 posts further on, and you still sound like a complete thicko on this matter [small disclaimer there, resolving me of blame when you think I've called you a thicko in all areas!].
clearly a thicko who is putting you to the test on the basics. your career is obviously going as well as mine.
So this thread is about the amount of people who use the term downforce instead of lift on cars. so many people make this mistake of using the wrong term to describe the same force (by your own admissions). so we have found the cause of mine and others confusion. really people need to be talking about limiting the lift of their vehicle at speeds and having a vehicle that has low lift spoilers and wings. Not with downforce of course but with less lift, because if they had downforce that would be the wrong thing to say, because no road cars have downforce or anything to do with downforces. Its only lift with road cars and limiting how much lift it produces, with some other force that isnt downforce but it does the same thing?
yeah I see where your getting at. Not.
So this thread is about the amount of people who use the term downforce instead of lift on cars. so many people make this mistake of using the wrong term to describe the same force (by your own admissions). so we have found the cause of mine and others confusion. really people need to be talking about limiting the lift of their vehicle at speeds and having a vehicle that has low lift spoilers and wings. Not with downforce of course but with less lift, because if they had downforce that would be the wrong thing to say, because no road cars have downforce or anything to do with downforces. Its only lift with road cars and limiting how much lift it produces, with some other force that isnt downforce but it does the same thing?
yeah I see where your getting at. Not.LMAO again Tristan, that's twice in one day you've had me laughing till my sides ache.
Just wish i could put this into a sig so it made contextual sense
Just wish i could put this into a sig so it made contextual sense
I don't think you've read the posts here carefully enough. A wing or diffuser can generate downforce. Attach it to a road car which generates excessive lift and it can reduce the lift (Audi TT's handling a high speed fixed by that little spoiler).
If the car is unusual, a high performance car or track day special for instance, then these aerodynamic appendages could be sufficient to generate a net result of downforce, meaning the car presses itself to the road harder as speed builds.
btw, negative lift is a fairly common, albeit pointless, term afaik.
If the car is unusual, a high performance car or track day special for instance, then these aerodynamic appendages could be sufficient to generate a net result of downforce, meaning the car presses itself to the road harder as speed builds.
btw, negative lift is a fairly common, albeit pointless, term afaik.
Torque and 'downforce' common misconceptions
(164 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG