4WDs are easier to dirve for people who are new to it stays within the limits of the tires' grip. But do you have the slightest idea what it takes to master 4WD?
For a FWD, if you use too much throttle on exit, the worst that could happens is terminal understeer. With RWDs, its either understeer or oversteer. With a very well balanced mechanical 4WD(e.g. RB4), if you overstep it, it'll drift radially (i.e. crab walk) into a 4 wheeled drift, the hardest state to control, as all 4 tires exceed their limits simultanously. Most mistake it as massive understeer, but it's not.
In short? With 2WD it's possible to overstep quite a bit and still save your butt. With 4WD, get significantly over the limit and it kills you without hestitation as it drifts radially towards the telephone pole/wall/tress/etc.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
For maximum efficiency, just get some antimatter and add matter of the same mass. The energy produced is the sum of their masses. Since:
E = mc^2
m = 1kg(matter) + 1kg(antimatter), c= 3*10^8
E = 1.8*10^17 Joules
Power, unlimited POWER!!!!!!
Muscles are amazing things. They do multiple duties, from structural support to enegry storage and recovery. One ability that renders all mechanical equilvalents obsolete is it's ability to adapt and heal. In fact, strength enhancing exercises work on the concept of overloading muscles in a controlled manner (without severe damage). The strain produces microtears that heal up with individual muscle fibers growing larger in parallel to increase strength. With eccentric damage (use of muscles as dampers say whne waling down a steep incline), muscles actually grow longer and tendons shorten and stiffen. This improves flexibilty, resistance to eccentric damage and improves response as the shorter and thicker tendons are stiffer, improving frequency response.
In fact, muscles are the most plastic organs in our bodies, followed closely by the brain with its ability to constantly reprogram itself.
E = mc^2
m = 1kg(matter) + 1kg(antimatter), c= 3*10^8
E = 1.8*10^17 Joules
Power, unlimited POWER!!!!!!
Muscles are amazing things. They do multiple duties, from structural support to enegry storage and recovery. One ability that renders all mechanical equilvalents obsolete is it's ability to adapt and heal. In fact, strength enhancing exercises work on the concept of overloading muscles in a controlled manner (without severe damage). The strain produces microtears that heal up with individual muscle fibers growing larger in parallel to increase strength. With eccentric damage (use of muscles as dampers say whne waling down a steep incline), muscles actually grow longer and tendons shorten and stiffen. This improves flexibilty, resistance to eccentric damage and improves response as the shorter and thicker tendons are stiffer, improving frequency response.
In fact, muscles are the most plastic organs in our bodies, followed closely by the brain with its ability to constantly reprogram itself.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
If I were the rulemakers, I would simply wind down the downforce to about half its current level BUT free up other technologies such as drivetrain, engine, suspension and tire technlogy a bit more.
Basically, my intention is to force aero development towards efficiency (L/D) instead of just more and more downforce. This is both more enegry efficient and mouch more relevant to road cars.
As for allowing lower profile and stickier tires, this is to relieve overdependance on aero generatwed grip and more towards mechanical grip. This reduces overtaking issues by allowing great speeds without causing massive turbelant wakes that make a joke of overtaking attempts. The stiffer tyre sidewalls would also put emphasis back into suspension design and bring F-1 away form current no travel hacks that rely on sidewall deflection for as much as 40% of its travel. As I said before, what would you prefer, a consistant srping/damper suspesion or a sidewall that changes all the time?
And engines would have only 1 rule: A power limit. All engines shall not make more than a specified amount of power (say 750hp). This again puts emphasis back on increasing L/D, since the power limit prevents tthe use of more power to cope with more drag. This is all relevant to road cars too. How you achieve the power is essentailly free, so many types of powerplants and fuels would be allowed, again of relevance to road cars as it allows the development of next generation powerplants. The peak power limit also forces more energy efficiency as this would reduce the need for pitstops. The intentionis to force the development of superior drivetrains to extract as engine power and as efficiently as possible and put emphasis on the generation of broad torquebands. Let's make F-1 cars throttle steerable again! With the current peaky powerbands, throttle steering isn't viable.
Basically, my intention is to force aero development towards efficiency (L/D) instead of just more and more downforce. This is both more enegry efficient and mouch more relevant to road cars.
As for allowing lower profile and stickier tires, this is to relieve overdependance on aero generatwed grip and more towards mechanical grip. This reduces overtaking issues by allowing great speeds without causing massive turbelant wakes that make a joke of overtaking attempts. The stiffer tyre sidewalls would also put emphasis back into suspension design and bring F-1 away form current no travel hacks that rely on sidewall deflection for as much as 40% of its travel. As I said before, what would you prefer, a consistant srping/damper suspesion or a sidewall that changes all the time?
And engines would have only 1 rule: A power limit. All engines shall not make more than a specified amount of power (say 750hp). This again puts emphasis back on increasing L/D, since the power limit prevents tthe use of more power to cope with more drag. This is all relevant to road cars too. How you achieve the power is essentailly free, so many types of powerplants and fuels would be allowed, again of relevance to road cars as it allows the development of next generation powerplants. The peak power limit also forces more energy efficiency as this would reduce the need for pitstops. The intentionis to force the development of superior drivetrains to extract as engine power and as efficiently as possible and put emphasis on the generation of broad torquebands. Let's make F-1 cars throttle steerable again! With the current peaky powerbands, throttle steering isn't viable.
Just for interest:
The threshold for survivable peak g-force is set at 100g for the "average" driver (male, 5 foot 8inches, 70kg, relatively healthy and reasonably fit). But in fact, RL top profrssional drivers (F-1, WRC, etc.) have been known to survive peak gs higher than that.
Honestly, 20g isn't really THAT much if exerted over very short durations. Acrobatic pilots do 13gs quite regularly and cope pretty well as long as the duration of exertion isn't too long. Back in the Apollo era human to space launches experienced over 10gs for extended (quite a few seconds) periods of time, though the fact that the astronauts had excellent cardiovascular health (elite pilots) and specially designed seats/g-suits helped.
Conclusion? A strong and fit body does a better job of keeping itself in one piece. Superior mechanical strength and resilliance see to that.
The threshold for survivable peak g-force is set at 100g for the "average" driver (male, 5 foot 8inches, 70kg, relatively healthy and reasonably fit). But in fact, RL top profrssional drivers (F-1, WRC, etc.) have been known to survive peak gs higher than that.
Honestly, 20g isn't really THAT much if exerted over very short durations. Acrobatic pilots do 13gs quite regularly and cope pretty well as long as the duration of exertion isn't too long. Back in the Apollo era human to space launches experienced over 10gs for extended (quite a few seconds) periods of time, though the fact that the astronauts had excellent cardiovascular health (elite pilots) and specially designed seats/g-suits helped.
Conclusion? A strong and fit body does a better job of keeping itself in one piece. Superior mechanical strength and resilliance see to that.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
It all goes to explain how america has this amazing propensity to get themselves neck deep in one hopeless war after another, hey?
Maybe you have too much understeer in your setup in the first place? Or could it be just your over-stiff front compression stopping the car from transferring weight to the front quickly enough whilst trail breaking on entry? How about posting me your setup so I could see what's wrong? I don't get that kind of understeer with the setup I use, unless one attempts to enter corners at silly speeds (like turning into BL1 Fw's turn 1 at 100mph
). Remember, mid-engined cars of all drivetrain types (RWD and 4WD) are twitchy by nature. I feel that's a plus since it translates my steering commands into yaw much more quickly than any other type of car. Remember, the RA rewards finesse and subtlety more than any other road car in LFS.
A word of advice tristan:
If you are REALLY serious about getting the HANS device to improve safety, ask for advice from specialist engineers e.g. biomedical engineers that actually understand and work on RL conditions with real professional race drivers. The problem with asking fellow racers only is that there's more hearsay, errornous claims and just pure ignorance induced nonsense. If you believed the late Dale Earnhart, the HANS device is a "noose". Look where he is now. He died because the lack of the HANS device to restrain head movement relative to the neck. His head was effectively pulled out of his neck.
The technical term is "basilar skull fracture", a remarkably common phenomena in serious car crashes (in cars with poor or no restraints e.g. airbag to stop excess head movement).
Why were they created in the 1st place? Well, if NASCAR drivers weren't dying from remarkably prevalent basilar skull fractures, no one might have noticed.
To seriously help yourself on this question (to or not to use it), you must seriously consider how they work and what inspired their creation and use in professional racing. So, what causes neck injuries?
Of course, the HANS is useless if say a car flies right over your cockpit and decapitates you, but that's not how most casualties are generated. The real cause of injury is the fact that your seat belts do a great job of stopping your body, but it does nothing to stop head movement. It is the relative head movement between your body and head that causes real injuries. The HANS is effectively a "seat belt" for your head. It is effective as long as it prevents excessive head movement.
And yes, what a lot already say here is true, all the restraints in the universe are useless if your car isn't up to the task of absorbing kinetic energy to prevent to much load transfer to the driver. And higher cockpit side (provided they are strong and tall enough) could help reduce your chances of decapitation.
FYI, I happen to be a biomedical engineer, so I know what I'm talking about when it comes to biomechanics. And no, there's been no real evidence of HANS actually causing injuries and crashes, so don't believe every urban legend you hear. When pigs are born naturally with wings and fly around on their own power, THEN I'll believe seat belts cost lives.
Racing is a dangerous sport, but that leaves no excuse to take safety lightly. Just the opposite. Take it from a guy who used to race around on gravel/mud/soil tracks well defined by rows of trees. And happy AND safe racing, tristan.
If you are REALLY serious about getting the HANS device to improve safety, ask for advice from specialist engineers e.g. biomedical engineers that actually understand and work on RL conditions with real professional race drivers. The problem with asking fellow racers only is that there's more hearsay, errornous claims and just pure ignorance induced nonsense. If you believed the late Dale Earnhart, the HANS device is a "noose". Look where he is now. He died because the lack of the HANS device to restrain head movement relative to the neck. His head was effectively pulled out of his neck.
The technical term is "basilar skull fracture", a remarkably common phenomena in serious car crashes (in cars with poor or no restraints e.g. airbag to stop excess head movement). Why were they created in the 1st place? Well, if NASCAR drivers weren't dying from remarkably prevalent basilar skull fractures, no one might have noticed.
To seriously help yourself on this question (to or not to use it), you must seriously consider how they work and what inspired their creation and use in professional racing. So, what causes neck injuries?
Of course, the HANS is useless if say a car flies right over your cockpit and decapitates you, but that's not how most casualties are generated. The real cause of injury is the fact that your seat belts do a great job of stopping your body, but it does nothing to stop head movement. It is the relative head movement between your body and head that causes real injuries. The HANS is effectively a "seat belt" for your head. It is effective as long as it prevents excessive head movement.
And yes, what a lot already say here is true, all the restraints in the universe are useless if your car isn't up to the task of absorbing kinetic energy to prevent to much load transfer to the driver. And higher cockpit side (provided they are strong and tall enough) could help reduce your chances of decapitation.
FYI, I happen to be a biomedical engineer, so I know what I'm talking about when it comes to biomechanics. And no, there's been no real evidence of HANS actually causing injuries and crashes, so don't believe every urban legend you hear. When pigs are born naturally with wings and fly around on their own power, THEN I'll believe seat belts cost lives.
Racing is a dangerous sport, but that leaves no excuse to take safety lightly. Just the opposite. Take it from a guy who used to race around on gravel/mud/soil tracks well defined by rows of trees. And happy AND safe racing, tristan.
Not just loss of power. We should define a certain level of damage that if reached, would affect systems such as the radiator, etc, the engine should overheat and eventually experience total destruction, like IRL. Beyond that, front engined vehicles should suffer instant immobillization not only due to engine damage and misalignment, but also extensive suspension and chassis/drivetrain damage.
CVT is the theoretically ideal transmission as it allows the engine to run at its maximum potential for as long as possible. Imagine a transmission that allows your car to run at maximum power rpm continuously for maximum acceleration and speed. This would allow the use of extremly peaky and powerful engines with no penalty whatsover.
But CVT was banned in many forms of racing. So the ultimate approach now is to simply use engines with good powerbands and to shift gears with no time loss. Unfortunately, with F-1s propensity to ban anything that is innovative and of very good for road cars (e.g. Renault's variable intake system), the powerband equation goes down teh drain. What they CAN do, however, is to remove the annoying shift lag via zeroshift, which is still a normal geared transmission but can be shifted without loss of torque to the wheels.
Let's hope they don't ban this so this tech will soon trickle down to road cars. It actually makes little sense to ban it since it shaves miliseconds to lap times and will not magically turn Scott Speed into Micheal Schumacher or Kimi Raikonnen. For instance, if Honda didn't monkey around with VTEC during the turbo era, VTEC wouldn't have been so well developed for today numerous Honda performance cars tah trange from Honda Integras to Honda NSXs.
But CVT was banned in many forms of racing. So the ultimate approach now is to simply use engines with good powerbands and to shift gears with no time loss. Unfortunately, with F-1s propensity to ban anything that is innovative and of very good for road cars (e.g. Renault's variable intake system), the powerband equation goes down teh drain. What they CAN do, however, is to remove the annoying shift lag via zeroshift, which is still a normal geared transmission but can be shifted without loss of torque to the wheels.
Let's hope they don't ban this so this tech will soon trickle down to road cars. It actually makes little sense to ban it since it shaves miliseconds to lap times and will not magically turn Scott Speed into Micheal Schumacher or Kimi Raikonnen. For instance, if Honda didn't monkey around with VTEC during the turbo era, VTEC wouldn't have been so well developed for today numerous Honda performance cars tah trange from Honda Integras to Honda NSXs.
Good point and yes, it is the passion of the devs and those that played LFS that makes a great race sim, despite of its currently flawed state due to incomplete physics, etc.
But let's face it ,the devs can't finish the project properly without continual monetary support. Last time I checked, Scawen is off his former day job and relying on LFS license income. To deny any customer that wants realistic physics AND wants to drift, drag, oval race, test drive, rally, etc is just plain stupid.
As someone here has already said, if a racing sim has evolved to a point where the physics are REALLY realistic, it effectively becomes a DRIVING SIMULATOR. At this point, one could really use the program to drive any way they want as long as they abide by the laws of physics.
Besides, a little extra motivation for the devs won't hurt.
I don't have anything against a specialized drift edition of LFS as long as it is done in the LFS spirit of things (i.e. physics and realism gets priority) for drifters seeking excellent car physics.
The only problem is that LFS remains a very unfinished project ATM and many important physics remain unimplemented, from proper turbo modeling and powerbands to 3D suspension geometry (i.e. dynamic toe aka bump steer). I just don't see the point of overworking the devs when they are still working on the current (unfinished) product. But when the physics are close to finalization, then this would be a great idea for serious drifters seeking realistic drift simulators.
The only problem is that LFS remains a very unfinished project ATM and many important physics remain unimplemented, from proper turbo modeling and powerbands to 3D suspension geometry (i.e. dynamic toe aka bump steer). I just don't see the point of overworking the devs when they are still working on the current (unfinished) product. But when the physics are close to finalization, then this would be a great idea for serious drifters seeking realistic drift simulators.
A 0.2 second shift is perfectly possible for a very skilled driver for transmissions with short gear lever strokes, e.g., Honda S2000.
In case you're all wondering, the idea of the driver really shifting gears in view whilst you're driving was already very well implemented in NFS:Porsche Unleashed. What was remarkable was that it wasn't just a graphical showoff, it actually worked properly, with the shift done right after the guy stops moving his arm.
In case you're all wondering, the idea of the driver really shifting gears in view whilst you're driving was already very well implemented in NFS:Porsche Unleashed. What was remarkable was that it wasn't just a graphical showoff, it actually worked properly, with the shift done right after the guy stops moving his arm.
I talked about this lousy turbo behavior and lack of sensible 7500rpm rev counters and realistic powerbands in TBO cars for a long time. Yes, it is and still remains one of the most blaringly obvious and neglected physics flaws in LFS, unfortunately.
The current clutch diffs with realistic behavior thanks to clutch preload had really fixed up the handling and cornering equation to a very large degree, Based on what Scawen said in some other post, these turbo engine problems will be fixed in some forseeable time, though it could be quite a few weeks or even some number of months before this actually happens.
The current clutch diffs with realistic behavior thanks to clutch preload had really fixed up the handling and cornering equation to a very large degree, Based on what Scawen said in some other post, these turbo engine problems will be fixed in some forseeable time, though it could be quite a few weeks or even some number of months before this actually happens.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Again it all goes down to focus, confidence and mental discilpline. If you know that opponent is saying utter b0ll0cks and just trying to psyche you out, it won't work. Your resistance only grows as you get better at a sport to the point where you don't see the stupidity around you. All you'll ever see is a path and a goal. This is what people like Aryton Senna have achieved, a state of absolute focus.
What I've said before is based on the unfortunate fact that people resort to the most uncivillized means to disrupt others. Like calling names, swearing, etc.
A word on competitive mind games: subtle words and gestures could psyche someone out more effectively than throwing insults around.
What I've said before is based on the unfortunate fact that people resort to the most uncivillized means to disrupt others. Like calling names, swearing, etc.
A word on competitive mind games: subtle words and gestures could psyche someone out more effectively than throwing insults around.
What's this CVT bonanza in F1? There are no CVTs ever used in F-1 races!
In case you're all wondering what this seemless shift thing is and start throwing all kinds of claims on technology of alien complication adn sophistication, here's what this seamless shift gearbox REALLY is:
http://www.zeroshift.com/
Yes, it works on having 2 gears effectively on at once, like DSG, but much simpler and and more elegant. It's just clever mechanical design and close loop electronic and computer control.
In case you're all wondering what this seemless shift thing is and start throwing all kinds of claims on technology of alien complication adn sophistication, here's what this seamless shift gearbox REALLY is:
http://www.zeroshift.com/
Yes, it works on having 2 gears effectively on at once, like DSG, but much simpler and and more elegant. It's just clever mechanical design and close loop electronic and computer control.
Very true. This happens with super soft suspension. Car rolls too much, suspension camber recovery fails to compensate for roll, tire contact angle fets all off, forcing the tire to ride on th outside edge and eventually experience thread rollover and catastrophic loss of grip. Good news is that this happens to FRONT tires in RL cars most of the time. The Toyota Prado and it's super soft suspension (latest model is even SOFTER and LOWER!(200+mm->180mm!)) understeers so horribly that the only way to avoid tire squirm and excessive front tire outside shoulder wear is to
a. Drive like an 90 year old granny that can just barely keep the car in control at 30km/h.
b. To HELL with factory camber settings and realign the front camber with appropriate amounts of negative camber(Factory settings are quite frankly, based on my own observations, loony. As if all you'll ever do is drive in a straight line of totter around at under 30km/h).
c. Get a stiffer and taller aftermarket suspension that performs better on and off road. Slightly higher center of gravity is easily overcome by improved suspension behavior.
d. Combination of b. and c.
If the front suspension was stiff enough, it wouldn't be a problem unless there is some serious mismatch of road to tire camber angles and roll stiffnesses. Basically, softer rear suspension could significantly stabillize the rear and provide more traction (for RWD and 4WD) if camber was kept under control so that the benefits from tire load sensitivity (more even L/R tire loading) would dominate.
I bet XCNuse had a spin on entry or mid corner. On exit as you unwind the steering whilst increasing power, the rear should squat and regain some lost tire to ground camber.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
List of some car types that should be in LFS (illustrated with exact car model/category):
1. Audi R10
2. Mitsubishi Pajero Evolution 2005(with the Kinetic rollbar system).
3. VW Toureg 2007
4. McLaren F1 GTR Longtail
5. Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution 6.5 TME
6. Porsche Caman S
7. Porsche 997 turbo
8. Ferrari 430
9. Toyota MR2 Turbo (TBO MR competitor)
10.Group B
In no particular order. Would be great if all these types were in LFS.
1. Audi R10
2. Mitsubishi Pajero Evolution 2005(with the Kinetic rollbar system).
3. VW Toureg 2007
4. McLaren F1 GTR Longtail
5. Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution 6.5 TME
6. Porsche Caman S
7. Porsche 997 turbo
8. Ferrari 430
9. Toyota MR2 Turbo (TBO MR competitor)
10.Group B
In no particular order. Would be great if all these types were in LFS.
I'm saying that mind games don't work well on seasoned racers. Some competitive speak is good for racing as it adds to the competitive atmosphere. But to resort to insults and stupidity puts a sport down the drain. No, yelling profanity and shouting random insults won't speed you up or slow a disiciplined racer down. It just makes you look like an uncivillized idiot.
Resorting to dirty tricks won't do LFS any good too. When was the last time a decent LFS player bought the license to wreck massive havoc and turn fun races into sick jokes?
Of course, there are wreckers and incessantly swearing/insulting nutcases that could use a visit to the assylum, though thankfully they seem very rare among licenesed LFS racers.
Resorting to dirty tricks won't do LFS any good too. When was the last time a decent LFS player bought the license to wreck massive havoc and turn fun races into sick jokes?
Of course, there are wreckers and incessantly swearing/insulting nutcases that could use a visit to the assylum, though thankfully they seem very rare among licenesed LFS racers.
I actually liked the old BL better in some ways, due to its chicanes (most memorable part of the track. Too bad it's gone...
) Cutting those chicane kerns JUST right...bliss. The current BL is way better suited to the GTRs and SSs but I enjoyed the narrow nature of the old track more. Then again, the most fun in those days was with the TBOs and LXs, and the occasional MRT-5 blast. Boy I miss the old BL.
First, please put capitals where they should be. Secondly, even if your chess comment i REMOTELY true (which I highly doubt), it's ultimately stupid because of the health nightmares you inflict on yourself and the fact that if the opponent runs the same stupid stunt, it'll fail miserably.
The problem with stupid and uncivillized bhavior is that if it gets normal, it loses all it's ability to psyche anyone out. All that stupidity for naught. All you would have done is make your sport look bad without any improvements in competitiveness, so why bother with this trashy and self destructive path?
I actually prefer the RA over the FZ. Much more balanced, superior suspension and once I've finished with a good base setup, the most fun RWD road car in LFS. The lack of inertia makes it such a joy to drive. If only the turbo worked properly. And if I remember correctly, there are 2 sets for real RAs. One is the road set that has no rear ARB, and there's the track-biased version that does have rear ARB.
The thing with the RA is that a reasonably sized rear ARB would help a lot in helping rear tire to road camber control. Too bad we don't have that now, but one could easily compensate with a well balanced spring setup and a healthy (but not ridiculous) amount of front antiroll. A small touch of rear positive toe in and a well adjusted clutch diff and it's pure utopia. If only we get a M/RWD GTR or supercar somewhere down LFS's development life...
That pendulum FZ50 rear does get tiresome after a while. It SEEMS easier to drive, but it's because of it's relatively slow yaw rate, not superior inherent balance.
My usual LFS rides are the RB4, RA and FZR. BF1 for some insanely fast fun occasionally on the superfast tracks.
The thing with the RA is that a reasonably sized rear ARB would help a lot in helping rear tire to road camber control. Too bad we don't have that now, but one could easily compensate with a well balanced spring setup and a healthy (but not ridiculous) amount of front antiroll. A small touch of rear positive toe in and a well adjusted clutch diff and it's pure utopia. If only we get a M/RWD GTR or supercar somewhere down LFS's development life...
That pendulum FZ50 rear does get tiresome after a while. It SEEMS easier to drive, but it's because of it's relatively slow yaw rate, not superior inherent balance.
My usual LFS rides are the RB4, RA and FZR. BF1 for some insanely fast fun occasionally on the superfast tracks.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Most race cars in LFS top out at 200+kph, so they're all supposed to be taken flat out? The only car that could be REALLY fun here would be the BF1!
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Nope. Not "rice". RACE!!!
I just don't feel like scaring the pants off a bunch of supercars with my roadable track and rally monsters.
If given a choice, one would like NOT to split the ballast. If ballast is a must for a car with already good F/R weight distribution, it should be placed as low and as close to the center of gravity as possible. This to maintain good mass distribution AND minimize moment of inertia.
For cars that are front or rear heavy, it depends. If one has say an F/R car that's too nose heavy, say 60/40 F/R, one would place the ballst as far back as possible OR as close to the wheelbase center as possible. This revolves a tradeoff between mass distribution and moment of inertia. Even so, splitting up the masses is still not such a brilliant idea. Why on earth would you want to split 2 masses on a dumbell farther apart when one doesn't need to?
One of the biggest problems with rallycross in LFS is the sheer lack of ANY car truely suited to rallycrossing. Wouldn't be so painfully slow and boring if one has a 350hp RB4 that weighs the same as it currently does but with way better suspesnsion (longer travel and progressive springs + 4 way dampers). With just a small amount of downforce to keep the car on the ground and reasonably stable, it's anything but a slowcoach.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG