Your not really testing me per se, but you are seemingly unable to grasp the concept despite numerous attempts, not just by me, to correct you.
The confusion is that a lot of people think that, because Mr Hamilton et al have downforce on their cars, and Messrs Ferrari et al quote downforce figures on their road cars (but for the purposes of this discussion I am using the term road car to refer to Clios, Civics etc, not high performance 'supercars' or 'hypercars' which more and more frequently DO have downforce figures quoted [at the very least]), they think their car must have some sort of downforce, especially if they add silly bumpers/wings/spoilers/skirts/aerials [delete as applicable].
The reality, as you now know, is that road cars generally suffer from an upforce (commonly known as lift, uncommonly known as negative downforce by weirdos trying to make a simple thing into an argument), that tends to reduce grip with velocity, even more than the tyres alone will manage. This upforce (lift) can be reduced (and in exceptional cases probably reversed (where it is referred to as downforce, and not anti-lift or negative repulsion)) by the addition of wings/spoilers/etc but usually only minimally; not enough to change the vehicle's capabilities or the drivers feel.
To suggest that the misconception is people using the term downforce to mean upforce is, frankly, ludicrous and not at all accurate (in the vast number of people I've come into contact with with reference to cars). It's like people using the term coffee to refer to tea, or cars to refer to hot-cross-buns.
