There is a whole lot of confusion here!

Firstly there is a very good understanding of how wings work, there is just heaps of overly simplified versions out there that just muddy the water.
However, it's true that when you start adding things like turbulent flow, things get trickier to culculate.
As for some in this thread thinking they nearly as much as engineers that specialise in this field peharps not, if you do abit of reseach you will find some very helpful information. The problem is there is also a lot of garbage.

For example, people often say newtons laws do not apply. Thats wrong, because air has mass so they do apply, if you deflect air in a certain direction, there will be a force upon the object in the opposite direction.

People say that it a fluid has to take the same amount of time to travel over an object as it does to travel under. This is absolutely not true.

And also it is important to understand that it is not just the shape of the wing that has an impact on the pressure difference and therefore lift. Take an airplane for example when flying inverted why do they not fall out of the sky? Because the angle of atack plays a critical role in the amount of lift, not nesicarily the shape.

And also someone refered to negative pressure, but were told they were wrong, however they were not wrong they were refering to negative pressure relative to atmospheric pressure.

Best thing to do is read up!

*edit* I found this

We have seen that several physical principles are involved in producing lift. Each of the following statements is correct as far as it goes:

1)The wing produces lift “because” it is flying at an angle of attack.
2)The wing produces lift “because” of circulation.
3)The wing produces lift “because” of Bernoulli’s principle.
4)The wing produces lift “because” of Newton’s law of action and reaction.

We now examine the relationship between these physical principles. Do we get a little bit of lift because of Bernoulli, and a little bit more because of Newton? No, the laws of physics are not cumulative in this way.

There is only one lift-producing process. Each of the explanations itemized above concentrates on a different aspect of this one process. The wing produces circulation in proportion to its angle of attack (and its airspeed). This circulation means the air above the wing is moving faster. This in turn produces low pressure in accordance with Bernoulli’s principle. The low pressure pulls up on the wing and pulls down on the air in accordance with all of Newton’s laws.

referance http://www.av8n.com//how/htm/airfoils.html

Quote from TheChad :

1)The wing produces lift “because” it is flying at an angle of attack.
2)The wing produces lift “because” of circulation.
3)The wing produces lift “because” of Bernoulli’s principle.
4)The wing produces lift “because” of Newton’s law of action and reaction.

We now examine the relationship between these physical principles. Do we get a little bit of lift because of Bernoulli, and a little bit more because of Newton? No, the laws of physics are not cumulative in this way.

There is only one lift-producing process. Each of the explanations itemized above concentrates on a different aspect of this one process. The wing produces circulation in proportion to its angle of attack (and its airspeed). This circulation means the air above the wing is moving faster. This in turn produces low pressure in accordance with Bernoulli’s principle. The low pressure pulls up on the wing and pulls down on the air in accordance with all of Newton’s laws.

Just remember, we're talking about an automotive wing, not an aircraft wing, so pretty much everywhere where you said "lift" you meant "downforce."

well, after seeing this thread title and started reading it, things got interesting. i was preparing to give another smart answer like others did before me.. but, i didn`t want to repeat, or interpret what others already said.. i felt i wouldn`t contribute to this discussion that way.
NOT being a nascar fan(you know, left,straighten, left again..), but knowing that nascar makes extensive use of it, i started researching, and this is the first.. visual expression of it(game or something).
going further, found this, a live render of air moving between two cars(or more.. i guess), implemented by ESPN, for those watching.

but the article that is going to answer most, if not all of your questions would be this one. although dated febr. 2000, it`s well explained, has lots of info, it was a real joy to read, line by line.. and not only did it answer many remaining questions for me, but also opened my eyes a little more, making me see them (nascar) in another light.
best 3 hours spent today on pc :-).

That's a pretty interesting read. I wonder if LFS's drafting models are realistic enough to actually take into account that suction effect on a lone car 100+ meters behind a pack of drafting cars...

Don't the cars also create drag when driving next to eachother? That's what they have told me when i was racing NR2003 few months ago.

What, you mean like MORE drag than if they were racing alone?

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

Just remember, we're talking about an automotive wing, not an aircraft wing, so pretty much everywhere where you said "lift" you meant "downforce."

True, however also remember that aerodynamicists refer to downforce as Negative Lift

Except in motorsport and road car environments, where they use the term downforce.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Except in motorsport and road car environments, where they use the term downforce.

Which is silly, as in the vast majority of road cars they are talking about lift anyway.

It's not silly. They just don't get to talk about downforce very often, except when discussing what they'd LIKE to generate

I belvie the question has been answerd, so the talk of downforce is more or less obsolete to the relevent questoin of "Has drafting been incorperated into lfs" which indeed it has, question answerd life goes one.

What's your point? The question has been answered, so you don't need to visit this thread. Bye.

Quote from AstroBoy :

I belvie the question has been answerd, so the talk of downforce is more or less obsolete to the relevent questoin of "Has drafting been incorperated into lfs" which indeed it has, question answerd life goes one.

haha :doh: Funny, i found this thread was becoming rather interesting until you showed up. Thankfully youre not a mod and hopefully never will be.

Seriously, In Motorsport and Road car Aerodynamics the term 'Negative Lift' is used aswell!
Ever heard of a L/D ratio?
It's the Lift to Drag ratio wich in F1 is a very important ratio, something that teams are always trying to optimize.
Downforce is the commonly used term, Negative Lift is the more technicaly correct way of exactly the same concept. Because with lift you can specify a direction, positive (up) or negative (down). And as Bob said most road cars do generate lift, and also certain aspects of a f1 car will generate lift (one example is the Helmet of the driver). It doesn't matter which term you use personaly, it's probably better to use downforce, as it is a more common term. I only raised the point beacuse someone commented about me using the word 'Lift'

Still I like this thread, we need more aero threads on lfsforum