GTR Performance (serious performance)?
Discussion
How does the GTR handle?
Any turn-in, under/over steer?. Are there any stock bump-steer issues that need to be "dialed-out" with a bump-steer kit? (too much bump-steer at high-speeds could be a serious problem).
How does the car "track" in a straight line under maximum acceleration to top speed? (Does it drift to one side or the other, get "light" up front, or does it "slot" into a good straight line)
How well does the car turn under extremely hard braking?
Does this car feel "under control" at higher speeds, or does it feel like that "one more mile per hour" will spin the car?
I am very interested in the high-speed turning capability of the stock set-up on the GTR (120 mph and higher) so this only applies to those of you who really drive the car the way it was meant to be driven on a track - preferably you have some "real" track time and some high-performance driver training.
I'm trying to get an understanding of how much extra suspension work I will need to do. Just curious about the edge of the performance envelope of this vehicle as compared to other sports cars in the "high-performance" category.
Thanks!
L2Pilot
Any turn-in, under/over steer?. Are there any stock bump-steer issues that need to be "dialed-out" with a bump-steer kit? (too much bump-steer at high-speeds could be a serious problem).
How does the car "track" in a straight line under maximum acceleration to top speed? (Does it drift to one side or the other, get "light" up front, or does it "slot" into a good straight line)
How well does the car turn under extremely hard braking?
Does this car feel "under control" at higher speeds, or does it feel like that "one more mile per hour" will spin the car?
I am very interested in the high-speed turning capability of the stock set-up on the GTR (120 mph and higher) so this only applies to those of you who really drive the car the way it was meant to be driven on a track - preferably you have some "real" track time and some high-performance driver training.
I'm trying to get an understanding of how much extra suspension work I will need to do. Just curious about the edge of the performance envelope of this vehicle as compared to other sports cars in the "high-performance" category.
Thanks!
L2Pilot
It all depends how you set the car up. If it's put together properly, there are no issues with bump steer, wandering around inder hard accelleration, or high speed stability.
However, if you make a donkeys testicle of building it or setting it up, it can be horrible in all of these areas.
It's competely up to you. That's the whole point of the car.
I've been racing my Ultima, and it's handling has been very good. Then again, I spoke to a lot of people who have raced and/or set them up before, so I had a good starting point when I first hit the track.
James
However, if you make a donkeys testicle of building it or setting it up, it can be horrible in all of these areas.
It's competely up to you. That's the whole point of the car.
I've been racing my Ultima, and it's handling has been very good. Then again, I spoke to a lot of people who have raced and/or set them up before, so I had a good starting point when I first hit the track.
James
James
Correct me if i'm wrong but when you talk about setting up properly you are only talking about adjustment of angles and damper settings. This does not include modifying the chassis, adding 'bump steer kits' adding roll bars etc.
This is just to clarify to others that it is only 'Settings'.
Steve
Correct me if i'm wrong but when you talk about setting up properly you are only talking about adjustment of angles and damper settings. This does not include modifying the chassis, adding 'bump steer kits' adding roll bars etc.
This is just to clarify to others that it is only 'Settings'.
Steve
If you build it properly, and set it up properly, you won't need to go hacking around with the chassis or suspension, and you won't need any sort of kit.
The people at Ultima have put a lot of effort into designing and manufacturing components that, if put together properly (and not "modified" by somebody with more power tools than sense) will be very well mannered on both road and track.
The only reason that an Ultima might suffer from bump steer is if the front suspension and steering rack aren't put together properly. If this is the case, a couple of hours of measurement and adjustment by somebody who knows how to read the manual will solve the problem. You won't need additional parts, or modification to anything.
Once the car has been bolted together properly, the fine tuning of the cars handling, which is changed by tweeks to the geometry, brake bias adjustments, adjustments of ride height and damper settings along with choices of wing angles and tyre pressures will get the car to handle exactly as the driver wants it to.
I hope that this clears up all of your questions.
James
The people at Ultima have put a lot of effort into designing and manufacturing components that, if put together properly (and not "modified" by somebody with more power tools than sense) will be very well mannered on both road and track.
The only reason that an Ultima might suffer from bump steer is if the front suspension and steering rack aren't put together properly. If this is the case, a couple of hours of measurement and adjustment by somebody who knows how to read the manual will solve the problem. You won't need additional parts, or modification to anything.
Once the car has been bolted together properly, the fine tuning of the cars handling, which is changed by tweeks to the geometry, brake bias adjustments, adjustments of ride height and damper settings along with choices of wing angles and tyre pressures will get the car to handle exactly as the driver wants it to.
I hope that this clears up all of your questions.
James
You adjust it depending on what you want to do. I believe that when they did some wind tunnel testing, they determined that for speeds over 200mph, a zero wing angle gave the best stability (and you need the front splitter too).
Ted was concerned that one of their customers was planning on taking their car up to 220mph, and he wanted to make sure that it would be stable at that sort of speed, as some cars (like the Mercedes at Le Man in 1999) have been known to flip at high speeds. They took their demonstrator to a wind tunnel and had a play around with the settings. There are a couple of pictures of the wind tunnel session on the wall at the factory if you're up that way.
That shows the sort of care and attention that Ultima give to their cars. They'd already sold the car to the guy, and they could have just said "good luck", but they wanted to make sure that it was not only safe, but as well set up for the attempt as possible. I'm not sure what the top speed ended up being.
That's not to say that the car would be unstable with different settings, just that, for a straight line at above 200mph, that gives you the most stability (which, lets face it, you'd want when you're doing a mile in less than 18 seconds
)
James
Ted was concerned that one of their customers was planning on taking their car up to 220mph, and he wanted to make sure that it would be stable at that sort of speed, as some cars (like the Mercedes at Le Man in 1999) have been known to flip at high speeds. They took their demonstrator to a wind tunnel and had a play around with the settings. There are a couple of pictures of the wind tunnel session on the wall at the factory if you're up that way.
That shows the sort of care and attention that Ultima give to their cars. They'd already sold the car to the guy, and they could have just said "good luck", but they wanted to make sure that it was not only safe, but as well set up for the attempt as possible. I'm not sure what the top speed ended up being.
That's not to say that the car would be unstable with different settings, just that, for a straight line at above 200mph, that gives you the most stability (which, lets face it, you'd want when you're doing a mile in less than 18 seconds
) James
Kurt Dobson's gone 228 mph with his GTR on a bumpy public road in Nevada during the Pony Express Rally.
I haven't done any high speed running yet, but plan to.
K&N Air Filters ran their GTR at Daytona, which is bumpy and led a race for a while at California Motor Speedway, didn't hear about any stability issues. Both cars run Factory wings.
Jeff Schwartz
Crystal Lake, IL USA
www.worksstand.com/jeffs.htm
I haven't done any high speed running yet, but plan to.
K&N Air Filters ran their GTR at Daytona, which is bumpy and led a race for a while at California Motor Speedway, didn't hear about any stability issues. Both cars run Factory wings.
Jeff Schwartz
Crystal Lake, IL USA
www.worksstand.com/jeffs.htm
Sounds great!
Since I will be building a ViperJet MK-II (a single engine turbo jet aircraft with a mach .87 cruise speed), I should have no problem reading the manual and making sure that the GTR is built correctly (or, supervising the build activities of someone else while I work on the aircraft).
It is nice to know that the "actual" builders of the GTR feel confident in the mechanical tolerance, and conceptual design ability of the Ultima Cars. From the response, it sounds as if one could simply "bolt the car together", make some final "suspension geometry" adjustments to suit their performance requirements via ride height changes, damping rate adjustments, tire pressure adjustments, etc., then have absolutely no problems with the higher speed handling characteristics of the car. That is nice to know up front.
Regarding the WING on the GTR: A wing (any wing) that has "zero angle" can and does still produce lift in one direction or the other, depending on the Camber Geometry of the Leading Edge, overall Aspect Ratio, and Position (location) relative to the CG (Center of Gravity) of the car.
I have seen some of those CanAm's (I think they were CanAm's) with a Fully Integrated Wing that was part of the rear engine bay cover/body panel. I saw a Green Ultima with this integrated wing and it looked OUTSTANDING! I like the look/appearance of the fully integrated wing MUCH better than the "bolt-on" wing.
Question: Who designed the "fully integrated wing"? Was it Ultima, or was this a one-off scenario?
If I am going to be "Super Cruising" (which I classify as any "ground speed" in excess of 200 mph for a continuous period >= 3 minutes) then I want to make sure that the "Fully Integrated Wing" design is positioned aft of CG correctly as well as having the correct AOA (Angle of Attack), Camber, Aspect Ratio, and height above the rear deck.
Many people throw “wings” on the back of their “hot rods” just because it looks “cool”. That is perfectly fine! There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking and being cool these days. However, aerodynamics can become critical at super cruise speeds and impact much more than mere fuel economy. That fully integrated wing looks awesome and if I do a GTR, then I most definitely want the same look – but it MUST be aerodynamically functional and certainly not asymmetrical with a “zero” wing angle. It was hard to tell whether or not the Fully Integrated Wing that I saw on that Green CanAm was “asymmetrical” or not – in other words, I don’t know if it was for “show”, or for “go”. Does anyone else? I'm almost positive that this is one area that I will have to work very closely with the factory on.
At the speeds we are talking about, there is also the issue of Underbody Aerodynamics as well.
Does anyone know, or has anyone heard anything about the Undercar Geometry of the GTR? This can also contribute to instability at "super cruise" speeds. A good Underbody design that helps to "foster" a dual inverted pressure gradient (Lower pressure near the front and rear (over the wheels) relative to the center of mass – where lower pressure essentially “radiates” from the CG out to the front and rear as speed increases), would contribute to improved overall road handling. The undercar paneling (based on the pictures that I have seen thus far) seem to be good launching points for fabricating real good low pressure – getting the P-Delta’s in the correct regions of the undercar is another matter entirely.
Any thoughts on that one?
Thanks for the replies!
Since I will be building a ViperJet MK-II (a single engine turbo jet aircraft with a mach .87 cruise speed), I should have no problem reading the manual and making sure that the GTR is built correctly (or, supervising the build activities of someone else while I work on the aircraft).
It is nice to know that the "actual" builders of the GTR feel confident in the mechanical tolerance, and conceptual design ability of the Ultima Cars. From the response, it sounds as if one could simply "bolt the car together", make some final "suspension geometry" adjustments to suit their performance requirements via ride height changes, damping rate adjustments, tire pressure adjustments, etc., then have absolutely no problems with the higher speed handling characteristics of the car. That is nice to know up front.
Regarding the WING on the GTR: A wing (any wing) that has "zero angle" can and does still produce lift in one direction or the other, depending on the Camber Geometry of the Leading Edge, overall Aspect Ratio, and Position (location) relative to the CG (Center of Gravity) of the car.
I have seen some of those CanAm's (I think they were CanAm's) with a Fully Integrated Wing that was part of the rear engine bay cover/body panel. I saw a Green Ultima with this integrated wing and it looked OUTSTANDING! I like the look/appearance of the fully integrated wing MUCH better than the "bolt-on" wing.
Question: Who designed the "fully integrated wing"? Was it Ultima, or was this a one-off scenario?
If I am going to be "Super Cruising" (which I classify as any "ground speed" in excess of 200 mph for a continuous period >= 3 minutes) then I want to make sure that the "Fully Integrated Wing" design is positioned aft of CG correctly as well as having the correct AOA (Angle of Attack), Camber, Aspect Ratio, and height above the rear deck.
Many people throw “wings” on the back of their “hot rods” just because it looks “cool”. That is perfectly fine! There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking and being cool these days. However, aerodynamics can become critical at super cruise speeds and impact much more than mere fuel economy. That fully integrated wing looks awesome and if I do a GTR, then I most definitely want the same look – but it MUST be aerodynamically functional and certainly not asymmetrical with a “zero” wing angle. It was hard to tell whether or not the Fully Integrated Wing that I saw on that Green CanAm was “asymmetrical” or not – in other words, I don’t know if it was for “show”, or for “go”. Does anyone else? I'm almost positive that this is one area that I will have to work very closely with the factory on.
At the speeds we are talking about, there is also the issue of Underbody Aerodynamics as well.
Does anyone know, or has anyone heard anything about the Undercar Geometry of the GTR? This can also contribute to instability at "super cruise" speeds. A good Underbody design that helps to "foster" a dual inverted pressure gradient (Lower pressure near the front and rear (over the wheels) relative to the center of mass – where lower pressure essentially “radiates” from the CG out to the front and rear as speed increases), would contribute to improved overall road handling. The undercar paneling (based on the pictures that I have seen thus far) seem to be good launching points for fabricating real good low pressure – getting the P-Delta’s in the correct regions of the undercar is another matter entirely.
Any thoughts on that one?
Thanks for the replies!
I thought I'd answered this one (a couple of times). Ultima have carried out wind tunnel tests on the car to determine that the wing is in the right place, and doing the right things. They've also done a lot of development and testing work on veroius race tracks to get the car to handle well in all situations.
I know that a wing with zero angle will have some sort of lift associated with it. If it didn't, then you may as well remove the wing altogether. That was just the angle that Ted told me they found to be best for the scenario that they were testing for.
As for the under body design. The car has a flat floor. n earlier cars this went all the way to the back of the car, but the current design has it stopping at the front of the engine bay. This was done to improve engine bay airflow, and also (according to the factory) has something of a venturi effect as the air expands into the engine bay. The use of a splitter is also highly recommended for high speed stability. When I started racing, one of the first bits of enformation I was given by an experienced Ultima racer was not to venture onto the track without one (this is the Mk4 though, the GTR has a different design at the front, and can cope without any splitter, although one is highly recommended for high speeds as mentioned before).
Again, set up of the car comes into it. You need to make sure that you have the correct amount of rake on the car to ensure that the airflow both over the top of the car, and underneath it balances correctly.
I got my starting point from speaking to as many people as I could who had raced and/or prepared Ultimas. I then took the car out on track and fine tuned it to my personal driving style (if you can call it style). The factory are a very good source of information (Ted raced an Ultima for several years, and they have been involved with various projects over the years to fine tune particular aspects of the car).
James
I know that a wing with zero angle will have some sort of lift associated with it. If it didn't, then you may as well remove the wing altogether. That was just the angle that Ted told me they found to be best for the scenario that they were testing for.
As for the under body design. The car has a flat floor. n earlier cars this went all the way to the back of the car, but the current design has it stopping at the front of the engine bay. This was done to improve engine bay airflow, and also (according to the factory) has something of a venturi effect as the air expands into the engine bay. The use of a splitter is also highly recommended for high speed stability. When I started racing, one of the first bits of enformation I was given by an experienced Ultima racer was not to venture onto the track without one (this is the Mk4 though, the GTR has a different design at the front, and can cope without any splitter, although one is highly recommended for high speeds as mentioned before).
Again, set up of the car comes into it. You need to make sure that you have the correct amount of rake on the car to ensure that the airflow both over the top of the car, and underneath it balances correctly.
I got my starting point from speaking to as many people as I could who had raced and/or prepared Ultimas. I then took the car out on track and fine tuned it to my personal driving style (if you can call it style). The factory are a very good source of information (Ted raced an Ultima for several years, and they have been involved with various projects over the years to fine tune particular aspects of the car).
James
l2pilot said: I saw a Green Ultima with this integrated wing and it looked OUTSTANDING! I like the look/appearance of the fully integrated wing MUCH better than the "bolt-on" wing.
Question: Who designed the "fully integrated wing"? Was it Ultima, or was this a one-off scenario?
Is this the car you meant? www.ultimaclub.com/ownersdatabase/alanm-a.jpg If so the wing is an Ultima design. However, this car is a Mark 4 "Sports" and I don't know if this design of wing could be fitted to a GTR which has a different rear end.
Sorry, something wrong with the link. Try this www.ultimaclub.com and scroll about halfway down the page to the thumbnail of the green car.
>> Edited by Alan 2 on Friday 9th May 11:39
On the mk4 Sport the wing was an essential piece of kit as the rounded tail resulted in instability at speeds above 80mph. These cars used either the fixed wing or the bolt on carbon fibre monster wing bolted to the chassis by the gearbox. There was an Overland Race Ultima which featured a carbon wing fitted above the gearbox but this was intended to comply with regulations to have the wing within the confines of the body. Each had its own downforce characteristics but the monster wing provided the greater downforce as you might expect. l forget the figures but 1000lb at 150 mph rings a bell. The GTR had the longer tail to overcome the mk4 Sport instability problem and there are plenty of owners who dont bother with the wing and have survived 170mph although l dont know how much lift they may have experienced. l find the mk 4 perfectly stable at 170. Speak to the factory as they have the best info.
That's right. When I got my car (which has the integral wing), I was told that I could leave it on, or replace it with the big wing on a pylon, but under no circumstances to run with nothing.
As you say, the GTR has the longer tail, which reduces lift at the rear end, so it's safe enough to run without. I've only ever seen the one style of rear wing on the GTR.
James
As you say, the GTR has the longer tail, which reduces lift at the rear end, so it's safe enough to run without. I've only ever seen the one style of rear wing on the GTR.
James
One of the Kent Ultima owners runs the pylon wing and told me that above 80 he can spin the rear wheels, such is the upward suction without the wing. He quickly re-fitted it.
By the way James, did l see your yellow car on the M3 in Hampshire on Tuesday at about 11.30? l was amazed to see an Ultima on the road so just pointed and said Ultima. (My family thought l had finally lost it).
By the way James, did l see your yellow car on the M3 in Hampshire on Tuesday at about 11.30? l was amazed to see an Ultima on the road so just pointed and said Ultima. (My family thought l had finally lost it).
Alan,
Yes - this is the one I saw while browsing and doing web based research on the GTR. This is the fully integrated wing design that looks very good. Thanks!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding “Lift” and the myths about what causes a wing to rise - there is a lot of mis-information regarding what lift really is, and is not. Hopefully, this will clear the "air" so to speak:
Any car of this size should NOT be unstable at 80, or 170 mph - with - or without the wing. A zero angle wing makes very little sense given the aerodynamics governing the scenario. The facts about aerodynamics would dictate otherwise.
The car itself produces counter lift Vectors all the time, but those Vectors are mostly cancelled out by each other. The primary nomenclature of the GTR should generate Low Pressure on the upper region of the car at any speed, but not enough to "lift" it off the ground - however, it can be enough to de-stabilize the vehicle if the speed is high engouh (remember the Mercedes prototypes that went airborne, one right after the other - three (3) times).
The front wheel wells of the Lemans Prototypes and Side car cambers, "can" acts just like a big wing sitting directly in front of the car. If not designed correctly (countered with vents and leveled off slowly in rate of slope) they can provide a condition that makes the front-end rather unstable - which we saw happen to the Mercedes. A condition on the Lemans Circuit known as "Blow Over".
Lift as defined by aerodynamics is the resultant differential between a high pressure and low pressure zone of free flowing air about an object - any object (emphasis added).
If the distance between the object's leading edge and trailing edge is equal to 3 feet (leading edge is defined as that portion of the object that comes into contact with the passing body of air first.), then the air that passes above and below the object as it flows the length of the object, must join together at the trailing edge of the object at the same time.
This REQUIRES that the molecules flowing around the Cambered portion of the object (wing) MUST be accelerated (increased rate of speed) in order to join the molecules that flowed around the Un-Cambered portion of the object (wing). The object (wing) does not compress atoms. It displaces air molecules (or, separates the Boundary Layer in front of the object).
The increase in the rate of speed of the fluid (in this case air molecules) around the Cambered portion of the object (wing) results in a DECREASE in air pressure (or, a form of the variable Psub-Delta) surrounding only that portion of the object (wing) that is Cambered. The relatively Un-Cambered portion of the object (wing) maintains a zone of relatively high air pressure as compared to the Cambered surface. That “Zone” would extend in length 3 feet and pass through the air in 3-Dimensions (containing a certain Length, Width and Height in space) as the object (wing) passes through the air.
This Pressure Differential (Psub Delta) is the main component that generates “Lift”. Some theorize that the object rides (or, is suspended) inside a Vacuum. I am not from that School. I am from the School that places its understanding of the Lift component in Thermodynamics as it relates to Co-Location High and Low Pressure Systems. This is otherwise known as the “Pressure Gradient”.
This is generated when High Fluid Pressure attempts to move into a Low Fluid Pressure region, or zone. Nature abhors a vacuum and the resultant Vector is called the “Net Force” and that is determined by airspeed and total Aspect Ratio – I will not cover the significance of Aspect Ratio here except to say that Drag is increased with an increase in Aspect Ratio and decreased with a decrease in Aspect Ratio – in general terms.
So, my concerns driving a GTR (or, any supercar for that matter) would be Wing Camber, Average Cord Length, Angle of Attack, and Trailing Edge Taper.
The only way to achieve enough “down force” to “influence” a 2,300lb car moving at 200+mph with a so-called “Zero Angle”, is to make the Camber steep enough, and the Aspect Ratio large enough with the leading edge biting directly into Relative Wind. This type of wing would be visibly MUCH different than what we see here.
I just don’t see that type of “wing” being used in this case. So, there must be some negative angle (relative to the Cambered side of the wing) in conjunction with the “expected” ram air effect on the upper surface, in order to bring about the proper “Net Force” – aka – Down Force (in this application) with a large enough Vector Component to make any real contribution to “stability”.
If the angle was zero – I’d be very weary about pushing a GTR to my favorite speed range of 200+mph. I would also need a much more “substantial” wing than what is being seen coming from the factory on the GTR’s. So, lift is therefore a product of Pressure Differential mainly and brute force Ram Air Effect partially.
The Ram Air effect can only take place when the surface of the wing is tangential to the direction of the relative wind. This would require something other than a “zero angle” approach. Furthermore, basic aerodynamics cancels any hope of having a “zero angle” wing producing enough lift to foster a down-force substantial enough to stabilize the backside of a multi-thousand pound car at over 200 mph – unless that wing had some serious geometry changes from the one I see in all these pictures.
At any rate – that integrated wing sure does “look” GOOD! Too bad they don’t still produce a “functional” one on the newer GTR -
At any rate - that integrated wing sure does "look" GOOD! Too bad they don't still produce a "functional" one on the newer GTR -
It is a very functional wing from what I understand (I'm a Mechanical Engineer).
The zero angle that is referred to is the angle of the flap on the wing (the only end-user adjustable part AFAICS). The EFFECTIVE angle of attack is still negative and allows a wing with a short chord to generate significant downforce.
As an aside: Have you ever wondered why the air on the bottom (or top on an aircraft) surface of a wing magically speeds up to produce the pressure differential needed to generate downforce as you describe? There's no magic to it. What happens is that forward motion induces a circulatory current of air around the wing. It is the vector sum of this circular airflow and the airflow over the wing which produces the pretty diagrams you see in simple books on aerodynamics. It can be proved, if you have the math skills, that a wing is directly equivalent to a cylinder spinning in the airflow. This effect was used by the Dam Busters bouncing bomb in WWII and also explains (sort off - the ground messes up the theory
) why open wheels generate lift. BTW The purpose of endplates is to stop this circulatory airflow from falling off when the wing is accelerated round a corner... Sorry to butt in here, but with the Factory wing set at it's most nuetral setting the wing Produced over 300 Kgs of down force above 100 pmh. This was proved at Mira, these figures where given to me by Dave at the factory about 2 Years ago.
Have driven the car without the wing for 2,000 Miles and now with it the back end feels more stable above 80 mph, can now attack the throttle pedal harder out of the corners. Not to say that without it, it was not allready good enough, but I have more confidence now.
Anyway, just take it from those how have the cars they are Damn fast enough round the bends, just drive one and your Nerve will be the limiting factor not the car...
Rantovercarryonasyouwhere.
Have driven the car without the wing for 2,000 Miles and now with it the back end feels more stable above 80 mph, can now attack the throttle pedal harder out of the corners. Not to say that without it, it was not allready good enough, but I have more confidence now.
Anyway, just take it from those how have the cars they are Damn fast enough round the bends, just drive one and your Nerve will be the limiting factor not the car...
Rantovercarryonasyouwhere.
Thanks for posting some actual real life numbers GTRCLIVE!
IMO the aerodynamics of an Ultima are about as good as it gets for a car which can still be used as a road car (rather than just road legal enough to get to the race track like say a Westfield XTR2). About the only thing that is "missing" is really really serious ground effect** tunnels and side skirts. If you've ever see someone get sideways and stall the airflow under a sportscar with ground effect...and head straight to the scene of the accident ("Hello tyre wall!")...you'll know why the Ultima is the way it is.
L2Pilot: Make the effort to actually go look at a GTR or CanAm in the flesh. If you still have any doubts as to its aerodynamics then actually looking at them in 3D rather than crumby 2D pictures on a computer monitor should dispel them. If you can also get a high speed run on a race track then jump at it. I've been in one on a gusty day in March at over 120 mph and it was rock solid.
** - As opposed to the forgiving, but no doubt effective, ground effect that you get from a standard Ultima.
IMO the aerodynamics of an Ultima are about as good as it gets for a car which can still be used as a road car (rather than just road legal enough to get to the race track like say a Westfield XTR2). About the only thing that is "missing" is really really serious ground effect** tunnels and side skirts. If you've ever see someone get sideways and stall the airflow under a sportscar with ground effect...and head straight to the scene of the accident ("Hello tyre wall!")...you'll know why the Ultima is the way it is.
L2Pilot: Make the effort to actually go look at a GTR or CanAm in the flesh. If you still have any doubts as to its aerodynamics then actually looking at them in 3D rather than crumby 2D pictures on a computer monitor should dispel them. If you can also get a high speed run on a race track then jump at it. I've been in one on a gusty day in March at over 120 mph and it was rock solid.
** - As opposed to the forgiving, but no doubt effective, ground effect that you get from a standard Ultima.
Gassing Station | Ultima | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff