Astonishingly strange features on a car

[mat205125]

youngsyr said:

How about the fake vortex generator/rear undertrays you see on a lot of "sporty" cars nowadays?

The lift reducing difuser on the clio sport is supposed to be effective (according to EVO), and therefore negates the need for a rear window spoiler

mrmr96 said:

Oh Oh OH!! I just thought of another one!

The Evo's (from 4 to 9 I believe) have a Seccondary Air System installed. The function is to take pressuriesed air from the "intercooler to throttle plate" pipe and then dump it into the exhaust manifold just before the turbo. The valve to do this opens when the driver is off the throttle. The additional air is combined with over fueling and (I beleive) significantly retarded ignition to provoke exhaust gasses to ignite to spin the turbo, so boost is availible as soon as the throttle is applied. Anti lag. (Sorry to those Evo experts if I've not described the operation exactly right, but that's the jist of it.)

Here's a photo. You can't see much of the system, but it's the alloy looking pipe snaking it's way across the exhaust manifold heat shield. It draws air from the underside of the big pipe by the battery.



This is one more feature included for Rally Homologation, as it is not active on road cars but it can be enabled using the right ECU software. So it seems to me to be a bit of a strange feature, since it is on the car but not active.

Lots of race and rally saloons have been fitted with parts that were for homologation for motorsport, however were not functional on the road variants.

RS500 sierra came with 8 injectors fitted, however only 4 were functional. It also had suspension mounts welded to the rear of the shell that were only used in competition.

The Alfa 155 BTCC homologation cars came with a downforce producing rear spoiler in the boot that could be retrofitted by the owner. Alfa didn't care if you did or not, but got to use it to take the BTCC championship.

The first of the Escort Cosworths came with a water injection / spray (I forget which) installed in the boot. It did nothing on the road cars.

None of these homologation items can really therefore live up to the "strange" criteria laid down by the OP as they can all be explained, and are generally very inovative.

[Cooky]

youngsyr said:

What about front fog lights?

On all the cars I've had all these have done is turn the fog in front of me yellow. They haven't helped visibility at all.

maybe, just maybe it's the same reason that the RED one at the back doesn't help YOU see more in yer mirror.
HTH

[mat205125]

Sport Coupe said:

BMW's ///M - Mode = The most pointless button !!!

It should be in that mode permanently, if you want a soft car with a bit of ooomph then by a 550i instead.

I'd argue that it is a way of having a nice gutsy cruiser with a lot of pace like a 550i for daily family use and commuting, and also a double hardcore snarling super saloon for when THAT road appears through the windscreen .... rationing the drug makes the hit all the more rewarding.

[ad551]

JD said:

On the subject of the Saab night button/dimming the lights rheostat...

The fiat coupe has a dimmer wheel, which is great at night, as you can get it down to a nice dim red glow, but the only problem being, the Main beam beam warning light, shares very similar properties to the main beam itself, and blinds you! and heaven forbid you put the indicator on, epilepsy-tastic, and of course, the dimmer wheel doesn't dim these lights...

Nice one Fiat!

This is something, sadly, that has annoyed me for years in VAG cars. You can be driving along at night with the dash lighting turned down nice and low, but as soon as you put main beam on, you get the brightest blue light right in the middle of the dashboard...why?! I know it is a warning light but it could do with being a bit dimmer.

[GravelBen]

youngsyr said:

GravelBen said:

Didn't BMW claim that the small 'gurney lip' on the bootlid of the E39 M5 was good for a 50kg reduction in rear end lift at speed?

Who knows, but if that little lip generates 50 kgs at speed, then I'd imagine the aircraft wings attached to race cars would generate far too much downforce for it to be useful.

Doesn't the entire F1 car generate just enough downforce for it to travel upside down in a tunnel at something like 180 mph?

If a formula one car weighs 700 kg and travels and generates that much downforce at 180 mph, I'd imagine that the little lip spoiler won't generate 1/14 of that at 150 mph.

It also begs the question as to how is the lip spoiler attached?

Is it a moulded part of the boot, bolted on or stuck on?

Thats not 50kg of positive downforce, its 50kg less lift than it would otherwise have (I expect it still has significant lift). Thats a quite different effect, you can't make the sort of generalised comparison you're using with any real credibility.

[Martin Keene]

Sport Coupe said:

BMW's ///M - Mode = The most pointless button !!!

It should be in that mode permanently, if you want a soft car with a bit of ooomph then by a 550i instead.

I thought somebody would have come up with that one... If I'm going to buy a car with 501bhp, I want it to have 501bhp *all* the time, not just when I tell it to.

Also much of the features in the iDrive appear to be pointless, I've yet to find a use for guide you home headlights, but user programable guide you home lights? Are designers really struggling that badly for new ideas and why does it have to be almost infinately adjustable? Surely a choice of 10, 20, 30, etc seconds is going to far, but allowing you to program 35 or 36 seconds is just silly...

[youngsyr]

Cooky said:

youngsyr said:

What about front fog lights?

On all the cars I've had all these have done is turn the fog in front of me yellow. They haven't helped visibility at all.

maybe, just maybe it's the same reason that the RED one at the back doesn't help YOU see more in yer mirror.
HTH

The one at the back is significantly brighter than the normal running lights though. Are you saying that the dim yellow front fogs (as fitted to my S3 225 and Evo 8, and therefore I assume a lot of other cars) are more visible to others than HIDs on full beam?

[mat205125]

youngsyr said:

This theory seems to be confirmed in reality. If you look at the BTCC cars, you can see that they don't have small lips on the boot, or low spoilers, they have funking great shelf panels very high up and close to the roof line.

BTCC rule cars like that Astra have rear spoilers that do very very little in all honesty. They are fitted as part of the pack allowed in the rules, however they are as much "looks like a race car" than functional.

Functional downforce doesn't need big rear wings with clever underbody aero



But then again, why not

[youngsyr]

GravelBen said:

youngsyr said:

GravelBen said:

Didn't BMW claim that the small 'gurney lip' on the bootlid of the E39 M5 was good for a 50kg reduction in rear end lift at speed?

Who knows, but if that little lip generates 50 kgs at speed, then I'd imagine the aircraft wings attached to race cars would generate far too much downforce for it to be useful.

Doesn't the entire F1 car generate just enough downforce for it to travel upside down in a tunnel at something like 180 mph?

If a formula one car weighs 700 kg and travels and generates that much downforce at 180 mph, I'd imagine that the little lip spoiler won't generate 1/14 of that at 150 mph.

It also begs the question as to how is the lip spoiler attached?

Is it a moulded part of the boot, bolted on or stuck on?

Thats not 50kg of positive downforce, its 50kg less lift than it would otherwise have (I expect it still has significant lift). Thats a quite different effect, you can't make the sort of generalised comparison you're using with any real credibility.

I see where you're coming from, but 50 kgs less lift seems a lot from that tiny lip.

[youngsyr]

mat205125 said:

youngsyr said:

This theory seems to be confirmed in reality. If you look at the BTCC cars, you can see that they don't have small lips on the boot, or low spoilers, they have funking great shelf panels very high up and close to the roof line.

BTCC rule cars like that Astra have rear spoilers that do very very little in all honesty. They are fitted as part of the pack allowed in the rules, however they are as much "looks like a race car" than functional.

Functional downforce doesn't need big rear wings with clever underbody aero



But then again, why not

I know that there's much more to aerodynamics than whacking a great big spoiler on, but when you're obliged to improve the aerodynamics on a saloon car, I'm pretty sure the race cars don't have those big wings for show.

Take a look at this, unfortunately there's no scale, but it shows that certain manufacturers do analyse these issues when bolting on spoilers, rather than just chucking on the biggest, ugliest wing they can find:



In addition, I know for a fact that spoilers smaller than that have wrecked carbon bootlids on Evos because the bootlid isn't strong enough to take the downforce generated, and those BTCC cars will travel at a higher average speed than even a relatively quick fast road/track set up Evo.

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 9th December 23:04

[sniff diesel]

youngsyr said:

GravelBen said:

youngsyr said:

GravelBen said:

Didn't BMW claim that the small 'gurney lip' on the bootlid of the E39 M5 was good for a 50kg reduction in rear end lift at speed?

Who knows, but if that little lip generates 50 kgs at speed, then I'd imagine the aircraft wings attached to race cars would generate far too much downforce for it to be useful.

Doesn't the entire F1 car generate just enough downforce for it to travel upside down in a tunnel at something like 180 mph?

If a formula one car weighs 700 kg and travels and generates that much downforce at 180 mph, I'd imagine that the little lip spoiler won't generate 1/14 of that at 150 mph.

It also begs the question as to how is the lip spoiler attached?

Is it a moulded part of the boot, bolted on or stuck on?

Thats not 50kg of positive downforce, its 50kg less lift than it would otherwise have (I expect it still has significant lift). Thats a quite different effect, you can't make the sort of generalised comparison you're using with any real credibility.

I see where you're coming from, but 50 kgs less lift seems a lot from that tiny lip.

Depends what speed you measure it at: downforce squares as speed doubles.

[Mark-C]

sniff diesel said:

youngsyr said:

GravelBen said:

youngsyr said:

GravelBen said:

Didn't BMW claim that the small 'gurney lip' on the bootlid of the E39 M5 was good for a 50kg reduction in rear end lift at speed?

Who knows, but if that little lip generates 50 kgs at speed, then I'd imagine the aircraft wings attached to race cars would generate far too much downforce for it to be useful.

Doesn't the entire F1 car generate just enough downforce for it to travel upside down in a tunnel at something like 180 mph?

If a formula one car weighs 700 kg and travels and generates that much downforce at 180 mph, I'd imagine that the little lip spoiler won't generate 1/14 of that at 150 mph.

It also begs the question as to how is the lip spoiler attached?

Is it a moulded part of the boot, bolted on or stuck on?

Thats not 50kg of positive downforce, its 50kg less lift than it would otherwise have (I expect it still has significant lift). Thats a quite different effect, you can't make the sort of generalised comparison you're using with any real credibility.

I see where you're coming from, but 50 kgs less lift seems a lot from that tiny lip.

Depends what speed you measure it at: downforce squares as speed doubles.

Since we seem to be going down the downforce route .... Gordon Murray had an idea that fits the topic title of "astonishingly strange features on a car":



Probably misses the OP's caveat of pointless since it won it's only race and was banned.

ETA ... and yes I am aware of Jim Hall and the Chaparral 2J but, unless I'm mistaken, there's already a Chaparal 2F in mat205125's post above

Edited by Mark-C on Tuesday 9th December 23:11

[mrmr96]

mat205125 said:

None of these homologation items can really therefore live up to the "strange" criteria laid down by the OP as they can all be explained, and are generally very inovative.

What? Since when did the OP want them to be 'unexplained'? All the other crap on this thread can be explained by the manufacturer as clearly it seemed like good idea at the time! The OP asked for strange, so I still stand by non-functional parts of cars as meeting this definition, even though we know why it was done.

If you don't like it.... umm... that's ok I guess.

[youngsyr]

sniff diesel said:

youngsyr said:

GravelBen said:

youngsyr said:

GravelBen said:

Didn't BMW claim that the small 'gurney lip' on the bootlid of the E39 M5 was good for a 50kg reduction in rear end lift at speed?

Who knows, but if that little lip generates 50 kgs at speed, then I'd imagine the aircraft wings attached to race cars would generate far too much downforce for it to be useful.

Doesn't the entire F1 car generate just enough downforce for it to travel upside down in a tunnel at something like 180 mph?

If a formula one car weighs 700 kg and travels and generates that much downforce at 180 mph, I'd imagine that the little lip spoiler won't generate 1/14 of that at 150 mph.

It also begs the question as to how is the lip spoiler attached?

Is it a moulded part of the boot, bolted on or stuck on?

Thats not 50kg of positive downforce, its 50kg less lift than it would otherwise have (I expect it still has significant lift). Thats a quite different effect, you can't make the sort of generalised comparison you're using with any real credibility.

I see where you're coming from, but 50 kgs less lift seems a lot from that tiny lip.

Depends what speed you measure it at: downforce squares as speed doubles.

Maybe I just don't understand the principles involved and I'm just simplifying things then.

I'd have thought that if the lip on the M5 reduces lift by 50kgs (even at 150 mph), these canards would rip themselves off by the time the car reaches that speed?

[Checkmate]

mat205125 said:

Functional downforce doesn't need big rear wings with clever underbody aero

But it can help.

Website said:

The downforce generated by Enzo is unimaginable, especially for a car having no big rear spoiler. At 300kph (186mph), it generates a massive 775kg of downforce, compare with Pagani Zonda’s 500kg. Most of the downforce is contributed by the ground effect diffusers at the bottom of the tail. Many other supercars also have similar stuffs, but Enzo’s is far more powerful because its high nose draws a lot of fast air flow towards the diffusers. Thanks to what they learned from Formula 1 racing.

A smaller part of the downforce is contributed by a tiny rear spoiler and a pair of internal aero flaps located in front of the front wheels. Both of them are automatically adjustable according to speed. For example, at 200kph (124mph), the Enzo generates 344kg of downforce. This rises to the maximum 775kg at 300kph (186mph), and then eases back to enable higher top speed. At 217mph (350kph), the downforce is reduced to 585kg.

[GravelBen]

More rally homologation stuff - certain versions of the Impreza STi-RA had a 5th injector directly into the inlet manifold. Never used on the road cars though.

The bonnet vents(not the IC scoop) on turbo Imprezas are blanked off underneath, apparently they're useful on the rally cars but it actually increases underbonnet temps if you remove the blanking plates on the road cars.

[youngsyr]

Doesn't add anything to the discussion, but I think it's a cool picture and it's slightly on topicish...

[Mark-C]

youngsyr said:

<snip>
Maybe I just don't understand the principles involved and I'm just simplifying things then.

I'd have thought that if the lip on the M5 reduces lift by 50kgs (even at 150 mph), these canards would rip themselves off by the time the car reaches that speed?

[pedant]A canard is a duck or an aircraft wing .... on cars these tend to get called "dive planes" although strictly speaking the vertical element is a "gurney" which is normally used to describe any element perpendicular to the surface it's attached to that acts as a boundary to airflow.[/pedant]

Sorry and the answer is .... modern bonding techniques are very very good

Edited by Mark-C on Tuesday 9th December 23:24

[carl_w]

youngsyr said:

I'd have thought that if the lip on the M5 reduces lift by 50kgs (even at 150 mph), these canards would rip themselves off by the time the car reaches that speed?

If you're referring to the stuff in front of the wheels, that'll be to direct the air up to the top of the wing where it can remain laminar and attached to the bodywork, rather than getting involved in the turbulent crap around the wheels. If you're referring to the vertical components of the splitter, they're there to stop the air 'falling off' the end of the splitter and creating vortices. The splitter's job is to direct as much air over the top of the car as possible, and as little (but non-zero) under the bottom to maximize the speed of the airflow under the car and hence the downforce.

[youngsyr]

Mark-C said:

youngsyr said:

<snip>
Maybe I just don't understand the principles involved and I'm just simplifying things then.

I'd have thought that if the lip on the M5 reduces lift by 50kgs (even at 150 mph), these canards would rip themselves off by the time the car reaches that speed?

[pedant]A canard is a duck or an aircraft wing .... on cars these tend to get called "dive planes" although strictly speaking the vertical element is a "gurney" which is normally used to describe any element perpendicular to the road that acts as a boundary to horizontal airflow.[/pedant]

Sorry and the answer is .... modern bonding techniques are very very good

Modern bonding techniques??? They're bolted/rivetted on, aren't they?!

... and if we're being pedantic, the people that make them call them canards.

http://www.aprperformance.com/index.php?option=com...

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 9th December 23:39