while you wait you could skin the car you like?

the cmx viewer is available from the http://www.lfs.net/?page=addons and http://skinnerz.proboards26.com/index.cgi will help you get started on skinning. get the logo packs and templates which will help a lot. good luck.

I keep superbike 2001 installed that is fun until I get really peed off with it after I keep falling off. I like to turn off as many aids as I can to make it as hard as I can cope with but this results in me falling off a lot and getting peed off so its only a quick blast game.

Good for sponsors maybe?

i play RBR sometimes, nice for a rally fix. RSRBR08 is a great add on.

Actually i think thats a mattress.

But yeah, cheese with wheels on.

Anyway.

If a car was a wedge shape like this.

Does that shape produce lift? Its sort of like a wing in reverse. faster air over the top right? Or would that produce a downwards force into the ground since the air is being pushed upwards?

or is it just anti lift shape? lol

Last edited by richy, Tue 8 Jan 2008, 17:16.

Nah think I was just wrong about the aero of a car adding downforce.

but this hasnt proved that wings on road cars or body styling is useless and just for manufacturers to sell vehicles.

anti lift, drag reduction and stabilising is still good right?. Just technically the term downforce is incorrect and shouldnt be used.

Last edited by richy, Tue 8 Jan 2008, 14:20.

Ok so im back again, curious as usual. Yes I know it did nothing for the cat.

If I am in my road car travelling behind another car on the motorway at say 100mph, in the slipstream, would I essentially get more grip since the car isnt lifting? I assumed that the car would go more lighter in that situation, or do you only lose grip in slipstreaming if you car has wings?

Sorry.

I guessed that it was all the same air pressure type principles. like the spoiler adjust the cross section of the car, which is trying to improve the airflow, much like a wing uses the airflow creating downforce. But the car shape lifts, and it seems the spoilers and whatever on the body kit just reduce lift and give stability, they dont produce any downforces like a pure wing shape does (or diffuser).

Im seeing the differences between reducing the lift and downforce. but i cant help but think that its the same principles just one is in a stronger amount?

I know this is probably annoying but. Does a wing spoil the airflow?

well as ive seen it, the spoiler acts as downforce if it reduces lift. I guess thats where im wrong.

What forces apply to an anti lift device exactly, is that called downforce too or is that something else? A stabilising force

If you drive two of the same road car, 1 with a wing and 1 without, the difference you would feel is the downforce or is that the misconception and really you feel the less lift? It is the same thing though right?

so even the xrt's spoiler doesnt push air up and add drag and do the whole downforce thing at speed?

Do the cars in LFS without wings generate any downforce?

Quote from Jertje :

Can't it be said that the wing does generate downforce, but not enough to reverse the lift generated by the car? (thus giving the car less lift, but no downforce)

Or am I simply confusing myself now? ;p

I think that they will just tell you that its net lift overall, so there is no downforce from that wing. no downforce from road cars whatsoever, just a ferrari. sort of, even that doesnt produce downforce. infact, downforce is a myth altogether.

This is why I find it hard to understand that no cars on the road generate downforce. Surely that designing and spoilers and smooth airflow counts for something. I dont see it adding to the lift so if it removes lift, thats as good as downforce?

edit: or is removing lift classed as "adding stability"?

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.

Quote from tristancliffe :

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Quote from tristancliffe :

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!!

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.

Last edited by richy, Mon 7 Jan 2008, 15:31.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Well, yes, if you're being pedantic. But what is accurate would to say one produces less lift than the other. Neither 'car' actually produces downforce still.

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?

Last edited by richy, Mon 7 Jan 2008, 14:53.