Howard whats done to your fd other than the gear ratios to be able to pull on modded vipers???

 

Thats sweet!

 

wow...i ahve no idea how that got there.

 

Howard, how does the R1 or 99 lip influence the FD's aerodynamics?

I have the 99 lip and installed a 71" double decker "rice" wing on my car with custom stands that clear the wing over the roofline.

Nothing else has changed on the car.

I've taken the car up to 140MPH and the rear just feels more stable and planted.

I'm concerned about the front lift and would like to know if the 99 lip may have some benefits in that area.

 

For downforce, perhaps.

Not Cd.

 

U ARE CRAZY!!! The 7 rocks!!!!!

 

caped crusader...

depending on the angle of incidence your rear wing can of course be downforce, upforce or noforce. and of course you know that.

as to the r1 splitter (front spoiler). it is highly effective in 2 ways:

it lowers the cd because it channels air away from going under the car.

it provides additional front bite for trim at corner entry.

it really is amazing what a flimsy piece of plastic can do. the rear deck spoiler on my GT3 RX3SP was pop riveted on and weighed at most 2 pounds. during one qualifying session at Road Atlanta we decided to remove it for a bit more straightline speed.

the car was undriveable at the times i had been running. it would not stick at the end of the back straight and wouldn't go thru the esses on the other side worth a dam. back on went the spoiler.

i probably could have run as fast without it but it would have required different springs etc.

howard coleman

 

I can't see the videos

 

looks like so much fun

 

caped crusader...

depending on the angle of incidence your rear wing can of course be downforce, upforce or noforce. and of course you know that.

as to the r1 splitter (front spoiler). it is highly effective in 2 ways:

it lowers the cd because it channels air away from going under the car.

it provides additional front bite for trim at corner entry.

it really is amazing what a flimsy piece of plastic can do. the rear deck spoiler on my GT3 RX3SP was pop riveted on and weighed at most 2 pounds. during one qualifying session at Road Atlanta we decided to remove it for a bit more straightline speed.

the car was undriveable at the times i had been running. it would not stick at the end of the back straight and wouldn't go thru the esses on the other side worth a dam. back on went the spoiler.

i probably could have run as fast without it but it would have required different springs etc.

howard coleman











which one works better the r1/r2 or the one off the 99 and up?

 

I don't have the hard data to back it up. But, some of the biggest changes to the 99spec versions were the aerodynamics (I.E. front end restyling, more aggresive and adjustable wing.) So I'd guess the gurus at Mazda made a more downforce-providing(there is a better way to word that I'm just lazy) front lip to counteract the front upforce a higher downforce rear wing would entail.

did that make sense?

 

I'm wondering if the 99 front spoiler with the 93-95 usdm bumper is acutally worse then the 93-95 front lip in terms of providing front downforce since it's not made to fit our bumpers but rather the 99 and up bumpers..hope that makes sense.

 

Aerodynamics of 1999 RX-7...

Aerodynamics of 1993-1995 RX-7...

Looks like the 1999 front lip has about half the lift of the 1993-1995 version, but I don't know if that's dependent on having the 1999 front bumper or not. I doubt it.

 

hmmm...interesting facts there jim....so did I do a perforamnce downgrade by swapping out my r1 lip with a 99? lol...looks like it....

 

I think (or would like to think ) that the 99 lip is a progression.

The more agressive splitter profile must have some sort of benefit.

 

i would be quite interested as to the 99's actual frontal area and overall drag coefficient. i'll bet it takes more hp to move it thru the air.

the conversion of rear lift to zero or below costs drag. i would rather tune the bite thru spring rate than bolt on drag.

thanks for the interesting numbers. we now need frontal area and drag coefficient for the 99 RX7

howard coleman

 

This is unscientific, but........

....when I made the big performance jump that included the '99 splitter to a Touring that had nothing, I tested on a brand new four mile length of smooth concrete 4-lane - mild, windless summer sunset and no wind - with a 140 mph run. The splitter definitely eliminated yaw and settled and planted the nose. The thing works well.

 

The problem I have with using this little fact for weighting the aerodynamic value of the 99 front end is that it appears to be dealing only in the rear wing. It doesn't mention if those front lift values are taking into account the effect the 99 front lip would have on it. They may have just been testing one aero piece at a time when coming up with those facts. Good hard facts about the 99 wing no doubt, but with all the aero work that went into these cars it would be hard to convince me that for a little style on the front Mazda sacrificed .043 front lift.

 

I think you mean improved (decreased) front lift... lower numbers are better. 0.045-0.053 < 0.10

 

Some people aim for the sky

 

While the aero work is w/o peer, Mazda engineers had no problem undersizing the runnng gear and choking the car with that dreadful I/C, intake, and twin cat exhaust......

It's OK that are some areas for improvements here and there, even in the aero dept.

 

I'd say your comments are completely contradictory. Any time a 250 hp car can do 165 mph it is a great aerodynamic package. Also I believe the drag coeffecient for a 3rd gen with out a spoiler is .27 or .28. Which is all but un heard of in 5 digit dollar sports cars. Not to mention the dimple in the roof that channels air to the center of the rear of the car, another engenious design, that chevy incorporated into the c5 a brisk 10 years later. Have you ever seen underneath a 3rd gen to see just how packed in and organized the exhaust and frame is laid out?

Mustangs of late 80's needed 400 hp to hit the 150 mark, and if they tried to curve at that speed they'd float off the road.

 

That is damn impressive. Scary as hell but impressive nonetheless. But I have one comment. The speed indicated on the speedometer is going to anything BUT accurate **IF** anything in the drivetrain has been changed. Drop a short ratio fifth gear or short R&P gears and the *indicated* speed will be optimistically high. However, even with his tire size being a tad off, if using the stock gearing it should be with 5%-10% of an actual speed. And VERY impressive.
Regards
Crispy
PS I use a 99 splitter and 99 rear wing and my car is so stable at 145mph on the track I could take my hands off the wheel and wave to a flagger if I felt so inclined

 

Damn, I didn't even pay attention to the place value. You'd think a Engineering student would have picked up on that before opening his mouth. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

that video was awesome!!!!