The Unofficial BMW M5 Messageboard (m5board.com) - View Single Post

johann · 27th December 2001, 03:29

Greg,

I think you're generalizing a bit too much on low drag coefficent vs down force.

996 Turbo has a Cw of 0.295 and produces a downforce of 6 kg.
996 GT2 has a Cw of 0.32 and a downforce of 8kg.
E46 M3 has a Cw of 0.32 and a NEGATIVE downforce of 18kg
996 C4 has a Cw of 0,30 and a NEGATIVE downforce of 11kg.
Audi RS4 has a Cw of 0,33 and a NEGATIVE downforce of 12kg.
Audi TT has a Cw of 0,34 and a NEGATIVE downforce of 54kg.
Audi S3 has a Cw of 0,335 and a a NEGATIVE downforce of 31kg.

In other words, low drag is not always direct proportional too lack of downforce. There are several ways of producing downforce and some of them do increase drag some decrease it (such as Venturi tunnels).

Cheers,
/Johan

27th December 2001, 03:29	#8 (permalink)
johann Administrator Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Age: 40 Posts: 4,109 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Greg, I think you're generalizing a bit too much on low drag coefficent vs down force. 996 Turbo has a Cw of 0.295 and produces a downforce of 6 kg. 996 GT2 has a Cw of 0.32 and a downforce of 8kg. E46 M3 has a Cw of 0.32 and a NEGATIVE downforce of 18kg 996 C4 has a Cw of 0,30 and a NEGATIVE downforce of 11kg. Audi RS4 has a Cw of 0,33 and a NEGATIVE downforce of 12kg. Audi TT has a Cw of 0,34 and a NEGATIVE downforce of 54kg. Audi S3 has a Cw of 0,335 and a a NEGATIVE downforce of 31kg. In other words, low drag is not always direct proportional too lack of downforce. There are several ways of producing downforce and some of them do increase drag some decrease it (such as Venturi tunnels). Cheers, /Johan Last edited by johann; 27th December 2001 at 03:33.