From: dpaper@nyx.cs.du.edu (David Paper)
Subject: Re: downforce and cornering g's (was which car handles the best?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 13:31:10 GMT

In article <Sep28.090631.19006@engr.washington.edu> eliot@lanmola.engr.wa
hington.edu (eliot) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.193822.23582@koko.csustan.edu> james@koko.csustan.
du (Jonas Grumpy) writes:
>
>>> when the japanese
>>>jump aboard with the NSX III or the 300 ZX VII or the RX7 V, don't be
>>>too surprised to see 2g's.  remember, you heard it here first.  :-)
>
>>You mean in a few years the Japanese are going to be jumping on the ban

>>wagon the Ferrari F40 started 5! years ago(Yup thats right folks, the F
0
>>is FIVE years old). Wow!1 Leave it to the japanese to take something to
>>the extreme level of sillyness. We will be lucky if we can still drive
>>internal combustion engines by the time the japanese get to the NSX 3. 
>
>[etc]
>
>I see that I have pushed one of your hot buttons.  Allow me to clarify
>my position a little more..  First of all, I still have great
>affection and appreciation for Italian cars, having owned one myself
>in the distant past (what do you drive, btw?) and having a cousin who
>is the ultimate italian car freak.  My point about the Japanese
>jumping on the bandwagon and going all out on the downforce thing is
>based not on having any great love for that country's products.
>rather, it is based on history.  time and time again we have seen
>american and european manufacturers come up with revolutionary ideas,
>[alfa having variable valve timing way before honda did, for example]
>but developing it only to 85% of its potential, leaving the japanese
>to come in to do the last 15% and then making mucho bucks out of it.
>european ceo's admit this, and i don't think you will find much
>disagreement with this if you go talk to anyone in the car industry.
>
>once again with positive downforce we see that it is a european maker
>that is introducing the concept.  it remains to be seen what will
>happen eventually, but my prediction would be history repeating
>itself.
>
>about positive downforce itself, how many cars do you know of now that
>is currently artificially limited to 155 mph?  i can think of several
>bmws, benzes, the nsx (?) and a couple of other hot rod japanese cars.
>sooner or later they are going to realize that rather than to chop off
>power and not use the engine to its full potential, it is probably
>better to turn that excess horsepower/top speed into downforce.  it
>would be the logical thing to do.  it would also be the practical
>thing to do.  quite honestly, how many opportunities are there to
>drive at 160 or 190 mph, even in germany?  i submit to you that a 180
>or 190 mph top speed is becoming quite irrelevant.  on the other hand,
>doing 2g's at 55 mph sounds like a much more inviting proposition.
>i applaud the ford engineers for making a bold and brave move.
>
>it would be hilarious if 10 years down the road the lawmakers decide
>to impose cornering g limits on curves and introduce a lateral g radar
>guns  :-) 
>
>
>eliot


Ummm I hate to clarify something..

but if you have taken a basic level physics course, you would know that a
car can never obtain more than 1g, in actuality, .9 is VERY good, as i
think the dodge viper gets umm .93 or something..

1 g would pick the car up.. and 2g' just doesn't exist, not in lateral
motion anyways..

sorry guys..

-dave