Early 70s Japanese race car aero

[JMortensen]

If they were "trying" to use parts that the scrutineers didn't know should be legal ( because of period homologation / use ), then they would need evidence to back up their claim. Either it is eligible / legal or its not. I don't see how wilful ignorance is going to help anybody. Sounds to me like you resent their very existence (?).

 

I started this thread as part of the Windtunnel test section, as I believed a little look back at what had been done in the past was both relevant and interesting, and something could be learned from it. You might have noiticed that the 'G-nose' used in the Windtunnel tests was nothing like a factory item, and contained no ducting ( as seen on the factory race cars ) whatsoever. I don't think you have to look too far for "good" ideas, and - as far as history goes - only a fool would ignore such information wilfully.

 

But then looking back at things done in the past is sometimes risky on HybridZ. You might get labelled as a "Purist" by a New Puritan.......

I have no idea why you feel that this thread is the time and place to pick a fight, but knock it off.

[HS30-H]

I have no idea why you feel that this thread is the time and place to pick a fight, but knock it off.

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm just trying to get my point across:

 

I maintain that there is something to be learned from looking at those old cars, and I believe there are people here that are interested to see them, and discuss them.

 

I think my point about the ducting on the period race G-nose is applicable to both race and street use today, so there's at least one example of reference to past practice being something other than "counterproductive" I believe.

 

Do you disagree?

[OlderThanMe]

I HIGHLY doubt that many people here on HybridZ are trying to produce an "era correct" race car but are looking to create a new, more aerodynamic Z car body that looks good and is functional for mild street use and heavy track use.

Wether someone uses a period correct G-nose or some modern version couldn't matter a bit, just that it works is the important thing.

[thehelix112]

I vote for less of the pissing contest.

 

I also vote for continuing the discussion of early race Z aerodynamic modifications. As always, Alan has a significant store of information which is likely interesting to a lot of people.

 

I do not understand the idea of the vertical finds on either side of the hatchs. AFAIK, you WANT as much air on top of the hatch as possible to increase pressure there (reduce lift, reduce drag).

 

FWIW, on a cold morning in my stock 280z you can see exactly where the flow is separating on the rear hatch. The middle 8-10" to be precise. The rest of the water gets blown off, but that centre section remains.

 

Dave

[JMortensen]

I would expect that the tail fins were an attempt to stabilize the cars at high speeds, much like some of the old Le Mans cars from the same period.

[Tony D]

That African Safari Car photo is interesting! Gas Strut and obviously the Steel Hatch! It's interesting, but I suppose for the rugged conditions of the EASR a metal hatch would be more suited than the FRP units used in many of the European Rallys. Nice photo.

 

As for period correct parts...I'm a guy who had to fight ignorance of sanctioning bodies due to obviously stock aero body parts being disallowed (or trying to be disallowed) simply because 'nobody else was using them'... Forgive me if my competition is ignorant, but don't penalize me for it!

 

On a curious note pertaining to that whole mess (the G-Nose), seems three other cars appeared at Bonneville this past year WITH the G-Nose on them, and one well-known gent who has been in the Land Speed Runs for over 25 years started building a Z (also with a G-Nose) and in one year, "The G-Noses" outnumbered the cars without G-Noses! I think that little fact played into their 'non-decision' at years end! LOL

 

Sorry to veer off-topic, but it's kinda related...

 

As for 'looking back', take a gander at MonZster's CFD of the mid 80's Style HKS Turbo Surge Boxes. Lot of information gained, and knowledge applicable to TODAY'S design was learned. Not so much what the HKS box did, but when he looked at a 1940's era P40 Oil Radiator, it meshed with what was being seen in the CFD on the HKS box, and a new design permutation was devised.

 

If you don't know history, you are doomed to expend a lot of effort and waste a lot of time to recreate a lot of failed mistakes...find what worked and use it, or at least study it to determine why it worked!

[joker120]

Where can I find those flares on the spirit garage z?

[Tony D]

Wether someone uses a period correct G-nose or some modern version couldn't matter a bit, just that it works is the important thing.

 

I would have to disagree! The aero testing showed the "MODERN G-NOSE" increased both lift and drag if memory serves. I know Alan, as well as I pointed out that the MODERN G-Noses were NOT 'identical' to the original parts! Indeed the very subtle differences between the modern knock-off and the OEM pieces were enough to cause some disparities in the testing. Noted later on the MSA Type 3, little things like not having a radiator tray that goes all the way to the radiator, and having an under apron that does not completely cover and streamline the air's entrance under the car (leaves the flat piece of the lower radiator core support showing) DO have a great effect. Without knowing the period peices, you would make the wrong assumption that the original G-Nose was really trash----based on testing done today with today's parts. As a outcropping of the testing, we know if you buy a G-Nose in the USA (as the test unit was) you need to do some work before it 'works'!

 

And I think this is part of the point Alan is making. If you don't know what the original parts worked like, or looked like, then you run the risk of running a part that while "cosmetically similar" will NOT be "functionally similar"...

 

Granted, we all want stuff that 'works' but a lot of people think if cosmetically its 'close enough'....where the testing has clearly shown this is not the case, especially with aero parts!

[RTz]

Alan, I guess I read Jon a little differently. No doubt, knowing where you've come from has value... only a fool would dismiss history. However, It would probably be just as foolish to think we haven't learned anything since. I believe that's what Jon is getting at.

[JMortensen]

Alan, I guess I read Jon a little differently. No doubt, knowing where you've come from has value... only a fool would dismiss history. However, It would probably be just as foolish to think we haven't learned anything since. I believe that's what Jon is getting at.

Exactly. And as to the vintage racers I couldn't even tell if Alan thought I was supposed to resent the scrutineers or the vintage racers. I'm a moderator for an email list populated by probably 80% vintage racers, and I have myself been a scrutineer of sorts (although it was simple tech inspections at various autoxes) so I am resentful of neither.

 

Tony, you too are making the same assumption that Alan did with me. I didn't bring up anything about the G nose or the wind tunnel testing and made no mention of it being inferior or superior to anything else, so I think this is a sore point for Alan more than anything else. I can guarantee that if you asked an engineer today to come up with a design that made more downforce and less drag they could do it. That's not a criticism of Nissan's engineers, that's another 35 years of aerodynamic experience to work from. Likewise, I think OTM was saying the same thing. Not that a modern crappy fiberglass G nose with no ducting would work just as well, but that "some modern version [of a new front end designed with aerodynamics in mind]" might be able to do better.

[Mikelly]

I don't think the testing of the Gnose on John Tedder's car is a good example of the potential of even a "modern" duplicate of the original works piece. That said, I'd bet a lot of money that a period correct Gnose on the same car wouldn't perform much better. It has a lot to do with a lot of other things related to, but not a part of that one piece. The Gnose isn't the magic bullet. Never was, never will be.

 

Mike

 

I would have to disagree! The aero testing showed the "MODERN G-NOSE" increased both lift and drag if memory serves. I know Alan, as well as I pointed out that the MODERN G-Noses were NOT 'identical' to the original parts! Indeed the very subtle differences between the modern knock-off and the OEM pieces were enough to cause some disparities in the testing. Noted later on the MSA Type 3, little things like not having a radiator tray that goes all the way to the radiator, and having an under apron that does not completely cover and streamline the air's entrance under the car (leaves the flat piece of the lower radiator core support showing) DO have a great effect. Without knowing the period peices, you would make the wrong assumption that the original G-Nose was really trash----based on testing done today with today's parts. As a outcropping of the testing, we know if you buy a G-Nose in the USA (as the test unit was) you need to do some work before it 'works'!

 

And I think this is part of the point Alan is making. If you don't know what the original parts worked like, or looked like, then you run the risk of running a part that while "cosmetically similar" will NOT be "functionally similar"...

 

Granted, we all want stuff that 'works' but a lot of people think if cosmetically its 'close enough'....where the testing has clearly shown this is not the case, especially with aero parts!

[OlderThanMe]

By "modern version" I meant an updated and more sorted out version that has not yet been produced. Not some cheap copy. Getting an original G-nose is just about impossible for those of us with rather small budgets for bodywork anyway.

 

For $500 I could probably create a single G-nose that could have much less drag and lift than any G-nose that came from Nissan or comparble aftermarket vendor.

Albiet it would probably not be good for one of TonyD's land speed cars because it would be too different from the original piece.

Neither would it be good for a show car.

I have posted about my modified G-nose idea in more detail before on HBZ.

[JMortensen]

By "modern version" I meant an updated and more sorted out version that has not yet been produced. Not some cheap copy. Getting an original G-nose is just about impossible for those of us with rather small budgets for bodywork anyway.

 

For $500 I could probably create a G-nose that could have much less drag and lift than any G-nose that came from Nissan or comparble aftermarket vendor.

Albiet it would probably not be good for one of TonyD's land speed cars because it would be too different from the original piece.

Neither would it be good for a show car.

I have posted about my modified G-nose idea in more detail before on HBZ.

That is exactly what I thought you meant, and I would not take your bet because I'm sure you could do it. I'm sure with a couple books on aerodynamics any of us could use some very basic principles to make a new and better front end. No need for most of us to hamstring ourselves with 35 year old aero tech. Look at it, learn from it, but don't limit yourself to it if you don't have to.

[OlderThanMe]

No need for most of us to hamstring ourselves with 35 year old aero tech. Look at it, learn from it, but don't limit yourself to it if you don't have to.

Exactly.

 

____________________________________________

 

And just because the G-nose didn't do well on the aero doesn't mean that it is either junk or not worth pursuing.

 

My G-nose would be more pointy from a top view and the front air dam would be vertical from the very front edge of the "bumper". The "bumper" would also be blended into the rest of the front end to be as smooth as possible.

[260DET]

Alan, you really need to put your store of knowledge and pics into some sort of permanent and accessible form, particularly that which is relevant to homlogation issues. From what I've read in this forum over time and what the situation is in AU there is a severe lack of documentation for the S30.

 

For example, its almost universal in AU that S30's are allowed only the early BRE type aero aids and nothing more. Wheels sizes are another problem, surely there are records of S30's racing officially with wide wheels.

 

I don't have a S30 anymore but there are alot still being used in competition, particularly the Targa type events. Basically they are handicapped out of most winning opportunities.

[Mikelly]

260DET, Yes, Alan Should write a book or something, because if he continues down his path of attacking members on this board, as he has done since he's been a member, updates to the information he has posted will be nolonger available.

 

Being a wealth of information and technical data is only worth so much.

 

Mike

[datman]

I started this thread as part of the Windtunnel test section, as I believed a little look back at what had been done in the past was both relevant and interesting, and something could be learned from it. You might have noiticed that the 'G-nose' used in the Windtunnel tests was nothing like a factory item, and contained no ducting ( as seen on the factory race cars ) whatsoever. I don't think you have to look too far for "good" ideas, and - as far as history goes - only a fool would ignore such information wilfully.

 

I hate to say it but he has a point there! I for one looked at the data and thought it was strange that a G-nose would be less aerodynamic than a standard Z........ it's very easy to jump on information that is not incorrect, it's just not what you think it is. I also thought the g-nose was an attempt to revamp the look of the Z ..... I was soon corrected on that one too!

 

Anyway I will go and file myself back in the appropriate section and carry on reading this thread...Alan will know what I mean by that;-)

[Mikelly]

There are a number of good reasons why that particular test on that particular car didn't fare well...

 

The Car the Gnose was bolted to didn't have enough weight it in, so we loaded the car up with a bunch of "stuff" to similate the approximate ride height of the car. This was not scientific, and was short notice because we didn't have another Gnose candidate.

 

The Gnose wasn't a bad reproduction, certainly not the worst I've seen. However, it was telling to see the results when compared to the headlight covers on the stock Zcar.

 

Let's also not forget that although the stock 240-280Z is the purpose of this site, keeping the stock appearance or performance really has never been a goal for the site. Although we appreciate the examples that Alan constantly presents, the goal is to improve upon the S30 chassis with the most current technological trends from across the automitive industry. Part of that success is learning from our past, and moving forward from there.

 

That Gnose affixed to another Zcar, with the right suspension height/settings with a set of head light covers and a large rear wing, along with a set of ZG flares and a few tricks borrowed from Roddy Sugg's car, would have been an impressive set of numbers...

 

Mike

[datman]

A friend of mine lectures at a facility that has a wind tunnel. If "someone" in the UK with a factory G-nose would offer it for testing I'm sure he could arrange it.

[29PGC10]

"For $500 I could probably create a single G-nose that could have much less drag and lift than any G-nose that came from Nissan or comparble aftermarket vendor."

 

I like the "probably" above. PROBABLY Nissan had more substantial butget than $500, and tested more than one type of G-nose (as ilustrated by posts right on the begining). PROBABLY while at it, they have tried various configurations of: cooling ducts, vents, undertray plates, wheel arches, side sils and maybe EVEN rear spoilers.

 

"No need for most of us to hamstring ourselves with 35 year old aero tech. Look at it, learn from it, but don't limit yourself to it if you don't have to."

 

What has changed all those years in aerodynamics? Look at planes to get your answer. What can you change on your Z car to make it more slipery and still look like Z instead Pikes Peak Audi sport quattro? Not much.

 

Also, what is a point of comparing - don't get me wrong, I think it is great idea in itself, if done right - stock car with g-nose car and than admiting of shortcoming of g-nose instalation?

 

Maybe Alans G-nosed Z - which I belive is true replica of period racing Z, with the ducts and all - has to be wind-tunel tested and used as a benchmark for all subsequent comparisions.

 

Looks like we are trying reinvent a wheel here, just can not agree if it should be square or more like a triangle.

 

my 5 cents. m