Author Topic: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications  (Read 58184 times)

pancho400cid

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1185
  • Viva los PONCHOS!
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #120 on: October 06, 2015, 11:09:36 AM »
Wow... I feel like a chicken watching a card trick.....

OTOH - Really enjoying tagging along for the ride.  Very nice workmanship and I admire the thoughtful design work.  Can't wait to see how it all comes together and works.

Bound to be some dialing in I guess?
1978 Trans Am - Chesterfield Brown - current project
1978 Trans Am - Silver - SOLD!

NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #121 on: October 07, 2015, 10:27:16 AM »
Wow... I feel like a chicken watching a card trick.....

OTOH - Really enjoying tagging along for the ride.  Very nice workmanship and I admire the thoughtful design work.  Can't wait to see how it all comes together and works.

Bound to be some dialing in I guess?

Oh ya, there'll be some dialing in for sure! Most importantly the driver needs seat time!

I'm trying a couple different length splitters. I believe the long one (which would provide a lot more downforce) will need to be balanced with an adjustable rear wing. I've planned ahead for mounting a wing while doing bodywork so hopefully it won't look too much like an afterthought. Initially I'll test the shorter version splitter on the street/highways and may shorten or lengthen it , hopefully balanced by the additional downforce created by the taller rear spoiler, smooth bottom, rear diffuser, etc. before attempting the big splitter. Getting the aero right to have the car feel neutral will take some playing around I'm sure and may also include changes in spring rates, alignment settings, shocks etc.
John Paige
Lab-14.com

NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #122 on: October 07, 2015, 11:58:29 AM »
Getting back to Amy's car, which is used mostly for street and Auto-X. Lets talk about how changes in aero can affect front wheel braking. (will talk about overall braking later on)

The front end of the car is substantially lighter than a stock 73 TA I'm sure. The car has a carbon fiber hood, fenders, inner fenders, shaker scoop, and also has electric fans, aluminum radiator, aluminum fender braces, aluminum hood hinges, plus an aluminum engine!  There's probably other things that have reduced weight  I'm unaware of also. The combined weight reduction in the front is probably 200 lbs or more plus there are other things to be considered like the trunk mounted battery which is cantilevered weight on a stock TA. These reductions lower the available grip of the front tires because there's less weight pushing the tire into the pavement.

Removing weight allows the car to accelerate quicker and stop quicker (assuming no loss of traction) due to the reduction in the mass.  On the klrbird I believe all of the factors combined have removed over 150 lbs of pressure at the contact point where each of the front tires meet the pavement. This lowers the available braking grip before the tire looses traction and skids (will talk about "turn in" grip later on).

Auto -X is a time vs. distance competition. So if we can keep the car at a higher speed during a greater percentage of the distance traveled the overall time to complete the course would be lower. Assuming the corners are taken at the maximum speed already, the longer the distance the car is at it's highest speed at the end of the straight (or somewhat straight) sections would reduce the time on course. This is where the added braking grip using aero techniques comes into play.

The hood of a 2nd get bird has over 3000 Sq In of surface area. If the difference in air pressure above/below the hood is changed just 0.1 lb. per Sq. In. it will add or reduce pressure at the contact patch of the front tires 300+ lbs (150 per wheel). If we can add 300 lbs of grip to the contact patches without having to battle the momentum of 300 lbs of actual weight the car will be able to slow quicker because we can brake harder before skidding occurs. Particularly at the beginning of braking action when traveling high speeds when air pressure differences above/below the hood are greater. On an Auto-X this will allow the braking to be delayed just a little bit for corners at the end of each straight (or somewhat) section.

At Auto X speeds this might mean the car could go let's say 5' longer at the highest speeds (at the end of straights) on the course before braking. So the car will travel that 5' more quickly. When we add up 2'-5'-10' here and there throughout the course the linear feet traveled at the highest speeds will accumulate lowering the overall elapsed time.

Changing the air pressure under/over hood in a way that reduces lift/increases down force will also reduce time in the speed/stop challenges because of the additional grip available at the beginning of threshold braking.

The additional grip added by a pressure difference on the hood at highway speeds might be just enough extra grip before the tires skid to reduce the stopping distance at highway speeds enough to avoid hitting an animal or other unusual object.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2015, 12:06:34 PM by NOT A TA »
John Paige
Lab-14.com

mrbandit

  • Jedi Council
  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9146
  • TAC Webmaster
      • http://www.transamcountry.com
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #123 on: October 08, 2015, 06:40:17 AM »
John, I saw this article and you immediately came to mind.  There is so much stuff going on that I know you would appreciate if you haven't seen it already.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusiasts/the-callaway-corvette-c7-gt3-r-is-darth-vaders-racer/ar-AAfcwhZ


skisix38off

  • Active Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 728
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #124 on: October 08, 2015, 06:58:19 AM »


The hood of a 2nd get bird has over 3000 Sq In of surface area. If the difference in air pressure above/below the hood is changed just 0.1 lb. per Sq. In. it will add or reduce pressure at the contact patch of the front tires 300+ lbs (150 per wheel). If we can add 300 lbs of grip to the contact patches without having to battle the momentum of 300 lbs of actual weight the car will be able to slow quicker because we can brake harder before skidding occurs. Particularly at the beginning of braking action when traveling high speeds when air pressure differences above/below the hood are greater. On an Auto-X this will allow the braking to be delayed just a little bit for corners at the end of each straight (or somewhat) section.


John,

I agree with what you have to say above but this part intrigues me.  Your statement is correct above a .1PSI difference spread over 3000 in^2 could start to add up.  My opinion is that aero is not really that effective at autocross speeds.  A very open and fast autocross course for me will see speeds of 75-80mph and only very briefly at that.  A more typical max autocross speed would be closer to 60mph.  I read somewhere that the rear spoiler on TA's provides a 100# down force at 100mph and this equation isn't linear so, at 60mph I may have 40# of down force from that spoiler.

How do you envision creating that kind of difference?  This would help me as well.

Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #124 on: October 08, 2015, 06:58:19 AM »

NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #125 on: October 08, 2015, 10:31:24 AM »


The hood of a 2nd get bird has over 3000 Sq In of surface area. If the difference in air pressure above/below the hood is changed just 0.1 lb. per Sq. In. it will add or reduce pressure at the contact patch of the front tires 300+ lbs (150 per wheel). If we can add 300 lbs of grip to the contact patches without having to battle the momentum of 300 lbs of actual weight the car will be able to slow quicker because we can brake harder before skidding occurs. Particularly at the beginning of braking action when traveling high speeds when air pressure differences above/below the hood are greater. On an Auto-X this will allow the braking to be delayed just a little bit for corners at the end of each straight (or somewhat) section.


John,

I agree with what you have to say above but this part intrigues me.  Your statement is correct above a .1PSI difference spread over 3000 in^2 could start to add up.  My opinion is that aero is not really that effective at autocross speeds.  A very open and fast autocross course for me will see speeds of 75-80mph and only very briefly at that.  A more typical max autocross speed would be closer to 60mph.  I read somewhere that the rear spoiler on TA's provides a 100# down force at 100mph and this equation isn't linear so, at 60mph I may have 40# of down force from that spoiler.

How do you envision creating that kind of difference?  This would help me as well.

I agree that aero considerations (all else being equal) won't make much of a difference for probably 90% or more of a typical Auto X course (with these type cars). The greatest possibility of aero mods reducing the overall elapsed time (for these type cars) is primarily in the braking zone of the straight sections. If the car is travelling 60 MPH and you can hold off braking for say 5' longer on 5 straights the car has traveled 25' at 60 MPH. If the car had started braking 5' earlier it might have dropped speed to somewhere in the low 50's during that 5' so it takes longer to cover the 25'. I don't have the math background to do the equation or the info on how much a car slows during the 5' to determine how much time is involved.

You are correct in that the rear spoiler looses effectiveness as speed drops. This is why you'll see folks with really tall rear spoiler extensions at some Auto_X venues. The additional increase in air pressure on the deck lid is disproportionate to the increase in height in that a 10% height difference will give you more than a 10% increase in pressure (to a point). The increased drag of the real tall spoilers is offset by the additional grip available for braking as well as possibly increasing available grip during cornering sections like slaloms. Most of the PT cars have enough power to overcome the additional drag of the tall spoiler at Auto_X speeds. The increased rear grip of the real tall rear spoilers can allow a brake bias change that might further reduce overall braking distance and the time period braking is required to drop a certain amount of speed. Will talk more about this later on..

Amy's car: The lift which is causing the scary instability at 90+ is still there but reduced at Auto_X speeds. It's likely requiring her to brake earlier (to avoid skidding) than would be necessary if the tires had more grip. The tires are very wide 18's with a huge contact patch and are probably the lowest tread wear, stickiest, tires that are legal at the GG, USCA, and other PT type events. They probably aren't being used to anywhere close to their full potential. The changes I recommended to reduce lift/increase down force should increase grip and still be well below the tires full capabilities since the car would really only be returning to essentially stock. The changes to her car are more to "fix" things that have reduced the cars capabilities rather than reduce lift, increase down force, or reduce drag (compared with stock) like the things I'm changing on my own car.

My 70 clone and Amy's 73 TA are essentially the same exterior. I have an old Hotchkis set up for springs, sways, etc. with basic Bilsteins and the car is a couple inches lower than stock. I ran my car with no aero mods at road tracks and Land speed racing events many times at speeds up to the drive line limited top speeds of around 150 MPH and the car is very stable. Driving at 130 on track seems like 70 on the highway. Windows are up for LSR and after 130 one of my windows would suck out a little because I was missing one of the "blow out" clips and wind noise would increase. At road tracks windows are down so high speeds seem the same, just more wind noise as speed increases.

I don't know if there's any aero differences due to the difference of the suspension, exhause etc. under Amy's car Vs. my car because I haven't seen many pics underneath other than the recent rear suspension change.  Her car is a bit lower than mine but I don't think that would have an adverse effect other than the rake change I recommended trying. So if the car is brought back more to stock with seals etc. I'd think they could blast up to 125+ without stability issues. And, much quicker than I can! ahahaha
« Last Edit: October 08, 2015, 10:37:50 AM by NOT A TA »
John Paige
Lab-14.com

NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #126 on: October 09, 2015, 10:56:02 AM »
John, I saw this article and you immediately came to mind.  There is so much stuff going on that I know you would appreciate if you haven't seen it already.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusiasts/the-callaway-corvette-c7-gt3-r-is-darth-vaders-racer/ar-AAfcwhZ



Callaways media people did a very good job of getting the press release to pop up everywhere at almost the same time. I saw it on Race Car Engineering. It'll be interesting to see how well it does racing and if they make changes after real world use.  http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/corvette-c7-gt3-revealed/?utm_source=The%20Chelsea%20Magazine%20Company%20Ltd&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6254402_RCE%20Editorial%20Oct%202015&dm_i=6NM,3Q1XE,KNBIE6,DEFEV,1
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 10:58:24 AM by NOT A TA »
John Paige
Lab-14.com

1973klrbrd

  • Active Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 241
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #127 on: October 09, 2015, 07:43:34 PM »
John, I have been off the grid a bit with business travel so I have some serious catching up to do with the posts. There is a lot to process what you are observing and suggesting for Amy's car. I'm taking the car out of storage this weekend for a show and long drive so I will attempt to get some pics. 
Jay & Amy
1973 Trans Am

NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #128 on: October 12, 2015, 09:55:32 AM »
Finished up mounting the inner fender seals and made some new inner fender extensions. Will put the seals on using threaded hardware after final paint so I can easily change the seals to conform to tubular control arms whenever I get them.



John Paige
Lab-14.com

jonathonar89

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1907
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #129 on: October 18, 2015, 04:37:43 PM »
Great work Johnny...truely amazing to take your ideas and put it to work.  I would like to do some similar but different things with my '79.

Jon

NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #130 on: October 19, 2015, 09:30:52 PM »
Great work Johnny...truely amazing to take your ideas and put it to work.  I would like to do some similar but different things with my '79.

Jon

Thanks!

What are you considering for your car? Please share it here. I want this thread to be about the whole 2nd gen not just early cars or my car. The advancements in mechanical grip and tires have been huge the past 10-15 years. Aero is the next step.

The late cars with the pointed front split the air lower at the front which changes the air flow and probably reduces drag with better attached flow over front section of the hood. I'd like to do a tuft test on both styles to see the difference at highway speedsusing a camera mounted on the hood.
John Paige
Lab-14.com

jonathonar89

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1907
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #131 on: October 20, 2015, 06:17:50 AM »
Great work Johnny...truely amazing to take your ideas and put it to work.  I would like to do some similar but different things with my '79.

Jon

Thanks!

What are you considering for your car? Please share it here. I want this thread to be about the whole 2nd gen not just early cars or my car. The advancements in mechanical grip and tires have been huge the past 10-15 years. Aero is the next step.

The late cars with the pointed front split the air lower at the front which changes the air flow and probably reduces drag with better attached flow over front section of the hood. I'd like to do a tuft test on both styles to see the difference at highway speedsusing a camera mounted on the hood.


I was thinking rear adjustable spoiler mounted under the gas tank/bumper area would be great on these cars.  If someone was to really get serious, they could make it work off the brake system as an aid.  McLaren supercars also have self-adjusting spoiler based on brake input.  Another thing to note is that when drag race cars start getting loose at high speed, the drivers throw the parachute to straighten the car out. 

One thing I notice on the 79-81 rear bumper is that it's an identical match for the grill section in the front but not cut out.  In the future I would like to try and cut the rear bumper cover, insert the covers and the build an exhaust exit or use the low pressure area for something.

On my car I switched to a VFN cowl hood.  I liked my Trans Am shaker scoop but the open back would pull in rain when I was daily driving and I didn't care for that too much.  The main issue I will have now is that the cowl hood does block vision.  This may be an issue for track visibility like you were having with the shaker. 

I know you're trying to keep the factory look.  I am too but my car will be more about how I think they should've been built from a styling point....function will follow.  This is why I think foilers are great.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2015, 12:16:12 PM by jonathonar89 »

OLDFLM

  • Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • 71 Firebird - First Car (1985)
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #132 on: October 20, 2015, 01:00:53 PM »
Dammit John!  All the efforts to "smooth" the look of my car... eliminating the cowl vents... smoothing the 71 only functional fender vents... functional Formula hood without the functional air cleaner...  you're killin' me with all these lessons on aerodynamics!  But I'm really enjoying the thread!!
71 Firebird - First Car (1985)

NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #133 on: October 20, 2015, 08:23:11 PM »
I was thinking rear adjustable spoiler mounted under the gas tank/bumper area would be great on these cars.  If someone was to really get serious, they could make it work off the brake system as an aid.  McLaren supercars also have self-adjusting spoiler based on brake input.  Another thing to note is that when drag race cars start getting loose at high speed, the drivers throw the parachute to straighten the car out. 

One thing I notice on the 79-81 rear bumper is that it's an identical match for the grill section in the front but not cut out.  In the future I would like to try and cut the rear bumper cover, insert the covers and the build an exhaust exit or use the low pressure area for something.

On my car I switched to a VFN cowl hood.  I liked my Trans Am shaker scoop but the open back would pull in rain when I was daily driving and I didn't care for that too much.  The main issue I will have now is that the cowl hood does block vision.  This may be an issue for track visibility like you were having with the shaker. 

I know you're trying to keep the factory look.  I am too but my car will be more about how I think they should've been built from a styling point....function will follow.  This is why I think foilers are great.

A spoiler that extends downward under the car? A couple 12 V linear actuators could probably be used to move the spoiler.

I am trying somewhat to keep the factory appearance on this car. Probably a good thing since if I got really carried away I'd probably be to old and frail to drive the darn thing once done.  Is your cowl hood sealed to the cowl? Are you running a carb pan sealed to the hood?

I'm going to have to examine the rear bumper area on the 79's to see what you're considering for the exhaust or something. Might work well as the top section of a double diffuser.

John Paige
Lab-14.com

NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #134 on: October 20, 2015, 08:51:36 PM »
Dammit John!  All the efforts to "smooth" the look of my car... eliminating the cowl vents... smoothing the 71 only functional fender vents... functional Formula hood without the functional air cleaner...  you're killin' me with all these lessons on aerodynamics!  But I'm really enjoying the thread!!

TY!  Good to see ya pop in here! You been lurking? Remember what I said about that center hood latch 6-7 years ago and how adamant I was about using it? Now you know why.

Many of you following this thread probably don't know Ty or his car "Freedom Bird" since he averaging less than a post per year. However he's been a hardcore Firebird guy a long time. His car was documented in one of those epic build threads and then it went to the big SEMA show, PRI, TV shows etc.   I built a carbon fiber dash for it then went to the shop it was at up in GA and spent a week helping assemble it for the SEMA show back in 09. Here's the car.

John Paige
Lab-14.com

Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #134 on: October 20, 2015, 08:51:36 PM »

jonathonar89

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1907
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #135 on: October 20, 2015, 10:53:00 PM »
I was thinking rear adjustable spoiler mounted under the gas tank/bumper area would be great on these cars.  If someone was to really get serious, they could make it work off the brake system as an aid.  McLaren supercars also have self-adjusting spoiler based on brake input.  Another thing to note is that when drag race cars start getting loose at high speed, the drivers throw the parachute to straighten the car out. 

One thing I notice on the 79-81 rear bumper is that it's an identical match for the grill section in the front but not cut out.  In the future I would like to try and cut the rear bumper cover, insert the covers and the build an exhaust exit or use the low pressure area for something.

On my car I switched to a VFN cowl hood.  I liked my Trans Am shaker scoop but the open back would pull in rain when I was daily driving and I didn't care for that too much.  The main issue I will have now is that the cowl hood does block vision.  This may be an issue for track visibility like you were having with the shaker. 

I know you're trying to keep the factory look.  I am too but my car will be more about how I think they should've been built from a styling point....function will follow.  This is why I think foilers are great.

A spoiler that extends downward under the car? A couple 12 V linear actuators could probably be used to move the spoiler.

I am trying somewhat to keep the factory appearance on this car. Probably a good thing since if I got really carried away I'd probably be to old and frail to drive the darn thing once done.  Is your cowl hood sealed to the cowl? Are you running a carb pan sealed to the hood?

I'm going to have to examine the rear bumper area on the 79's to see what you're considering for the exhaust or something. Might work well as the top section of a double diffuser.



No cowl section seal or box setup for the air cleaner on mine yet.  Right now I'm working on an efi conversion that also turned into a rear end rebuild and suspension out back.  It's been getting expensive for my budget to say the least but I'm making moves.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2015, 12:13:11 PM by jonathonar89 »

mrbandit

  • Jedi Council
  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9146
  • TAC Webmaster
      • http://www.transamcountry.com
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #136 on: October 21, 2015, 06:51:33 AM »
The freedom bird was an awesome build.  A lot of a good products came to life during that build. 

OLDFLM

  • Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • 71 Firebird - First Car (1985)
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #137 on: October 21, 2015, 07:21:58 AM »
Thanks Bandit!  Yes, there are a lot of prototype parts on my car that enabled the manufacturers to get new products to market... AutoRad, Marquez Design, Anvil, Fesler, ACC, American Autowire, BMR...  especially for the 70-73s where there just wasn't much available at the time.  It was a fun experience... wasn't it John!   :roll: 

Yes, I'm a lurker.  I don't post much on the boards I frequent as I don't want to come across the wrong way... my car and I have already had our "15 minutes" and I just want to enjoy the hobby and my car, and learn what I can from great threads like this one! 

With that said, John, if you need any pics or need another guinea pig just lmk my friend!
71 Firebird - First Car (1985)

1981RoadRace

  • Active Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #138 on: December 04, 2015, 04:12:17 PM »
I'm going to watch this thread with great interest. I already have the splitter on my car and now looking at other aerodynamic changes, for pretty much the same reason. This thread is good reading so far. Has anyone taken a look at Ron Sutton's threads?
Karl R. - Editor, Silver Blade Magazine
2008 Grand Prix GXP | 1981 Trans Am WS6 - LS3, T56 + other bits of gearhead joy.


NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #139 on: December 04, 2015, 06:27:29 PM »
I'm going to watch this thread with great interest. I already have the splitter on my car and now looking at other aerodynamic changes, for pretty much the same reason. This thread is good reading so far. Has anyone taken a look at Ron Sutton's threads?

I participated in Ron's aero thread over on PT but once his business started to take off and he started his seminar tour and book promotions he pretty much stopped replying to his technical threads.

I'm guilty of not keeping this thread alive myself the past month or so. Been spending a lot of my time studying under body aerodynamic designs of road cars like the McLaren F-1, P1 Ferraris, and race cars like the Group C cars of the late 80's early 90's as well as IMSA, DTM, F1,  etc. while working on designs for the bottom of my car.

Do you have any good pics of your splitter set up you can share? There's a lot more folks with the later 2nd gen cars and I'm sure they'd be interested to see what you've done and hear how it's worked for you.
John Paige
Lab-14.com

1981RoadRace

  • Active Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #140 on: December 04, 2015, 11:37:08 PM »
Hopefully these pics will work. Keep in mind this splitter was the result of a compromise. I'd been following Ron's aero threads and believed the splitter needed to reach out at least as far forward as the leading edge of the bumper to be most effective. A friend (who also drives the car on track days and has a decade + of experience) disagreed, and preferred the shorter reach. Same guy also argues for a more distinct rake (higher rear suspension) to INCREASE the rear to front weight transfer under heavy braking. Doesn't matter how many modern cars I point out that have relatively flat suspensions.

*sigh* Ever argue with a stubborn lawyer? Not worth the heartburn to prove one way or the other, so I let it rest.

The raw material (plywood) didn't cost that much anyway, and I can always make another splitter. For what it's worth, there are three grades of pine-based 1/2" plywood at Menards. The most expensive has 7 layers and is noticeably more rigid and lighter than the other two. It cost me $30 bucks for a 4x8' sheet. The mounting hardware came from Tractor Supply. It was another $15. My front bumper cover is fiberglass and it's lower edge is mounted to an aluminum front bumper made from a 2x2x1/4" L-shaped extrusion. The upper ends of the turnbuckles are mounted to the same bumper.

Feel welcome to critique and offer suggestions for improvement.







« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 11:43:18 PM by 1981RoadRace »
Karl R. - Editor, Silver Blade Magazine
2008 Grand Prix GXP | 1981 Trans Am WS6 - LS3, T56 + other bits of gearhead joy.


NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #141 on: December 06, 2015, 10:28:35 AM »
I have argued with lawyers! ahahaha

Everything we do to these cars is a compromise of some sort. however, even if we were designing a completely new car we'd still have to make compromises. Now that your bud has tried his way I'd suggest making a longer splitter that extends to the leading edge of the bumper like you wanted and test.

I'll make a couple drawings about the later noses and comment on the rake and splitter length when I've got more time in the next day or two to write a longer post.

John Paige
Lab-14.com

1981RoadRace

  • Active Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #142 on: December 10, 2015, 02:22:36 PM »
just did a complete read of the thread and came away some ideas to help my car out. For starters, I will be blocking off the open area under the bumper cover and above the front air dam. Big gaping hole there, allowing pressurized air in, exaggerated by the presence of the splitter. Next thing will be rubber sheets to fill in the wheel opening around the upper control arms. My car didn't have those when I got it, and it didn't occur to me they actually had a function beyond keeping splashed water out.

One thing I do have to offset the enormous underhood pressure is the seal and most of the rim for my shaker has been trimmed away. This was to make the original LS1 fit with a carb, but with the LS3 and EFI, I now have an adjustable air gap on the leading edge. I can go from roughly 2" of space, to "closed" if I set up the right adjustable rig.
Karl R. - Editor, Silver Blade Magazine
2008 Grand Prix GXP | 1981 Trans Am WS6 - LS3, T56 + other bits of gearhead joy.


NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #143 on: December 11, 2015, 11:11:48 AM »
just did a complete read of the thread and came away some ideas to help my car out. For starters, I will be blocking off the open area under the bumper cover and above the front air dam. Big gaping hole there, allowing pressurized air in, exaggerated by the presence of the splitter. Next thing will be rubber sheets to fill in the wheel opening around the upper control arms. My car didn't have those when I got it, and it didn't occur to me they actually had a function beyond keeping splashed water out.

One thing I do have to offset the enormous underhood pressure is the seal and most of the rim for my shaker has been trimmed away. This was to make the original LS1 fit with a carb, but with the LS3 and EFI, I now have an adjustable air gap on the leading edge. I can go from roughly 2" of space, to "closed" if I set up the right adjustable rig.

The late 2nd gens were designed as bottom feeders.The opening under the extended nose section feeds the radiator using the high pressure air under the extended nose in front of the air dam. Unless you make an extended air dam that starts at the leading edge of the bumper you might be better off blocking the openings in the front of the bumper and the grills for smoother airflow. I would test it both ways but I have a feeling you'll find that blocking the lower opening may cause overheating issues under certain conditions unless the regular grills are removed or something else is done to increase the available flow to the radiator.

Your adjustable opening probably won't help reduce underhood pressure due to the increased pressure in front of the shaker (unless underhood pressure is high). In fact air may go in rather than out. I'd like to see some tuft testing on that at highway speeds. I've been going to delve into the subject of the shakers in this thread discussing under/over hood pressures, but haven't gotten into it yet.

I did draw up a few sketches using the later 2nd gen nose style concerning what I think are likely 2 dimensional flow patterns. Keep in mind that the addition of splitters and air dams will also cause more air to flow to the sides of the car as well.

A.  The stock vehicle. I set the stagnation point at the mid point of the leading edge of the bumper although I believe it's likely to actually be even a little higher. A lot of air passes below the bumper creating a high pressure area (used for radiator cooling) and causing lift. Because this area is in ground effect simply putting lowering springs on the car will reduce the flow under the car helping to reduce lift and as an added bonus lowers the center of gravity.

B. The short splitter on stock air dam (1981roadrace current). I believe this will lower the stagnation point a little as shown due to lowering the bottom surface the 1/2" thickness of the splitter thus increasing the depth of the air dam function by 1/2" combined with the increased resistance to flow under the car by having the splitter extended forward of the air dam. So more air goes over car and more air is directed to the sides of the car reducing the volume of air passing under the car. This should reduce lift to some degree and slightly reduce turbulence (drag) under the car, particularly directly under the splitter. Because the splitter is still under the nose of the car I doubt there would be much of a lift reduction or any increase in down force from the high pressure above the splitter as that pressure is also acting to push up under the nose cancelling the effect to a degree. Potentially a high pressure area is formed above the splitter where it extends past the wheel flares into the wheel well which is caused by the rotation of the tires.

C. Extended splitter to beyond leading edge of bumper and attached to bottom of stock air dam. Significantly lower stagnation point is just above splitter causing a lot more air to go over the car which would greatly reduce lift. The high pressure area on top of the splitter is still there however there is a high pressure area forward of the bumper where there is pressure pushing down. There is a further reduction in the volume of air going under the splitter reducing lift because the air can speed through instead of slowing down.

D. Extended depth air dam from leading edge of bumper with extended splitter. By increasing the depth of the air dam a lot more air is prevented from going under the car. Downforce is created on the top of the exposed area above the splitter forward of the air dam. With the dam brought forward to the leading edge of the bumper flow over the car is smoothed and low pressure is created under the splitter area. The bottom feed of the radiator would be closed off so the grills or other openings in the bumper might have to be modified.





Your buddy who recommended increasing the rake of the car might be on to something. Does the car sit level or has some rake?

When these cars were new they had a nose up attitude. Something about the marketing guys thinking the cars should look like they were taking off while sitting still or something like that. In any case, the stock nose up attitude makes the front end lift at high speeds. Level is better, and a rake (not 70's air shock style) with the rear up a bit makes the car more stable (moves center of pressure toward rear) and reduces lift at higher speeds thereby increasing the "weight" on the tires which allows more braking before skidding. Raising the rear of the car only changes the static front/rear weight distribution a very small amount and wiould have very little effect on braking at low speeds however as speed increases the rake can have a noticeable effect on many cars.


« Last Edit: December 11, 2015, 07:18:15 PM by NOT A TA »
John Paige
Lab-14.com

1981RoadRace

  • Active Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #144 on: December 11, 2015, 01:17:14 PM »
The late 2nd gens were designed as bottom feeders.

So why do late 4th gen Camaros look like catfish then?  :-P

Very informative and helpful, I can't thank you enough for illustrating this. The car does have a slight rake, with the rear suspension on Hypercoil composite leafs with a 4.5" arch. It appears to be close to stock ride height. The front suspension is on adjustable coilovers:



Does the idea of relieving underhood pressure via venting at the leading edge of the shaker have any merit?
Karl R. - Editor, Silver Blade Magazine
2008 Grand Prix GXP | 1981 Trans Am WS6 - LS3, T56 + other bits of gearhead joy.


NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #145 on: December 11, 2015, 07:09:15 PM »

So why do late 4th gen Camaros look like catfish then?  :-P

Pontiac had already hired all the good stylists? ahahaha .... They're bottom feeders so the grill is for looks? Some of the guys who race them change them to front breathers to get more down force on splitters. Lots of cars now only have grills for appearance. Especially since they started making the front ends blunt for hitting pedestrians. Otherwise there'd just be a big rounded nose on the cars. There are some with active louvers also to aid aero for mileage.

Does the idea of relieving underhood pressure via venting at the leading edge of the shaker have any merit?

I don't think it would improve anything much but you could tuft test on the highway.
John Paige
Lab-14.com

skisix38off

  • Active Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 728
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #146 on: December 17, 2015, 08:10:00 AM »
I'm going to watch this thread with great interest. I already have the splitter on my car and now looking at other aerodynamic changes, for pretty much the same reason. This thread is good reading so far. Has anyone taken a look at Ron Sutton's threads?

I participated in Ron's aero thread over on PT but once his business started to take off and he started his seminar tour and book promotions he pretty much stopped replying to his technical threads.



I was lucky enough to go to the Texas stop on Ron's tour and have read a lot of his threads on aero.  He has obviously been doing this for a long time and has forgotten more than most of us will learn.  I learned a lot during his seminar and have a different perspective on aero and handling than I did going into the seminar.  Ron is an all out guy though and is willing to sacrifice a lot of street car in favor of racing.  It was apparent to me during the seminar that that view point is not widely shared.  I think a lot of us have street cars that we strive to make faster but, they are street cars.  RoadRace - I get the sense you only race your TA so he's got a lot of stuff for you and you might benefit from his book.

Has anyone ever considered putting vents in their hood to allow all the air that goes through the radiator to continue leaving over the top of the car?  I'm thinking of something similar to Mike Dusold's Camaro ( Dusold Design's).

cal30_sniper

  • Active Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 536
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #147 on: December 17, 2015, 09:55:25 AM »
I participated in Ron's aero thread over on PT but once his business started to take off and he started his seminar tour and book promotions he pretty much stopped replying to his technical threads.

Has anyone ever considered putting vents in their hood to allow all the air that goes through the radiator to continue leaving over the top of the car?  I'm thinking of something similar to Mike Dusold's Camaro ( Dusold Design's).

The vents on that car are far enough forward that they might actually work. Anything further back, and you start getting into a higher pressure area that wouldn't be effective at relieving that pressure under the hood. Problem I see, is that between accessory belt routing and the radiator/core support, space is at a premium that far forward on the hood. The early 2nd Gen hood isn't nearly as flat as a 1st Gen or late 2nd Gen, so that would be a problem on the early cars as well.

Of course, the 3rdGen T/As used something similar to this, albeit spaced more towards the rear side of the hood, I would guess in an attempt to get them into cleaner air. Kind of a weird middle ground between the 2nd Gen fender extractors and the hood vents on that Dusold Camaro.
'73 Formula 350
'88 Trans Am GTA L98
'86 Suburban C20 454/NV4500

Formula build thread: http://transamcountry.com/community/index.php?topic=75375.msg705571#msg705571

NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #148 on: December 17, 2015, 11:01:11 AM »
Sniper, excellent that you got to one of Rons seminars! I'd like to attend one if he ever comes this way. We've been in touch regularly and I've purchased a bunch of stuff from his company. He did the brake calculations for my car for me recently so I'd get the pedal arm ratio, twin master piston bore sizes, etc. correct.  I'm not a math wiz.

In the pics I've seen of the Dusold Camaro there is no duct work from the radiator to the hood openings so there's certainly no way "all" the air that flows through the radiator exits through the hood. What is seen, are twin turbos directly under the openings with lots of heat wrap on the turbo tubes which were there before the hood was opened up. The hood openings may have been done in an effort to lower under hood temps, although increased grip by reducing under hood pressure may be occurring as an unintended benefit. I did see he used Gurney flaps at the leading edge of the openings to help draw air out.

The over/under hood pressure on the 2nd gens is different for most of us with modified cars because of the various front end designs and individual changes we've made to our cars. While hood vents of some type may be good on one car the same vent in the same location might be neutral or have a negative effect on another. I've been writing a post on 2nd gen bird under/over hood pressure (complicated subject) and it's relevance to hood scoops, vents, etc. and the effects of such devices on lift and drag. I will probably have a race car aerodynamicist review it before posting.
John Paige
Lab-14.com

skisix38off

  • Active Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 728
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #149 on: December 17, 2015, 04:01:29 PM »

In the pics I've seen of the Dusold Camaro there is no duct work from the radiator to the hood openings so there's certainly no way "all" the air that flows through the radiator exits through the hood. What is seen, are twin turbos directly under the openings with lots of heat wrap on the turbo tubes which were there before the hood was opened up. The hood openings may have been done in an effort to lower under hood temps, although increased grip by reducing under hood pressure may be occurring as an unintended benefit. I did see he used Gurney flaps at the leading edge of the openings to help draw air out.



From what you describe, those pictures are from Mike's car as it was last year.  The front air dam channels air through the radiator and then out through the hood vents.  I spend some time around this car.  Also, the turbo's are located right in front of the doors now. 

Now, I'm not saying we can do this- Mike's car is a tube frame car now with one piece front end.


NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #150 on: December 17, 2015, 05:35:17 PM »

From what you describe, those pictures are from Mike's car as it was last year.  The front air dam channels air through the radiator and then out through the hood vents.  I spend some time around this car.  Also, the turbo's are located right in front of the doors now. 

Now, I'm not saying we can do this- Mike's car is a tube frame car now with one piece front end.

Ya, I'm remembering how it was before then. Is there duct work from the radiator to the vents now? Can you get pics? ask him how it's working out?

I've seen cars where the radiator is tipped and a sealed duct is between the fan and hood opening. I'd think the late 2nd gen bottom feeder cars would be the easiest to do that to. However I don't know whether or not it would have an advantage or disadvantage with cooling, under hood pressure, or drag. and that might depend on the particular car.

Here's one of the nicest looking 2nd gen hood vents I've seen. Dunno if they work or anything else about them.

John Paige
Lab-14.com

NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #151 on: January 07, 2016, 11:02:04 AM »
Willem Toet is a well known F-1 race car and aerodynamics specialist. During the past few months he's been sharing some of his knowledge. Although he could write and speak in terms the average car guy would get lost trying to follow he presents information in terms the average person can understand. I recommend this piece he published yesterday on air ducts for intakes and radiator cooling, particularly for the guys with the later 2nd gens who might be blocking off the bottom feeder and adding a splitter. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/air-ducts-down-earth-guide-motorsport-applications-willem-toet

You'll find a listing of the motorsport pieces he's written recently which include a number of aerodynamic articles here. https://www.linkedin.com/today/author/187006218
John Paige
Lab-14.com

NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #152 on: February 02, 2016, 10:58:47 PM »
I kept tabs on the Daytona 24 hour race this past weekend because I expected it to be very good which it was. There were a lot of changes to rules affecting aerodynamics in several classes which I wanted to keep tabs on. The Corvette camp really did a great job taking 6 of the top 8 spots overall in a race that included more manufacturers than any other road race will this year. Ferrari, Porsche, Ford, Dodge, Lamborghini, Mazda, Nissan, Honda, BMW, Aston Martin, and Audi all sent their best and the GM boys took almost all the top spots.

The aero changes for the Corvettes can be seen here. http://www.hotrod.com/features/1601-body-aero-secrets-of-the-2016-corvette-racing-c7-r/

Even if you don't watch road racing normally the last 12 minutes of this years 24 hour race at Daytona race is worth watching. You wouldn't think the race would be this >< close after 24 hours!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW_wOb5Aco8
John Paige
Lab-14.com

tazzz2

  • Active Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 105
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #153 on: February 04, 2016, 10:43:30 PM »
John you've done a Hell of a job here, I take my hat off to you.

This subject is something I have been digging deeper and deeper into and is always evolving as it relates to our cars... The weight split on a typical 70 Firebird from the factory was 63% front 37% rear (as established by the 70 Formula Cochise prior to working on the car)... When completed that car weighed in with a split of 51% front and 49% rear. Following the above example it could be reasonably said that Amy's car is roughly neutrally balanced (more or less) and placing the TA spoilers and split on the car does create further down force. At the time of the sale we were just scratching the surface of Areo as it relates to our cars and my focus was to continue the process of building molds for the various parts on these cars. BTW we just finished the complete roof inner and outer in Carbon, shameless plug gang ;-)

The biggest thing I have personally taken from lengthy conversations with likes of Ron Sutton and others specifically in the Fluid Dynamics arena is that no one shoe fits all. Air flow will of course move over surfaces as a constant and have noted effects. This said we should learn as much as possible and be very careful not to generalize. Adding considerable weight to a car in any one area can cause you to reflect on solutions and balances possibly...

I noted the references to the hood vents and have also looked closely at them (along with discussed them extensively with others much smarter than I)... In some cases these are required for heat dissipation,  and in the case of our cars I have been advised that they can generally serve to interrupt the airflow surface tension and somewhat minimize the high pressure area at the base of the windshield.

Given my lack of education in this specific area I'm forced to read as much as possible, and learn as best as I can.  I appreciate when we all get together and discuss these influences and speak with professionals too... To that end I have reached out to a graduate from the University of Toronto that studied fluid Dynamics and he has expressed an interest in playing with a few concepts I have whipped up in my crazy own little way... One of the ideas I have is a completely redesigned rad support for our cars. You see the shape of the nose and the air flow behind the nose of an early second gen is lacking to say the least.. If one were to manage or channel or direct the air and then utilize an active shutter/louver system to control air volume under the hood, that air pressure at could be greatly mitigated at speed and otherwise opened up when appropriate. 

This would also be further enhanced by possible extending the spliter back under the car in the form of a motor forward belly pan. This extend surface experiment was done on a buddies second gen causing him to radically increase his rear spoiler height/design as the car became so nose heavy that he removed it at an event until he could address the rear of the car.

Anyways I'm babbling on here, but will come by and check back on the thread when I can from time to time.. Hopefully I can share info in the future that I've personally learned, and continue to learn here as well... Congrats to all involved in participating here and pushing the Areo improvements for these early cars....   
1970 TA #s white and saddle
1970 Formula 400 (455 & 600 TKO)
1970 #s  Auto Formula
1973 #'s Auto TA
1973 #s  Manual TA
1972 RS Camaro pro touring
70 Camaro RS Z clone with 383 & 700R4
68 Cadillac Eldorado
95 S10 SS
2001 Saleen 281

NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #154 on: August 20, 2016, 09:47:18 PM »
John you've done a Hell of a job here, I take my hat off to you.

This subject is something I have been digging deeper and deeper into and is always evolving as it relates to our cars... The weight split on a typical 70 Firebird from the factory was 63% front 37% rear (as established by the 70 Formula Cochise prior to working on the car)... When completed that car weighed in with a split of 51% front and 49% rear. Following the above example it could be reasonably said that Amy's car is roughly neutrally balanced (more or less) and placing the TA spoilers and split on the car does create further down force. At the time of the sale we were just scratching the surface of Areo as it relates to our cars and my focus was to continue the process of building molds for the various parts on these cars. BTW we just finished the complete roof inner and outer in Carbon, shameless plug gang ;-)

The biggest thing I have personally taken from lengthy conversations with likes of Ron Sutton and others specifically in the Fluid Dynamics arena is that no one shoe fits all. Air flow will of course move over surfaces as a constant and have noted effects. This said we should learn as much as possible and be very careful not to generalize. Adding considerable weight to a car in any one area can cause you to reflect on solutions and balances possibly...

I noted the references to the hood vents and have also looked closely at them (along with discussed them extensively with others much smarter than I)... In some cases these are required for heat dissipation,  and in the case of our cars I have been advised that they can generally serve to interrupt the airflow surface tension and somewhat minimize the high pressure area at the base of the windshield.

Given my lack of education in this specific area I'm forced to read as much as possible, and learn as best as I can.  I appreciate when we all get together and discuss these influences and speak with professionals too... To that end I have reached out to a graduate from the University of Toronto that studied fluid Dynamics and he has expressed an interest in playing with a few concepts I have whipped up in my crazy own little way... One of the ideas I have is a completely redesigned rad support for our cars. You see the shape of the nose and the air flow behind the nose of an early second gen is lacking to say the least.. If one were to manage or channel or direct the air and then utilize an active shutter/louver system to control air volume under the hood, that air pressure at could be greatly mitigated at speed and otherwise opened up when appropriate. 

This would also be further enhanced by possible extending the spliter back under the car in the form of a motor forward belly pan. This extend surface experiment was done on a buddies second gen causing him to radically increase his rear spoiler height/design as the car became so nose heavy that he removed it at an event until he could address the rear of the car.

Anyways I'm babbling on here, but will come by and check back on the thread when I can from time to time.. Hopefully I can share info in the future that I've personally learned, and continue to learn here as well... Congrats to all involved in participating here and pushing the Areo improvements for these early cars....

Albert, thanks for joining in! I'd be really interested to see what you come up with for a laid back radiator support. Complete inner and outer roof? This I gotta see!

I finally had the opportunity to do some real world tuft testing this weekend. I have a 70 TA that was shipped down to me to have some suspension, steering, and other work done. Before shipping it back, the owner wanted me to drive it around and put a hundred or two miles on it. He's an engineer in the fluids business so he's interested in my aero work and was kind enough to let me use his TA as a test mule. So I broke out the big ball of yarn and a roll of auto masking tape and set about covering the areas of the car I'm most interested in.

This car is almost just like mine as far as the body goes and has now been lowered to the same ride height. the tire wheel combination is very close to the same width and diameter as mine. So this gives me a great car to do baseline testing on.

I took the car up on the highway where our posted speeds are 65 MPH and ran the car between 60-70 in the slow lane, ya traffic moves right along here!

I used a Samsung 360 degree 3D virtual reality camera my bud Jeff operated for these two short you tube videos. If you have a fancy phone you can probably move the phone right/left to swing the view 360 while watching and may be able to move up/down. If you have other mobile devices like tablets/notebooks you may be able to scroll right/left for 360 viewing. If you have a 3D headset that's Oculus compatible you should be able to view in 360 3D VR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KQA9BzpN50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6pxo5eh7Zw

Now,  once I have the video's uploaded to youtube I can play them back through the computer and through the projector to the big screen where I can see details better. Just walk up to the screen and I can watch each individual yarn tuft if I want. Tomorrow I'm supposed to have another bud join in the fun so I can get pics and video taken from another car allowing my to get shots with the car in clean air where the camera etc. don't disturb the airflow. Hopefully I'll have some nice video tomorrow to review and then discuss.






John Paige
Lab-14.com

Casey

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6629
  • Peace is but a shadow of death.
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #155 on: August 20, 2016, 11:14:02 PM »
I can't remember if it's been mentioned yet, but since the '77-81 are bottom feeders wouldn't headlight covers and blocking off the bottom cutouts help?  Was just thinking about it looking at them, and then my '96 where there's not the first opening on the front end.

NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #156 on: August 21, 2016, 06:39:24 PM »
I can't remember if it's been mentioned yet, but since the '77-81 are bottom feeders wouldn't headlight covers and blocking off the bottom cutouts help?  Was just thinking about it looking at them, and then my '96 where there's not the first opening on the front end.

Headlight covers work. What bottom part are you thinking about blocking off on 77-81's? 

Unfortunately my plan f getting more extensive video today didn't work out due to scheduling for ongonna try for tomorrow. I've got half the car dressed out in yarn tufts so it looks like some kind wannabe Chia car. So, it's ready whenever the planets align and we can get back out on the highway for more testing.



John Paige
Lab-14.com

Casey

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6629
  • Peace is but a shadow of death.
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #157 on: August 21, 2016, 08:19:39 PM »
The cutouts where the turn signals are.

Shame couldn't get more testing done, I have to say I really like the paint on the car though.

hakitup

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1070
  • What more do you need?
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #158 on: August 21, 2016, 08:57:58 PM »
Great stuff, I enjoy what your doing it's great to see what the air is doing.


Tom H
"I don't know what you call it, I only know the sound it makes when it lies!!"

NOT A TA

  • Oracle Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3209
Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #159 on: August 22, 2016, 10:06:18 PM »
Great stuff, I enjoy what your doing it's great to see what the air is doing.


Tom H

Thanks Tom!

We hit the highway this evening for another round of video and picture taking. Here's a few still shots for you guys to ponder and comment on.  Hopefully I'll have video to review tomorrow.







John Paige
Lab-14.com

Re: 2nd gen TA aerodynamics and modifications
« Reply #159 on: August 22, 2016, 10:06:18 PM »
You can help support TAC!