LVSALT Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Filmjay you are correct about the 2 club. Next year we will remove the rubber from around the front of the car. the thinking on that was maybe it would make the car a little more stable at speed (it didnt) we were going to remove it on our next run but broke the crank. In 06 the car had an exit speed of 224mph without the rubber on there. Bonneville 2010 starts on August 14th its going to be a long wait. Im wanting to go back now. There are a couple of more meets this year but we wont be able to go untill next Aug.($$$$$) Gary Cole DCWATERJET Z 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daeron Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 In 06 the car had an exit speed of 224mph without the rubber on there. Bonneville 2010 starts on August 14th its going to be a long wait. Im wanting to go back now. There are a couple of more meets this year but we wont be able to go untill next Aug.($$$$$) Gary Cole DCWATERJET Z Arggghh!!! Just reading that frustrates me, so I can only imagine how you must feel!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
260DET Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Rubber strip around the front of the car would be good, if its part of a full aero package including similar strips along the sides. One without the other is fairly pointless. Then there is the undertray, rear diffuser................ On the overall approach and particularly the rear, pics and details of LeMans sports cars would be useful. Maybe the older ones before the main straight was shortened, they had long tails and are quite distinctive in appearance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSALT Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 260DET thanks for the comments, We will be making some aero changes for next year. We are learning and I feel we now no what we need to do to get back up to speed. Gary Cole DCWATERJET Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSALT Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Heres another photo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt1 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Gary, do you have any pics of the car at speed? It seems the rubber would make the car more stable, but unless it's reinforced and braced really well, it may be deflecting and letting air under the car. At speed pics may give you an idea if the rubber is doing it's job or deflecting. I know from my experience at 150'ish mph the front air dam has to be pretty strong, and you are exponentially beyond that. Congratulations on a nice job. Your should be proud of your accomplishments, and don't let monday morning quarterbacks bug you. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSALT Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 JT1 the front air dam is pretty stiff, however I was told that since we put that on our parachute is searching for air. (moving around alot) If you look at the orange Z they have a flat bottom and allow the air under the car. At Bonneville there seems to be 2 schools of thought, some people alow air under some people dont. There are cars set up both ways that work well. Next year we are thinking we are going to allow the air under. Gary Cole DCWATERJET Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) The old school way was to prevent air from going under the car. New school is to allow air under the car but control what its doing. Changing from one to the other will take more testing and head scratching. IMHO, FWIW.... Reducing the size of the front air dam reduces frontal area and should increase top speed. You might have some stability issues to work through and working with under tray shape can resolve some of those. If you look at this web site: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/ you can see a lot of examples of undertray work for maximum down force. Less extreme forms under your car can generate smaller levels of down force helping stability at either end of the car while minimally affecting drag. EDIT: What you're trying to achieve is this kind of a down force profile: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/diffuser.htm Edited August 22, 2009 by johnc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSALT Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Thanks for the info John. Gary Cole DCWATERJET Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted August 23, 2009 Author Share Posted August 23, 2009 I love the irony of someone on the internet telling someone who is going over 200mph with his current configuration how terrible it is performancewise. That ranks right up there with the guy telling Andy Flagg and Myself how the SCTA rules were geared so that a Z Car could never be a points Champion at El Mirage (the year our car was on the record book...) I believe I was smiling broadly when I said 'yeah, who is the current points champion now, Andy?' Andy was smiling widely as well when I denied knowing exactly who it was, only saying "I think it's car 220"... That guy was telling us about aerodynamics as well (he was going 155 with a 380CID Chevy in his 280, we were doing 163 with the L28...) Yep, ya just gotta shake yer head and smile sometimes! LOL Nice to see the #236 hit over 220. I've met him as well, we discussed his roof chop at the time while waiting in the staging lanes. After all that fabrication discussion, I asked "what about using a 2+2 roof for the added length instead?" You could see the 'eureka moment' in his eyes. Us Z-Car guys need to put our heads together BEFORE a project starts once, just once, so we ALL save ourselves some big headaches! LOL Maybe I should plan accordingly for once and make it an issue to be in the country during speed week... I hear they do land speed in Oz...hmmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSALT Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Tony, I dont mind the criticism, Sometimes we may have overlooked something.All I can say to people is. "It aint as easy as it may appear to be" build something and bring it. I think we will be alright and im pretty confident we will achieve our goals. Hope you can make it out next year. I may try to come to El Mirage later in the year, Probably Oct or Nov (just to watch) Gary Cole DCWATERJET Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daeron Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 All I can say to people is. "It aint as easy as it may appear to be" build something and bring it. In my mind, the difficult part in an endeavour like this would be to choose the path to take, and then to STICK WITH IT. IE, you have the rubber air dam, preventing air flow underneath the car, nd you have such and such manifest advantages with that setup, and so and so manifest disadvantages with it. Were I to be in your shoes, I would be very worried about letting a drop or two of "the other school of thought" into my arrangement. It seems like this would be the most dangerous kind of poison, and that the important thing is to stick with the gameplan you have chosen, and make sure that all modifications are done with that gameplan in mind. A ground hugging airdam combined with an elegant rear underside diffuser seems contradictory, yanno? I guess what I am trying to say is that, whatever "problems" one may notice and "solutions" one might suggest, the important thing is to know which "solutions" can be integrated with the approach you have taken, and which "solutions" would be best as a part of a complete re-engineering of the aerodynamic profile of the car. Anyone who has actually DONE this sort of thing is much more likely to understand what I am saying without needing me to spell it out; the rest of us, though, need to keep it in mind when throwing ideas your way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSALT Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Daeron, our car had an exit speed of 224mph with no front air dam,less horsepower and no belly pan. The number 236 Z is probably the closest car out there that we can compare to. That car has a full belly pan,in talking to him this year he says his car is pretty stable. Our plan for 2010 as of now is full belly pan and a new nose. I guess we just kind of got side tracked putting the rubber on the front after I spun the car at 220mph in 08. I apprreciate your input or anyone elses. Positive or negative. Thanks Gary Cole DCWATERJET Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted August 24, 2009 Author Share Posted August 24, 2009 At 173, our car is a 'two finger ride' when in the F/GALT configuration (Raked, G-Nosed with blocked rad inlet, Belly Pan, Moons, but no rear spoiler at all) As for 'criticisim'---'I feel your pain!' LOL I'm always inviting those who think it's that easy to show up and run, the more the merrier. I especially encourage the 160mph+ stock 240 owners to show up, I need to find out the tricks they are using! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSALT Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 World finals going on at the salt now, Got these images off landracing and SCTA site. only info I have is Victory motorsports, made a run so far at 161.95 mph. maybe someone here knows the car. Gary Cole DCWATERJET Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daeron Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 World finals going on at the salt now, Got these images off landracing and SCTA site. only info I have is Victory motorsports, made a run so far at 161.95 mph. maybe someone here knows the car. Gary Cole DCWATERJET Z Wow. That thing could almost be stock plus full moons and headlight covers. A buck sixty. That sends a charge down my spine:burnout: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
260DET Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 The old school way was to prevent air from going under the car. New school is to allow air under the car but control what its doing. Changing from one to the other will take more testing and head scratching. ............................. Yeh, my guess would be that it depends on the situation and environment as to which would be more appropriate. Like the 'track' surface, the fact that the car will be running straight and so on. As we know, some aero setups are more susceptable to environment changes than others so perhaps it would pay to run a conservative setup, rather than risk a takeoff situation. I don't know but perhaps some of the earlier 'long tail' LeMans cars, except a certain flying Merc Benz, would provide a good guide Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSALT Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 went down to Vegas last weekend to pull the motor and look for damage. turns out the crank wasnt broke after all, sheared 3 bolts on the balancer.:):) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSALT Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 note the sheared bolts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSALT Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 started messing around with some possible nose configurations. notice the red hat my dad has on. Thats what I am after. Gary Cole DCWATERJET Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.