How important it the air dam?
04-02-2010, 11:50 PM
#43
Sure there is - never said otherwise. That low pressure created on the underside of the vehicle is designed for that purpose. By limiting the amount of airflow under the chassis of the vehicle, less drag is produced.
Imagine all of the surface area of parts under the vehicle. Engine, transmission, suspension components, floorpan, axle fuel tank, exhaust, etc. etc., all of these parts (without the air dam in place) will provide some kind of wind resistance depending on their location and orientation. The air dam reduces the amount of flow under the car and redirects it towards a more useful area - into the radiator.
Less airflow under the vehicle = less drag.
Imagine all of the surface area of parts under the vehicle. Engine, transmission, suspension components, floorpan, axle fuel tank, exhaust, etc. etc., all of these parts (without the air dam in place) will provide some kind of wind resistance depending on their location and orientation. The air dam reduces the amount of flow under the car and redirects it towards a more useful area - into the radiator.
Less airflow under the vehicle = less drag.
I'd like some body to explain with actual science how the car can lift UP due to a low pressure zone UNDER it. Seriously, that would be one hell of an aerodynamic phenomenon that GM created. last time I checked, planes LIFTED because of the low pressure zone created ABOVE the wings.
Just goes to show, the interwebz is full of stupidity and people will believe it.
Just goes to show, the interwebz is full of stupidity and people will believe it.
04-03-2010, 02:03 PM
#44
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: limbo
Posts: 2,124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About the post you referenced from "chevynation"
F-bodies have terrific drag coefficients of .34 for both the Pontiac AND Chevrolet (same as a Porsche 911, Ferrari 360 Modena, Aston Martin DB9, etc.) The "not-so-great aeros" comment is opinion.
He says you "should see improvements." Once again, opinion, not based on fact or scientific evidence.
He also says "I actually think it helps." Once again, opinion, not based on fact or scientific evidence.
Then, "It doesn't seem like its in the right location to help aero; it just forces air up to the radiator and creates high pressure under the hood which creates lift and hurts handling. My logic might be off, but my car is rock solid at speed (and doesn't overheat either)."
OPINION. "Doesn't seem like its in the right location to help aero" isn't too much of a convincing argument. Not to mention, he isn't even confident of his own conclusions! "My logic might be off" - that's real convincing.
It's also ironic that on that webpage you referenced...every 4th gen vehicle has an air dam. If that doesn't say it, I don't know what else could...
Bye bye!
F-bodies have terrific drag coefficients of .34 for both the Pontiac AND Chevrolet (same as a Porsche 911, Ferrari 360 Modena, Aston Martin DB9, etc.) The "not-so-great aeros" comment is opinion.
He says you "should see improvements." Once again, opinion, not based on fact or scientific evidence.
He also says "I actually think it helps." Once again, opinion, not based on fact or scientific evidence.
Then, "It doesn't seem like its in the right location to help aero; it just forces air up to the radiator and creates high pressure under the hood which creates lift and hurts handling. My logic might be off, but my car is rock solid at speed (and doesn't overheat either)."
OPINION. "Doesn't seem like its in the right location to help aero" isn't too much of a convincing argument. Not to mention, he isn't even confident of his own conclusions! "My logic might be off" - that's real convincing.
It's also ironic that on that webpage you referenced...every 4th gen vehicle has an air dam.
If that doesn't say it, I don't know what else could... Bye bye!
lol not having it up there aint going to make your front lift or cause more drag..
if it makes your front end lift at 70mph why are there so many stock bodied drag cars running 150-210mph and not taking off like planes..lol
leaving it in there scoops the air up at speeds and drives it into the engine bay..so now your craming air into a engine bay where there is no where near cubic feet in exit holes for the air to escape out of..
will that cause your front end to have a tad more down force yes...will it be enough to really matter and delete the turbulance going on inside the engine bay from you ramming air into it no..
if it makes your front end lift at 70mph why are there so many stock bodied drag cars running 150-210mph and not taking off like planes..lol
leaving it in there scoops the air up at speeds and drives it into the engine bay..so now your craming air into a engine bay where there is no where near cubic feet in exit holes for the air to escape out of..
will that cause your front end to have a tad more down force yes...will it be enough to really matter and delete the turbulance going on inside the engine bay from you ramming air into it no..
also the air entering the engine bay does not cause downforce, nor does turbulence inside the engine bay matter, the turbulence under your car matters.
now I'd like to see what trans am thinks about all this seeing as how he's studying this sort of stuff.
04-03-2010, 03:43 PM
#45
I don't claim to be an engineer by any means, but I've been around these cars long enough to know something about it (confirmed by the other posters of this thread other than yourself that happen to be engineers).
There really is no debate anymore. I've provided factual information, far more than you have. Here's a recap in case you don't feel like looking:
From post #24 - That low pressure created on the underside of the vehicle is designed for that purpose. By limiting the amount of airflow under the chassis of the vehicle, less drag is produced. This is FACT, backed by GM research and development, countless studies, and the laws of physics.
From post #36 - F-bodies have terrific drag coefficients of .34 for both the Pontiac AND Chevrolet (same as a Porsche 911, Ferrari 360 Modena, Aston Martin DB9, etc.). Once again, fact.
And from gunter96ws6's post #40 - i drove it 10 miles or so 1 way to a friends house earlier this evening and the temp gauge wouldnt drop below 210. that in itself is reason enough to put it back on. Although perhaps crude, his results are pretty convincing of the cooling aspect.
I don't have any more to add to this thread as the data has been presented. Deleting your air dam is an overall bad idea and has negative repercussions to the vehicles handling and cooling capabilities. Good day.
There really is no debate anymore. I've provided factual information, far more than you have. Here's a recap in case you don't feel like looking:
From post #24 - That low pressure created on the underside of the vehicle is designed for that purpose. By limiting the amount of airflow under the chassis of the vehicle, less drag is produced. This is FACT, backed by GM research and development, countless studies, and the laws of physics.
From post #36 - F-bodies have terrific drag coefficients of .34 for both the Pontiac AND Chevrolet (same as a Porsche 911, Ferrari 360 Modena, Aston Martin DB9, etc.). Once again, fact.
And from gunter96ws6's post #40 - i drove it 10 miles or so 1 way to a friends house earlier this evening and the temp gauge wouldnt drop below 210. that in itself is reason enough to put it back on. Although perhaps crude, his results are pretty convincing of the cooling aspect.
I don't have any more to add to this thread as the data has been presented. Deleting your air dam is an overall bad idea and has negative repercussions to the vehicles handling and cooling capabilities. Good day.
04-03-2010, 03:59 PM
#46
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: limbo
Posts: 2,124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't claim to be an engineer by any means, but I've been around these cars long enough to know something about it (confirmed by the other posters of this thread other than yourself that happen to be engineers).
There really is no debate anymore. I've provided factual information, far more than you have. Here's a recap in case you don't feel like looking:
From post #24 - That low pressure created on the underside of the vehicle is designed for that purpose. By limiting the amount of airflow under the chassis of the vehicle, less drag is produced. This is FACT, backed by GM research and development, countless studies, and the laws of physics.
From post #36 - F-bodies have terrific drag coefficients of .34 for both the Pontiac AND Chevrolet (same as a Porsche 911, Ferrari 360 Modena, Aston Martin DB9, etc.). Once again, fact.
And from gunter96ws6's post #40 - i drove it 10 miles or so 1 way to a friends house earlier this evening and the temp gauge wouldnt drop below 210. that in itself is reason enough to put it back on. Although perhaps crude, his results are pretty convincing of the cooling aspect.
I don't have any more to add to this thread as the data has been presented. Deleting your air dam is an overall bad idea and has negative repercussions to the vehicles handling and cooling capabilities. Good day.
There really is no debate anymore. I've provided factual information, far more than you have. Here's a recap in case you don't feel like looking:
From post #24 - That low pressure created on the underside of the vehicle is designed for that purpose. By limiting the amount of airflow under the chassis of the vehicle, less drag is produced. This is FACT, backed by GM research and development, countless studies, and the laws of physics.
From post #36 - F-bodies have terrific drag coefficients of .34 for both the Pontiac AND Chevrolet (same as a Porsche 911, Ferrari 360 Modena, Aston Martin DB9, etc.). Once again, fact.
And from gunter96ws6's post #40 - i drove it 10 miles or so 1 way to a friends house earlier this evening and the temp gauge wouldnt drop below 210. that in itself is reason enough to put it back on. Although perhaps crude, his results are pretty convincing of the cooling aspect.
I don't have any more to add to this thread as the data has been presented. Deleting your air dam is an overall bad idea and has negative repercussions to the vehicles handling and cooling capabilities. Good day.
post #36- yes we have good drag coefficients but what proof do you have its from the air dam? how do you know if we put a camaro in a wind tunnel and took of the air dam that the drag coefficients would increase, not decrease?
and yes gunter said his temp was sitting at 210 but he most likely has a stock cooling system. my car never goes above 170, tell you what I 'll take mine off this summer and see where my engine temp sits just for you, I'm not saying its not going to climb but I'm betting it sits at a safe temp.
arguing w/ you is kind of getting pointless at this point cause your just claiming you've won the argument when you have yet to produce any facts. I'm going to believe what mitch said until you can prove otherwise, can you blame me if you were in my shoes? no need to start getting cunty over it.
04-03-2010, 04:09 PM
#47
Launching!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Mckinney, Tx
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i guess the real test will be driving it once i get the airdam put back on. its having longtubes installed at the moment so i wont have a report until monday. thanks again for all the info guys.
04-04-2010, 10:00 AM
#49
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: PSL, FL
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess you missed where I agreed with everyone and said it needs to stay on for a daily driver car. I'm saying taking it off for aero is ridiculous in 99.9% of the cases on this forum...
04-04-2010, 06:17 PM
#51
Teching In
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Buffalo Grove, IL
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact, an open wheel racer like an F1, Indy, or Cart has the worst drag coefficient of nearly all vehicles. Simply for the fact that all of the spoilers and surfaces designed to provide insane downforce also create insane drag. A Typical F1 car will have a CoD of around 1.x. the 1982 TransAm has a CoD of .299 to .32 depending on options. http://www.thirdgen.org/newdesign/br...4transamcd.jpg
Fact #2, the 3rd generation Pontiac Firebird was the FIRST production stock bodied car to exceed 300mph at the salt flats. http://www.kugelkomponents.com/bonne...onneville.html
Fact #3, driving any bottom breathing car like a 3rd or 4th generation F-body without the air dam is stupid as the twin fans can't provide nearly the air flow over the radiator to cool the car under performance conditions. At speeds of 30mph or greater the air-dam produces more airflow than the fans will.
___________________________________
Now for opinions. Lets think about the design of a car as an airfoil.
A car's shape is pretty much like an airplane wing. Relatively flat bottoms with curved tops. This basically means you get a low pressure area in the back of the car. Notchbacks, pickup trucks, and other similar shaped cars have HUGE airflow drag issues because of the abrupt change. Fast back designed cars similar to our F-bodies smooth the airflow out and reduce turbulence in the wake of a car.
So the basic premise of a an airplane wing is that air moving over the top of the wing is slowed down because it has to travel a greater distance than airflow over the bottom of the wing. The low pressure area "sucks" the wings upward providing what we call "lift". Since a car is also shaped mostly the same the same principle applies.
But here's where cars differ. Because the underbody of a car is close to the ground it creates a vacuum under the car which is usually greater than the low pressure air on top of the car. Chin spoilers serve to cut wind from underneath the car which creates an even stronger low pressure area under the car. Modern cars have Venturi tunnels which cause what little air passes under the car to expand in volume slow down and creates additional vacuum at the rear of the car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrr-j-c1mXM
Why do flat bottom race cars like this 911 GT1 to take off for no reason like in the clip below? Simple. They rely so much on limiting airflow under the car that when the least little bit gets under the car it flips over like a sheet of paper. So limiting airflow under the car is important in ANY car design.
There are some mid and rear engine designs that actually take advantage of low pressure area behind the car to pull heat from the engine bay. Cars like the Ferrari F40, Zonda C12 and others are examples of this.
The Chaparral 2J is an example of early underbody airflow designs in that it used a set of fans at the rear of the car to pull air from under the car and exhaust it into the low pressure wake behind the car. Literally sucking the car to the road like a vacuum cleaner. http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/9...Chevrolet.html
____________________
basic word, low pressure area UNDER the car is a good thing no matter how you slice it.
Fact #2, the 3rd generation Pontiac Firebird was the FIRST production stock bodied car to exceed 300mph at the salt flats. http://www.kugelkomponents.com/bonne...onneville.html
Fact #3, driving any bottom breathing car like a 3rd or 4th generation F-body without the air dam is stupid as the twin fans can't provide nearly the air flow over the radiator to cool the car under performance conditions. At speeds of 30mph or greater the air-dam produces more airflow than the fans will.
___________________________________
Now for opinions. Lets think about the design of a car as an airfoil.
A car's shape is pretty much like an airplane wing. Relatively flat bottoms with curved tops. This basically means you get a low pressure area in the back of the car. Notchbacks, pickup trucks, and other similar shaped cars have HUGE airflow drag issues because of the abrupt change. Fast back designed cars similar to our F-bodies smooth the airflow out and reduce turbulence in the wake of a car.
So the basic premise of a an airplane wing is that air moving over the top of the wing is slowed down because it has to travel a greater distance than airflow over the bottom of the wing. The low pressure area "sucks" the wings upward providing what we call "lift". Since a car is also shaped mostly the same the same principle applies.
But here's where cars differ. Because the underbody of a car is close to the ground it creates a vacuum under the car which is usually greater than the low pressure air on top of the car. Chin spoilers serve to cut wind from underneath the car which creates an even stronger low pressure area under the car. Modern cars have Venturi tunnels which cause what little air passes under the car to expand in volume slow down and creates additional vacuum at the rear of the car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrr-j-c1mXM
Why do flat bottom race cars like this 911 GT1 to take off for no reason like in the clip below? Simple. They rely so much on limiting airflow under the car that when the least little bit gets under the car it flips over like a sheet of paper. So limiting airflow under the car is important in ANY car design.
There are some mid and rear engine designs that actually take advantage of low pressure area behind the car to pull heat from the engine bay. Cars like the Ferrari F40, Zonda C12 and others are examples of this.
The Chaparral 2J is an example of early underbody airflow designs in that it used a set of fans at the rear of the car to pull air from under the car and exhaust it into the low pressure wake behind the car. Literally sucking the car to the road like a vacuum cleaner. http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/9...Chevrolet.html
____________________
basic word, low pressure area UNDER the car is a good thing no matter how you slice it.
Last edited by thirdgen89gta; 04-04-2010 at 06:30 PM.
04-05-2010, 09:05 AM
#53
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: limbo
Posts: 2,124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact, an open wheel racer like an F1, Indy, or Cart has the worst drag coefficient of nearly all vehicles. Simply for the fact that all of the spoilers and surfaces designed to provide insane downforce also create insane drag. A Typical F1 car will have a CoD of around 1.x. the 1982 TransAm has a CoD of .299 to .32 depending on options. http://www.thirdgen.org/newdesign/br...4transamcd.jpg
Fact #2, the 3rd generation Pontiac Firebird was the FIRST production stock bodied car to exceed 300mph at the salt flats. http://www.kugelkomponents.com/bonne...onneville.html
Fact #3, driving any bottom breathing car like a 3rd or 4th generation F-body without the air dam is stupid as the twin fans can't provide nearly the air flow over the radiator to cool the car under performance conditions. At speeds of 30mph or greater the air-dam produces more airflow than the fans will.
___________________________________
Now for opinions. Lets think about the design of a car as an airfoil.
A car's shape is pretty much like an airplane wing. Relatively flat bottoms with curved tops. This basically means you get a low pressure area in the back of the car. Notchbacks, pickup trucks, and other similar shaped cars have HUGE airflow drag issues because of the abrupt change. Fast back designed cars similar to our F-bodies smooth the airflow out and reduce turbulence in the wake of a car.
So the basic premise of a an airplane wing is that air moving over the top of the wing is slowed down because it has to travel a greater distance than airflow over the bottom of the wing. The low pressure area "sucks" the wings upward providing what we call "lift". Since a car is also shaped mostly the same the same principle applies.
But here's where cars differ. Because the underbody of a car is close to the ground it creates a vacuum under the car which is usually greater than the low pressure air on top of the car. Chin spoilers serve to cut wind from underneath the car which creates an even stronger low pressure area under the car. Modern cars have Venturi tunnels which cause what little air passes under the car to expand in volume slow down and creates additional vacuum at the rear of the car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrr-j-c1mXM
Why do flat bottom race cars like this 911 GT1 to take off for no reason like in the clip below? Simple. They rely so much on limiting airflow under the car that when the least little bit gets under the car it flips over like a sheet of paper. So limiting airflow under the car is important in ANY car design.
There are some mid and rear engine designs that actually take advantage of low pressure area behind the car to pull heat from the engine bay. Cars like the Ferrari F40, Zonda C12 and others are examples of this.
The Chaparral 2J is an example of early underbody airflow designs in that it used a set of fans at the rear of the car to pull air from under the car and exhaust it into the low pressure wake behind the car. Literally sucking the car to the road like a vacuum cleaner. http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/9...Chevrolet.html
____________________
basic word, low pressure area UNDER the car is a good thing no matter how you slice it.
Fact #2, the 3rd generation Pontiac Firebird was the FIRST production stock bodied car to exceed 300mph at the salt flats. http://www.kugelkomponents.com/bonne...onneville.html
Fact #3, driving any bottom breathing car like a 3rd or 4th generation F-body without the air dam is stupid as the twin fans can't provide nearly the air flow over the radiator to cool the car under performance conditions. At speeds of 30mph or greater the air-dam produces more airflow than the fans will.
___________________________________
Now for opinions. Lets think about the design of a car as an airfoil.
A car's shape is pretty much like an airplane wing. Relatively flat bottoms with curved tops. This basically means you get a low pressure area in the back of the car. Notchbacks, pickup trucks, and other similar shaped cars have HUGE airflow drag issues because of the abrupt change. Fast back designed cars similar to our F-bodies smooth the airflow out and reduce turbulence in the wake of a car.
So the basic premise of a an airplane wing is that air moving over the top of the wing is slowed down because it has to travel a greater distance than airflow over the bottom of the wing. The low pressure area "sucks" the wings upward providing what we call "lift". Since a car is also shaped mostly the same the same principle applies.
But here's where cars differ. Because the underbody of a car is close to the ground it creates a vacuum under the car which is usually greater than the low pressure air on top of the car. Chin spoilers serve to cut wind from underneath the car which creates an even stronger low pressure area under the car. Modern cars have Venturi tunnels which cause what little air passes under the car to expand in volume slow down and creates additional vacuum at the rear of the car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrr-j-c1mXM
Why do flat bottom race cars like this 911 GT1 to take off for no reason like in the clip below? Simple. They rely so much on limiting airflow under the car that when the least little bit gets under the car it flips over like a sheet of paper. So limiting airflow under the car is important in ANY car design.
There are some mid and rear engine designs that actually take advantage of low pressure area behind the car to pull heat from the engine bay. Cars like the Ferrari F40, Zonda C12 and others are examples of this.
The Chaparral 2J is an example of early underbody airflow designs in that it used a set of fans at the rear of the car to pull air from under the car and exhaust it into the low pressure wake behind the car. Literally sucking the car to the road like a vacuum cleaner. http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/9...Chevrolet.html
____________________
basic word, low pressure area UNDER the car is a good thing no matter how you slice it.
a few things I wonder about tho..1)very true, now could you relate this fact to air dams please
2)also true, but look how low that bird is and the gfx's on it. I don't see how the air dam(if thers even room for one under ther) could of played a key role in that record considering the ride height and gfx are the main limiting factors of how much air travels under the vehicle.
3)not gonna argue on this one, but I will take my air dam off this summer to see what happens out of curiosity. I'm willing to bet my temps won't go over 190 but we'll have to wait and see
"Now for opinions. Lets think about the design of a car as an airfoil.
"thats fine except it needs to be reversed with the air direction flowing from thin side to thick side, like a backwards wing, am I right? know of any animations like that?
"Because the underbody of a car is close to the ground it creates a vacuum under the car which is usually greater than the low pressure air on top of the car."
-now I could be wrong about this, but I don't see how a 4th gen @ stock ride height w/ no gfx could be close enough to the ground to create a vacuum, other than the vacuum that occurs behind the air dam which draws the air that the air dam is stuffing into the engine bay out. also theres high pressure on top of the car at the cowl, the low pressure on top is over the hatch & trunk lid.
thers allot of good general info you provided on aerodynamics but you fail to relate them to air dams
all I'm doing is playing the devils advocate arguing what I've learned off here, tho I don't know why I give a ****. it was a good debate tho until you started taking things personally and turned into a little ****. and its funny how you shut right up when I asked you to provide some facts. just for future reference opinions don't win an argument bud
interesting, you could settle this next time at the track. same day.. same weather... as long as you launch the same it should shed some light on the subject.
Last edited by z_speedfreak; 04-05-2010 at 09:11 AM.
04-05-2010, 09:20 AM
#54
Good lord you guys are hard at it trying to boil the ocean here.
It is important for particular reasons that the GM engineers determined through lots R&D and extensive testing. If it were not needed, they could have deleted it and saved several dollars times the amount of f-bodys produced. This would add up to potentially millions of bucks in manufacturing cost savings.
Bottom line. If any particular part aint really needed. It never would have been put on the car.
It is important for particular reasons that the GM engineers determined through lots R&D and extensive testing. If it were not needed, they could have deleted it and saved several dollars times the amount of f-bodys produced. This would add up to potentially millions of bucks in manufacturing cost savings.
Bottom line. If any particular part aint really needed. It never would have been put on the car.
04-05-2010, 09:40 AM
#55
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: limbo
Posts: 2,124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good lord you guys are hard at it trying to boil the ocean here.
It is important for particular reasons that the GM engineers determined through lots R&D and extensive testing. If it were not needed, they could have deleted it and saved several dollars times the amount of f-bodys produced. This would add up to potentially millions of bucks in manufacturing cost savings.
Bottom line. If any particular part aint really needed. It never would have been put on the car.
It is important for particular reasons that the GM engineers determined through lots R&D and extensive testing. If it were not needed, they could have deleted it and saved several dollars times the amount of f-bodys produced. This would add up to potentially millions of bucks in manufacturing cost savings.
Bottom line. If any particular part aint really needed. It never would have been put on the car.
and I agree the air dam is needed.. on stock f-bodies
a cheap piece of plastic w/e is allot cheaper than a big ol honking aluminum radiator like I have, its gonna be a couple months til I find out if its needed on my car or not. course aerodynamically speaking it hasn't been proved one way or the other that its important or not either..
06-20-2023, 06:44 PM
#56
Teching In
I vote air dam on. Ever since mine came off, due to front end accident, it has ran ho Who's even bringing their cars up to a speed high enough for this argument to be relevant for any length of time anyway? The poor OP just wanted to make sure if it was ok to leave the air dam off and has been pretty much majority told to put it back on. If it is not a road racing/track only car, none of this is really important. At speed...over 100 mph for more than a second...stuff like aero from air dams/splitters/wings/etc. matters. For most of us driving to work and around town and occasionally romping on the throttle, not so much...
