jeffbrig and takchi are correct - verifiable aerodynamics (as in a wind tunnel) are the only data to believe unless tantheman's engineer has a highly sophisticated simulation system (doubtful) akin to those used by aeronautical engineers, and if so, let's see the data. Otherwise, I say this is all hype and subjective opinion that comes no where close to justifying the expense!

 

tantheman is correct in saying that CAD simulators and existing principles are used to design this product. in fact, this is the best method in cost saving R&D work, however, even CAD simulated designed products need to be subjected to real life testing to verify theoretical models. in engineering, you never believe everything a CAD simulated model has to offer. a hypothetical experiment will eventually require an actual experiment to verify the findings. it is true that have a smooth underbody will help improve aerodynamics by accelerating the air underneath the vehicle, but wind tunnel testing gives tangible data on paper. field testing includes actual track testing and daily driving to identify the amount of improvement in high speed stability and cornering this product has to offer. in fact, just performing a series of tests including theoretical modeling, wind tunnel testing, and field testing may help you identify what works and what doesn't work. from a marketing standpoint, i believe your company has nothing to lose but much to gain when you can show tangible proof that your potential customers would want to see.

case in point, CAD simulators are useful tools, but even engineers will want to go the extra step to verify the CAD simulated data. i understand you got an f1 designer and gm looking at your design, but do remember, all f1 karts are designed by CAD, simulated by CAD and other mathematical models, eventually undergo wind tunnel testing and then actual field testing by their test drivers.

 

Almost...

Engineering stress simulators and flow simulations tools are becoming extremely viable. As an aerospace engineer in the aircraft desgin realm, i often look to simulators to validate my theories.

Simulators are based on real data. They take real world data (from a wind tunnel experiment, for example) and are setup until they give the same outputs. They are, effectively, as good as testing.

We write off tests for certain components as "proven by simulation".

Plus, its a most basic principle that a FULL undercar cover is substantially better than a little one on each end. Shapes, full effects, etc... are more complicated.

Also, CAD - computer aided design - tools are not simulation tools. Or, at least not necessarily... they are VERY different

 

i'm not familiar with data simulators...CFD analysis?

 

i hope not just CAD... CFD is the tool.

CFD = computational fluid dynamics, and what it does is simulate fluid flow over surfaces with defined boundary conditions. it has to be set up right, and it costs quite a bit of money to license the decent codes and pay a skilled engineer to run them.

but CFD would give you a really good idea if the tool is used correctly. wind tunnel is better, but CFD is good.

 

If this is the case, how much down force do the models suggest is created at let's say 60, 90 and 120 mph?