| Hazdaz | 02-20-2002 07:37 PM |
Whats the big deal about CF?
Seriously... I can't even try to comprehend why somepeople are paying like 4 times the price for certain parts just cuz they are made of Carbon Fiber (or should I say "Carbon Fiber" - since many parts just LOOK like CF, but are really just plain `ol plastic)?
I mean, yeah it looks kinda cool - in limited amounts - but thats about it. I have even seen a site that had like a CF scoop, and was actually braggin that CF is like 10 times stronger than AL (lb for lb). UMM, last time I checked, but I have never planned on standing on my hood scoop. And ofcourse then theres the "its lighter" than AL or ST, but come on, were talking about OZs here, not tons, and on top of that, NO wing is always lighter than even the lightest CF wing.
I will admit, I like the look of brushed AL and other metals inside a car (ANYTHINGS better than wood - yuck), BUT I would never pay like 4 times the price for something just cuz it looks like woven fabric or thats shiny silver.
I remeber back in the day when cars had all this nasty fake plastic chrome trim all over the place (around the windows/bumbers/grill/lights/etc). It took YEARS for that craze to finally die, now it looks like CF is here to take its place. A little bit of shiny chrome looks cool in certain stops... same with CF, but damn does it look like we are going overload here.
I mean, yeah it looks kinda cool - in limited amounts - but thats about it. I have even seen a site that had like a CF scoop, and was actually braggin that CF is like 10 times stronger than AL (lb for lb). UMM, last time I checked, but I have never planned on standing on my hood scoop. And ofcourse then theres the "its lighter" than AL or ST, but come on, were talking about OZs here, not tons, and on top of that, NO wing is always lighter than even the lightest CF wing.
I will admit, I like the look of brushed AL and other metals inside a car (ANYTHINGS better than wood - yuck), BUT I would never pay like 4 times the price for something just cuz it looks like woven fabric or thats shiny silver.
I remeber back in the day when cars had all this nasty fake plastic chrome trim all over the place (around the windows/bumbers/grill/lights/etc). It took YEARS for that craze to finally die, now it looks like CF is here to take its place. A little bit of shiny chrome looks cool in certain stops... same with CF, but damn does it look like we are going overload here.
| b_tapper | 02-20-2002 07:40 PM |
cf isn't much more than aluminum
a stock wrx hood costs more than a cf hood does
cf is stronger and lighter and looks better
a stock wrx hood costs more than a cf hood does
cf is stronger and lighter and looks better
| Hazdaz | 02-20-2002 07:45 PM |
CF is not much more than AL?
Um on WHAT parts? ON some wings I was browsin through, just cuz it said CF, it was like a good 25-50+% more.
On a Hood, thats one of the FEW "functional" parts that could gain by being CF (cuz of the lighter weight). But have you seen some of the parts that some of these vendors are trying to push just cuz they say CF?
Um on WHAT parts? ON some wings I was browsin through, just cuz it said CF, it was like a good 25-50+% more.
On a Hood, thats one of the FEW "functional" parts that could gain by being CF (cuz of the lighter weight). But have you seen some of the parts that some of these vendors are trying to push just cuz they say CF?
| MrWRX2 | 02-20-2002 08:01 PM |
Drool....[img]http://a3.cpimg.com/image/BD/81/8686013-14ff-02000147-.jpg[/img]
| Spooled | 02-20-2002 08:04 PM |
Carbon fiber engine parts (the few that there are-intakes for example), have the ability to cool faster than the normal parts. And plus, if you think that the carbon fiber wings cost a lot cuz they' CF, you're most def. wrong. They cost a lot more because they've been extensively track tested, etc. to ensure proper fuctionality for the applications they will be used on. Wings are not always there just for looks, but for performance and you whould keep that in mind because the good ones are expensive because of their reputation for good quality parts that function properly. Just my 2 cents...
| b_tapper | 02-20-2002 08:08 PM |
there's a big difference in say a cheap universal aluminum gt wing and the cf cusco gt wing
brian
brian
| spd wgn | 02-20-2002 08:23 PM |
last time I checked "wings" had no appreciable aerodynamic effect until at least 100 mph, maybe 120mph minimum give or take.....
cf is asethetic taste....hard to justify on any other grounds
personally I can't see adding weight of any sort unless there's actual performance gain..course wings make a good clothesline for drying stuff at the beach:)
cf is asethetic taste....hard to justify on any other grounds
personally I can't see adding weight of any sort unless there's actual performance gain..course wings make a good clothesline for drying stuff at the beach:)
| b_tapper | 02-20-2002 08:32 PM |
explain why wrc cars have wings and rarely go over 120mph then
| spd wgn | 02-20-2002 08:56 PM |
ah...my assumption is that most wrxs ( read most....I 'm very much aware than some) other than wrc cars will not be airborne most of the time, nor will they spend a lot of time over 100 mph...
for the predominance of drivers wings are primarily cosmetic and personal taste..nothing wrong with than but just remember we're talking weight...so if you're concerned with 0 - 100 a wing will probably be more of a hindrance (added lbs) than a help.
If you're already at a 100 a wing might help keep some road contact if you intend to maintain at least that speed.
for the predominance of drivers wings are primarily cosmetic and personal taste..nothing wrong with than but just remember we're talking weight...so if you're concerned with 0 - 100 a wing will probably be more of a hindrance (added lbs) than a help.
If you're already at a 100 a wing might help keep some road contact if you intend to maintain at least that speed.
| Hazdaz | 02-20-2002 09:05 PM |
Concerning the car in the pic... Cool lip and skirts - but if they are CF, then thats a total waste (thats the type of overload that I'm talking about, cuz they don't function any better if they are plastic or CF). I would prefer those 2 parts in a dark grey painted plastic.
A CF scoop goes for $250 in CF, a plastic or AL one is $170 - thats a nearly 50% upcharge for a part that gets NO advantages for being CF (unless the visual is good enough for you). Mirrors (Ganador) in CF $550, in plastic $410 (1/3 higher in CF). I WILL find more - trying to find my old SCC mags.
On the functionality of wings, that has nothing to do if they are made of CF or AL or plastic. Its the aeridynanic shape that determines if its just for looks for actually does seomthing - and really unless you race (as in, on the track), even the 'functional' wings are just for show (unless traveling near triple-digit speeds all the time). Also, the weight of a wing is already so minimal, that CF would give no advantage there.
I have also read that CF parts tend to be poorly fitting (versus ST or AL parts) - which only makes sense cuz of the way they are made (i.e. not machined). I do not know if that is true or not.
I also do not know if it is true that you mentioned about the use of CF in intakes cuz it cools faster. THat one I have seriously never heard of before. I plan on doing a search and tryin to find the thermal characteristics of CF versus AL (espesially since AL is a material KNOWN to cool very quickly). Ofcourse if this is in an engine bay, HOW is it going to cool off? After all, its surrounded by heat.
A CF scoop goes for $250 in CF, a plastic or AL one is $170 - thats a nearly 50% upcharge for a part that gets NO advantages for being CF (unless the visual is good enough for you). Mirrors (Ganador) in CF $550, in plastic $410 (1/3 higher in CF). I WILL find more - trying to find my old SCC mags.
On the functionality of wings, that has nothing to do if they are made of CF or AL or plastic. Its the aeridynanic shape that determines if its just for looks for actually does seomthing - and really unless you race (as in, on the track), even the 'functional' wings are just for show (unless traveling near triple-digit speeds all the time). Also, the weight of a wing is already so minimal, that CF would give no advantage there.
I have also read that CF parts tend to be poorly fitting (versus ST or AL parts) - which only makes sense cuz of the way they are made (i.e. not machined). I do not know if that is true or not.
I also do not know if it is true that you mentioned about the use of CF in intakes cuz it cools faster. THat one I have seriously never heard of before. I plan on doing a search and tryin to find the thermal characteristics of CF versus AL (espesially since AL is a material KNOWN to cool very quickly). Ofcourse if this is in an engine bay, HOW is it going to cool off? After all, its surrounded by heat.
| hotrod | 02-20-2002 09:37 PM |
good ideas and fads
Good structural concepts seem to always go through the fad stage.
I agree that most parts sold as CF out perform more conventional structures in only one area, -- cost.
What is really funny, is that carbon fibers advantage is not its strength. S type firber glass is for all practical purposes as strong as carbon fiber. Where carbon fiber excels is in its stiffness, and its ability to dampen vibration.
If you are building a $250,000 WRC or spending several million on a F1 car the minor weight savings is probably justified for nonstructural items, as every ounce counts.
For things like golf club shafts, tennis rackets, and stress skin race car tubs it is clearly the best material to choose.
For cosmetic items -- unless your inlove with the look, and are willing to pay a premium for it, it has no performance value.
Of course this presumes that people understand why they are adding things to their car, which is seldom the case.
Larry
I agree that most parts sold as CF out perform more conventional structures in only one area, -- cost.
What is really funny, is that carbon fibers advantage is not its strength. S type firber glass is for all practical purposes as strong as carbon fiber. Where carbon fiber excels is in its stiffness, and its ability to dampen vibration.
If you are building a $250,000 WRC or spending several million on a F1 car the minor weight savings is probably justified for nonstructural items, as every ounce counts.
For things like golf club shafts, tennis rackets, and stress skin race car tubs it is clearly the best material to choose.
For cosmetic items -- unless your inlove with the look, and are willing to pay a premium for it, it has no performance value.
Of course this presumes that people understand why they are adding things to their car, which is seldom the case.
Larry
| Hazdaz | 02-20-2002 09:45 PM |
LARRY,
Your totaly right... I just hope you guys don't get me wrong, in that if your into the LOOK, then cool... fine. Cuz the LOOK is pretty much the only advantage to it. And I don't even mind the look of it, just it gets sooo overkill on a few cars I've seen.
Your totaly right... I just hope you guys don't get me wrong, in that if your into the LOOK, then cool... fine. Cuz the LOOK is pretty much the only advantage to it. And I don't even mind the look of it, just it gets sooo overkill on a few cars I've seen.
| sherifx | 02-20-2002 09:53 PM |
here is my reply to this thread, my opinion so take it as you will:
[QUOTE]
Where carbon fiber excels is in its stiffness, and its ability to dampen vibration.
[/QUOTE]
This is exactly right, the weight savings has been totally hyped and for the most part is really a mute point, but the structural stiffness of CF is really the main advantage in my opinion, and with this fact I'll reply to the following:
[QUOTE]
UMM, last time I checked, but I have never planned on standing on my hood scoop.
[/QUOTE]
Right, in fact, nobody will (unless their retarded), but notice how the CF scoops have no braces inside the scoop? The scoop is stiff enough not to flex under high speed (55mph +) when large amounts of air is rushing in. This strength also applies to the hoods that were mentioned, my friend put on an STi scoop on his car and due to the larger amounts of air passing through it, it caused the hood to flex like mad so he had to get hood pins. If he had a CF hood, this wouldn't have occured.
[QUOTE]
last time I checked "wings" had no appreciable aerodynamic effect until at least 100 mph, maybe 120mph minimum give or take..... cf is asethetic taste....hard to justify on any other grounds
[/QUOTE]
You are not exactly right, most wings are useless, but for example the STi wing has been proven, when used in conjunction to the STi lip, to decrease the drag coefficient by 3% on the WRX. Now this wing is an example of one having an "appreciable aerodynamic effect," additionally the fact that its made of CF is probably not some gimick by STi to make more money. Do you think this strictly designed piece would do its job if it flexed as a urethane, fiberglass, or metal wing would? No, it wouldn't, CF has that advantage.
I agree, most CF parts are useless... but don't crap on all CF unless you understand the times in which it would in fact be a useful piece of equipment.
sherif
[QUOTE]
Where carbon fiber excels is in its stiffness, and its ability to dampen vibration.
[/QUOTE]
This is exactly right, the weight savings has been totally hyped and for the most part is really a mute point, but the structural stiffness of CF is really the main advantage in my opinion, and with this fact I'll reply to the following:
[QUOTE]
UMM, last time I checked, but I have never planned on standing on my hood scoop.
[/QUOTE]
Right, in fact, nobody will (unless their retarded), but notice how the CF scoops have no braces inside the scoop? The scoop is stiff enough not to flex under high speed (55mph +) when large amounts of air is rushing in. This strength also applies to the hoods that were mentioned, my friend put on an STi scoop on his car and due to the larger amounts of air passing through it, it caused the hood to flex like mad so he had to get hood pins. If he had a CF hood, this wouldn't have occured.
[QUOTE]
last time I checked "wings" had no appreciable aerodynamic effect until at least 100 mph, maybe 120mph minimum give or take..... cf is asethetic taste....hard to justify on any other grounds
[/QUOTE]
You are not exactly right, most wings are useless, but for example the STi wing has been proven, when used in conjunction to the STi lip, to decrease the drag coefficient by 3% on the WRX. Now this wing is an example of one having an "appreciable aerodynamic effect," additionally the fact that its made of CF is probably not some gimick by STi to make more money. Do you think this strictly designed piece would do its job if it flexed as a urethane, fiberglass, or metal wing would? No, it wouldn't, CF has that advantage.
I agree, most CF parts are useless... but don't crap on all CF unless you understand the times in which it would in fact be a useful piece of equipment.
sherif
| Burnout | 02-20-2002 10:09 PM |
MrWRX2: Do you know it those side skirts are CF and were could I get them.
Thanks.
If you cant tell Im one of those who like CF.
Thanks.
If you cant tell Im one of those who like CF.
| Hazdaz | 02-20-2002 10:10 PM |
Oh geez.. the "infamous" 3% reduction in drag again creeps up.
I wished I counted how many times I ahve read that "spec".
3% is probably REALLY close to statistical variation that is expected in an experiment like that. Hell, you could probablky get a larger change if you removed the stock wiperblades... or removed the Antenna or taped up the body seams. In other words, its really such a minimal amount as to be insignificant.
And concerning the shape of that wing.. I don't see anything that "special" about its shape that would make it only manufactuerable with CF. Some reinforced plastic could probably be just as strong (ok, maybe not AS strong, but for most forces/impacts good enough).
Concerning the scoop.. I have not seen them upclose and inperson, but if the CF and AL ones have the same dimensions, then yeah, your totaly right - the CF is better. But thats a typical problem that manufacturers make when they switch materials of similiar parts. The AL one should definitily be thicker along the top to make it stronger - or- made from aircraft-grade AL. Remember that just cuz out WRX's hood is AL, does NOT make all AL parts that flimsy, cuz DAMN thats thin.
I wished I counted how many times I ahve read that "spec".
3% is probably REALLY close to statistical variation that is expected in an experiment like that. Hell, you could probablky get a larger change if you removed the stock wiperblades... or removed the Antenna or taped up the body seams. In other words, its really such a minimal amount as to be insignificant.
And concerning the shape of that wing.. I don't see anything that "special" about its shape that would make it only manufactuerable with CF. Some reinforced plastic could probably be just as strong (ok, maybe not AS strong, but for most forces/impacts good enough).
Concerning the scoop.. I have not seen them upclose and inperson, but if the CF and AL ones have the same dimensions, then yeah, your totaly right - the CF is better. But thats a typical problem that manufacturers make when they switch materials of similiar parts. The AL one should definitily be thicker along the top to make it stronger - or- made from aircraft-grade AL. Remember that just cuz out WRX's hood is AL, does NOT make all AL parts that flimsy, cuz DAMN thats thin.
| RalleyeGuy | 02-20-2002 10:15 PM |
While CF is light and strong the cost is outrageous, besides the idea is really old. CF is the same as fibre glass, interwoven fibres in a thermoplastic, usually nylon, matrix. The only dif is that is the fibres are cf instead of glass. Kevlar and spectra are both comparable to cf but don't "look as cool." Also CF doesn't disapate heat quicker it just has a higher cp, specific heat, absorb it as quick, not that it is necessary on most of the parts it's used on. However CF rotors...
Anyway that's my $ .02
Anyway that's my $ .02
| Hazdaz | 02-20-2002 10:25 PM |
Wait a couple of years till Ceramic-based brake rotors become more widespread (which ARE supposed to be AWESOME)..
Unfortunately why do I get the fealing that we'll be seeing 'Ceramic rear spoilers' and 'ceramic interior trim peices' then?
Unfortunately why do I get the fealing that we'll be seeing 'Ceramic rear spoilers' and 'ceramic interior trim peices' then?
| MrWRX2 | 02-20-2002 11:21 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Burnout [/i]
[B]MrWRX2: Do you know it those side skirts are CF and were could I get them.
Thanks.
If you cant tell Im one of those who like CF. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well it's not my car but you can get those in JAPAN...........[url]www.takakaira.com[/url]
[img]http://a1.cpimg.com/image/4B/FA/8745291-9ee2-01DB015C-.jpg[/img]
[B]MrWRX2: Do you know it those side skirts are CF and were could I get them.
Thanks.
If you cant tell Im one of those who like CF. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well it's not my car but you can get those in JAPAN...........[url]www.takakaira.com[/url]
[img]http://a1.cpimg.com/image/4B/FA/8745291-9ee2-01DB015C-.jpg[/img]
| monkeytronZ | 02-21-2002 02:37 AM |
[IMG]http://www.digitalstoryteller.com/BTV99/_images/blah.gif[/IMG]
| Kostamojen | 02-21-2002 03:52 AM |
The truth is, is that carbon fiber [b]IS[/b] stronger than most construction materials pound for pound, however...
its the [b]WEAVE[/b] that counts!!! Nobody besides people who actually work with carbon fiber seem to know this :rolleyes:
So basically, all these $500 car parts made of CF are just crappy weaved CF that isnt that strong at all cause its made so poorly and innexpensivly.
A GOOD quality weave can do astounding things, like resist 3000+ degrees in temperature, be stronger than steel pound for pound, etc. etc. but that would mean your top-quality ultra-strength Carbon Fiber hood and ultra-heat-resistant Carbon Fibre intake would each cost more than the cost of the car itself.
I mean, there are reasons why the Mclaren F1 CF body costs so much and why it take 30mph hits with no damage...
its the [b]WEAVE[/b] that counts!!! Nobody besides people who actually work with carbon fiber seem to know this :rolleyes:
So basically, all these $500 car parts made of CF are just crappy weaved CF that isnt that strong at all cause its made so poorly and innexpensivly.
A GOOD quality weave can do astounding things, like resist 3000+ degrees in temperature, be stronger than steel pound for pound, etc. etc. but that would mean your top-quality ultra-strength Carbon Fiber hood and ultra-heat-resistant Carbon Fibre intake would each cost more than the cost of the car itself.
I mean, there are reasons why the Mclaren F1 CF body costs so much and why it take 30mph hits with no damage...
| wistful | 02-21-2002 04:38 AM |
umm.. i have a CF cupholder type-R mod, and it seems to hold my drink better.
Don
Don
| wrxmontao!! | 02-21-2002 02:37 PM |
..have you seen that CF keychain from STI:p..I think is like $30 or something like that....I guess it would be a good investment for a super who holds has lots of keys ..plus the saving on weight, compare to a noraml keychain.....:D
| Silver Sube 01 | 02-21-2002 03:16 PM |
O.K., I have to touch on this a little bit.
I'm in the NAVY, and carbon fiber is my job. I repair and manufacture F-14 and F/A-18 parts made of fiberglass and graphite (carbon fiber).
I went to school to learn the properties of structural materials, and learned quite a bit. Most of which has been touched here.
Carbon fiber is stronger than any other material pound for pound, as long as it's done right. I've looked at some CF hoods, and can tell that some people have been ripped off, and others have gotten what they paid for. I have seen some that are just one layer, and then all the inside ribs are made of plastic, ripoff. Then, I've seen some that are actually a few layers of graphite, and not much needed for structural ribs on the inside, and still lighter than Al.
I have made a small vent scoop for my GC8s hood to draw air down to my intake, and I WILL stand on it if you want me too. It's only four layers of graphite, and wieghs next to nothing without the mounting hardware on it. It's lighter than the vent it replaces.
As far as CF interior pieces, that's obviously for looks and really isn't worth the money in my opinion. But to each his own, I do have a CF gauge cluster, but I made that with some extra material leftover after working on an aircraft part.
CF also doesn't get as hot as fast as any other material, but is very lethal if it catches on fire, and burns at well over 1000 degrees F. Another thing to think about if it's all over your car. It is also very lethal if it breaks. The fibers are like fishing hooks, barbed, and they need to be cut out of the skin if slivered. Another thing to think about if you're in an accident with your CF hood, lip, or wing.
Just my $.02, from someone who works with it everyday.
BRIAN
I'm in the NAVY, and carbon fiber is my job. I repair and manufacture F-14 and F/A-18 parts made of fiberglass and graphite (carbon fiber).
I went to school to learn the properties of structural materials, and learned quite a bit. Most of which has been touched here.
Carbon fiber is stronger than any other material pound for pound, as long as it's done right. I've looked at some CF hoods, and can tell that some people have been ripped off, and others have gotten what they paid for. I have seen some that are just one layer, and then all the inside ribs are made of plastic, ripoff. Then, I've seen some that are actually a few layers of graphite, and not much needed for structural ribs on the inside, and still lighter than Al.
I have made a small vent scoop for my GC8s hood to draw air down to my intake, and I WILL stand on it if you want me too. It's only four layers of graphite, and wieghs next to nothing without the mounting hardware on it. It's lighter than the vent it replaces.
As far as CF interior pieces, that's obviously for looks and really isn't worth the money in my opinion. But to each his own, I do have a CF gauge cluster, but I made that with some extra material leftover after working on an aircraft part.
CF also doesn't get as hot as fast as any other material, but is very lethal if it catches on fire, and burns at well over 1000 degrees F. Another thing to think about if it's all over your car. It is also very lethal if it breaks. The fibers are like fishing hooks, barbed, and they need to be cut out of the skin if slivered. Another thing to think about if you're in an accident with your CF hood, lip, or wing.
Just my $.02, from someone who works with it everyday.
BRIAN
| Trampus | 02-21-2002 03:26 PM |
I think it just comes down to taste. Some people like CF, some don't. Some like huge wings, some don't. I think most of the people buying the stuff are doing it for looks. I personally don't like it but hey, it's not my car so they can do whatever they want.
| phasedlife | 02-21-2002 03:32 PM |
Yeah I just got my CF seat pad shipped in from JP the other day. Man, let me tell you: it keeps my ass super cool! And they weigh a full 2 grams less than my stock seat pads! Only cost me a grand too. And when I get out of the car I admire my ass p-; I mean seat pads look. In fact, I intend to systimatically replace all componants with CF(so I can have a really expensive practically stock WRX). I can't wait until my carbon fiber glove box comes in. It'll give me that extra performance boost I'm looking for. No really.. I race my car on a daily basis and my sponsers will pick up the tab.
:rolleyes:
:lol:
:rolleyes:
:lol:
| BongMan | 02-21-2002 06:02 PM |
Carbon Is Dope!
[SIZE=4]CARBON FIBER IS THE LOOK THAT PERFORMS![/SIZE] :D
However, that's just my opinion.
However, that's just my opinion.
| Zahnster | 02-21-2002 06:16 PM |
The whole downforce and wing argument is fun. In most cases, it's not about downforce and more about reduced lift. One could argue reducing list is causing downforce, but I figure until you have 0 lift, you cannot generate downforce.
| romoranger | 02-21-2002 08:59 PM |
for the guy that asked about wings on the wrc cars, i believe they want that extra downforce it creates for more grip. not sure if you have seen, especially in nascar, how the change the size of the spoiler on them depending ont he track they are on. this is so they can get the right amount of grip and traction on the surface. I feel that this is true in wrc, they want to get as much grip as possible.
| Hazdaz | 02-21-2002 09:20 PM |
NASCAR? whats that? Is that that horrible "sport" that a bunch of drunk hicks watch thinking that the cars out on the tracks have ANYTHING to do with the crap that has the same name that they bought to drive around in, and think they are racing. Last time I checked, but a Taurus didn't have a RWD, carburated-engine and fiber glass skin. Hell, last I checked, like NO cars on the road today fit that description really.. damn I hate NASCAR soooo much... Hmmm, maybe thats why I like rally so much more.
BUT ANYWAYS... the downforced (thus 'grip' on a RWD and SOME 'grip' on an AWD) that is created by a wing is really only apparent when traveling at a high rate of speed - say near 100mph or so, thus most are just for austetics
(hell, I admit I have one - but I'm not gonna say I get much downforce with it - mostly for looks, which means I'm not gonna drop like $1K+ for one, which is where the CF ones are priced near).
BUT ANYWAYS... the downforced (thus 'grip' on a RWD and SOME 'grip' on an AWD) that is created by a wing is really only apparent when traveling at a high rate of speed - say near 100mph or so, thus most are just for austetics
(hell, I admit I have one - but I'm not gonna say I get much downforce with it - mostly for looks, which means I'm not gonna drop like $1K+ for one, which is where the CF ones are priced near).
| ylexot | 02-21-2002 10:01 PM |
[QUOTE]3% is probably REALLY close to statistical variation that is expected in an experiment like that. Hell, you could probablky get a larger change if you removed the stock wiperblades... or removed the Antenna or taped up the body seams. [/QUOTE] And how did you come to this conclusion? Tp me, it sounds like pure conjecture along with most of the other things you have said.
I actually have a background in automotive wind tunnel testing and that 3% is absolutely HUGE! It is in no way shape or form "close to the statistical variation..." unless you are at some home-made wind tunnel. From what I saw in sherifx's post about the aero, the wing+lip decreased drag by 0.03 (which translates to "30 counts of drag" to auto. aero. engs.). That may not sound like much, but when you consider that companies are looking for deacereases in the single digit drag counts, it is most certainly significant.
I'm not going to argue the merits and drawbacks of CF since I am not as knowledgeable as some (but I do know more than most).
I actually have a background in automotive wind tunnel testing and that 3% is absolutely HUGE! It is in no way shape or form "close to the statistical variation..." unless you are at some home-made wind tunnel. From what I saw in sherifx's post about the aero, the wing+lip decreased drag by 0.03 (which translates to "30 counts of drag" to auto. aero. engs.). That may not sound like much, but when you consider that companies are looking for deacereases in the single digit drag counts, it is most certainly significant.
I'm not going to argue the merits and drawbacks of CF since I am not as knowledgeable as some (but I do know more than most).
| spd wgn | 02-21-2002 10:04 PM |
silver sube01
thanks for your firsthand info.....
still stand by my feeling that wings, body kits etc. = EXTRA WEIGHT for little benefit ( for 99% of subie drivers) and therefore are for show, not go. (equivalent to fake air scoops)
personally, I don't judge what people put on their cars...thats their business. I just think its a benefit for people if they understand "actual" benefits vs. "associative" benefits ( ie. its on a rally car so it must be good for me).
so if you like CF, or like wings or like whatever, go for it..
thanks for your firsthand info.....
still stand by my feeling that wings, body kits etc. = EXTRA WEIGHT for little benefit ( for 99% of subie drivers) and therefore are for show, not go. (equivalent to fake air scoops)
personally, I don't judge what people put on their cars...thats their business. I just think its a benefit for people if they understand "actual" benefits vs. "associative" benefits ( ie. its on a rally car so it must be good for me).
so if you like CF, or like wings or like whatever, go for it..
| Spooled | 02-21-2002 10:15 PM |
I completely agree w/ the last post. If you like it, then fine. If you don't, then fine. Whatever floats your boat, ya know?
| Burnout | 02-21-2002 10:59 PM |
I like Cows:confused:
People its ok if others people's cars are different in taste as that's what separates us as human beings. I wasn't expecting more performance form my CF parts (although I did cut the weight of my hood by more than half) I just like the look of Raw CF. I could tell you right now if i stood on my hood I would fall right through onto my engine, as its not as strong as other CF parts, I don't intend on standing on my hood anyways.
In the name of looking different could people please stop criticizing other people for the look of there cars and what they do to them, we are not stupid and we know what we are doing to are cars and its done for are purpose in mind.
Thanks:)
People its ok if others people's cars are different in taste as that's what separates us as human beings. I wasn't expecting more performance form my CF parts (although I did cut the weight of my hood by more than half) I just like the look of Raw CF. I could tell you right now if i stood on my hood I would fall right through onto my engine, as its not as strong as other CF parts, I don't intend on standing on my hood anyways.
In the name of looking different could people please stop criticizing other people for the look of there cars and what they do to them, we are not stupid and we know what we are doing to are cars and its done for are purpose in mind.
Thanks:)
| Hazdaz | 02-21-2002 11:15 PM |
YLEXOT: Hmm, so then I guess when C&D get a 0-60 time of 5.4, and SOA own #'s is 5.8, MTs figure is 5.6 and Edmund's coming in at 6.3. well how could THAT be, since every single WRX ever made is the EXACT same? Wrong. Just lookin at those numbers shows you how there are variations (in this case over a good deal over 3%) in REAL LIFE.
The EXACT same type of difference would be true if you sampled a dozen or so different WRXs (as opposed to using a 'perfect' CAD model of it). None of them would have the exact same body-panel gaps (which play a large part in Cd - i remeber readin an article on that a few years back - or isn't that true?). None of them would have the same ground clearance (or is that not a factor in Cd?). And the list goes on. I'm not talkin about large differences OBVIOULSY. A few thousand's of an inch here and there - formerly workin in the aerospace field, I think I know a thing or two about tight tolerances.
What I'm saying is that EVERYTHING has a tolerance behind it. Those add up to differences like why one car can hit a top speed of 130, while another can only hit 128 (if you have ever read car mags, you'd know thats a common occurance). Just like if you ever got your car Dyno'd one day, and then 1 week later you get a different (yet close) number. WHats up with that? Nothing - just some small change - could be the temp or the gas or humidity or some other funky thing that is giving you the variance. So, no, 3% is nothing, in my book. If you can use that percent to sell more kits (or if you yourself use it to make yourself feal better for getting a "functional" kit), then go for it.
The EXACT same type of difference would be true if you sampled a dozen or so different WRXs (as opposed to using a 'perfect' CAD model of it). None of them would have the exact same body-panel gaps (which play a large part in Cd - i remeber readin an article on that a few years back - or isn't that true?). None of them would have the same ground clearance (or is that not a factor in Cd?). And the list goes on. I'm not talkin about large differences OBVIOULSY. A few thousand's of an inch here and there - formerly workin in the aerospace field, I think I know a thing or two about tight tolerances.
What I'm saying is that EVERYTHING has a tolerance behind it. Those add up to differences like why one car can hit a top speed of 130, while another can only hit 128 (if you have ever read car mags, you'd know thats a common occurance). Just like if you ever got your car Dyno'd one day, and then 1 week later you get a different (yet close) number. WHats up with that? Nothing - just some small change - could be the temp or the gas or humidity or some other funky thing that is giving you the variance. So, no, 3% is nothing, in my book. If you can use that percent to sell more kits (or if you yourself use it to make yourself feal better for getting a "functional" kit), then go for it.
| monkeytronZ | 02-22-2002 12:23 AM |
:rolleyes:
| MagicMT | 02-22-2002 12:28 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Hazdaz [/i]
[B]YLEXOT: Hmm, so then I guess when C&D get a 0-60 time of 5.4, and SOA own #'s is 5.8, MTs figure is 5.6 and Edmund's coming in at 6.3. well how could THAT be, since every single WRX ever made is the EXACT same? Wrong. [/B][/QUOTE]
Isn't most of that difference from the driver? And other things like temperature, humidity, etc. like you mentioned later in that post?
[B]YLEXOT: Hmm, so then I guess when C&D get a 0-60 time of 5.4, and SOA own #'s is 5.8, MTs figure is 5.6 and Edmund's coming in at 6.3. well how could THAT be, since every single WRX ever made is the EXACT same? Wrong. [/B][/QUOTE]
Isn't most of that difference from the driver? And other things like temperature, humidity, etc. like you mentioned later in that post?
| karazyman | 02-22-2002 01:37 AM |
:rolleyes:
what a newbie..... *SiGh*
:rolleyes:
what a newbie..... *SiGh*
:rolleyes:
| wieger54 | 02-22-2002 09:13 AM |
You're dead wrong!!!
[QUOTE]I remeber back in the day when cars had all this nasty fake plastic chrome trim all over the place (around the windows/bumbers/grill/lights/etc). It took YEARS for that craze to finally die, now it looks like CF is here to take its place.[/QUOTE]
It's making a rise again down here in the south!! I just saw a car all decked out in that crap. It hasn't been the only one I've seen either. Everyday I see more and more!:rolleyes:
mike...
It's making a rise again down here in the south!! I just saw a car all decked out in that crap. It hasn't been the only one I've seen either. Everyday I see more and more!:rolleyes:
mike...
| atcvader | 02-22-2002 09:29 AM |
I have a Carbon Fiber front lip. It was cheaper and looked better(personally) to me. [img]http://www.teamultraspeed.com/images/vabeach/ed/ed05.jpg[/img]
| ylexot | 02-22-2002 03:19 PM |
Hazdaz - you obviously have no background in testing at all. As you said, in the real world there are many variables. When you want to test a single part, you keep everything else the same.
Here's a typical wind tunnel test:
1) put baseline car in wind tunnel
2) run test
3) change one thing on car
4) repeat steps 2&3
You DO NOT change everything (body, ride height, etc) at once.
Here's another example: If you want to test an intake, put the base car on the dyno and run it. Then install the intake ONLY and run it again. If you put an exhaust on at the same time, you have no idea what the gains from the intake are since the exhaust also has an effect.
BTW - I know real world testing too (I'm currently a flight test engineer).
Here's a typical wind tunnel test:
1) put baseline car in wind tunnel
2) run test
3) change one thing on car
4) repeat steps 2&3
You DO NOT change everything (body, ride height, etc) at once.
Here's another example: If you want to test an intake, put the base car on the dyno and run it. Then install the intake ONLY and run it again. If you put an exhaust on at the same time, you have no idea what the gains from the intake are since the exhaust also has an effect.
BTW - I know real world testing too (I'm currently a flight test engineer).
| Frederf | 04-08-2002 08:38 PM |
[QUOTE]Of course this presumes that people understand why they are adding things to their car, which is seldom the case. [/QUOTE]
LOL
Ok, I'm goin to photochop a WRX made entirely out of CF (and transparent aluminum for the glass :p )
LOL
Ok, I'm goin to photochop a WRX made entirely out of CF (and transparent aluminum for the glass :p )
| Hazdaz | 04-08-2002 08:53 PM |
:lol:
wow, this is an old post.... you just HAD to resurect it from the dead, eh?
Well post that pic when your done with it :D
wow, this is an old post.... you just HAD to resurect it from the dead, eh?
Well post that pic when your done with it :D
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét