The uglyness spreads....

[Charlie don't surf]

[quote="fredswain"]As long as there is a front shock tower sticking up, a cab forward body is a placebo. It is impossible for them to do anything useful.[/quote.]

And what about all those wings on the F1 cars with the tires and the drivers head? Can't work either right!

[Diggley]

I think the appropriate decal on those bodies should be 'FTL' or 'FML'.

by the way, anyone else tired of 'ftw'? I think message boards should censor it already...ugh....

I was thinking more like: "WTF"? would be more appropriate...

Those are hideous. If anyone believes they improve lap times, they're full of $*it.

Here's an idea: Practice..it'll make anyone a better driver..

[rhino1]

Looks like some kind of mutated insect! I will stick with my vintage buggies at least they look like a real buggy!

[fredswain]

As long as there is a front shock tower sticking up, a cab forward body is a placebo. It is impossible for them to do anything useful.[/quote.]

And what about all those wings on the F1 cars with the tires and the drivers head? Can't work either right!

What part of a cab forward body looks anything even remotely close to an F1 car??? F1 wings are not placed directly behind a telephone pole sized pair of shocks connected by a 2 x 12 on top. F1 wings are IN the airflow. A cab forward body is not. At least not enough air to matter as the air that is there will be heavily turbulent. An entire F1 car is designed around airflow and even the underside of the car and exhaust have an effect on how the wings react. They are designed to all work together. Keep in mind they are also very high drag as a result. The rear wing of an rc car does have an effect due to it's size although the older ones that sit up higher above the shock towers have far more effect on down force since they are in cleaner air.

[Coelacanth]

As long as there is a front shock tower sticking up, a cab forward body is a placebo. It is impossible for them to do anything useful.[/quote.]

And what about all those wings on the F1 cars with the tires and the drivers head? Can't work either right!

What part of a cab forward body looks anything even remotely close to an F1 car???

I was kind of wondering about that analogy as well. Comparing these bulldog bodies to an F1 car is a pretty big leap.

[Charlie don't surf]

A big leap for sure! But, objects in front of the "Areo" device ( in this case a friction wing ) does impede the device, but does not keep it from working- keep in mind a few posts ago I said how little area the "WTF" ( Love the name! ) shell had to any advantage-

[fredswain]

That's more than a leap. It's was pure wishful thinking. You may as well place that body behind a brick wall or inside a bank vault in a hurricane. It will have the exact same aerodynamic effect because it most certainly does nothing useful.

[ROH73]

That's more than a leap. It's was pure wishful thinking. You may as well place that body behind a brick wall or inside a bank vault in a hurricane. It will have the exact same aerodynamic effect because it most certainly does nothing useful.

I don't think that's true. At best, most of us here on this board have little idea how the cab forward bodies affect performance (good our bad) because we haven't used them, but I'm assuming no racers at high levels (such as the current IFMAR champion) are running them for their good looks. Even at 1/10th scale and behind a huge front shock tower/shocks, RC car body shape can have quite an impact on overall aerodynamics, especially considering the high speeds and large jumps that are the norm today. Moving the cab forward will have an impact on the air stream (turbulent or not) flowing towards the wing and rear of the car.

It would be interesting to get the cars in a scale wind tunnel to get some good hard data. Back in the late 80s, I was in an engineering explorer post at Mack Trucks and we did scale wind tunnel testing on our RC cars (Mack had a 1/8 scale wind tunnel to test truck models). Changes to the body and wing had measurable affects at "race speed" (IIRC we used 20 mph).

[Bongo Fury]

I wish the cab forward bodies didn’t work, as I find them horrendous. But sadly I’ve seen a fair amount of evidence that they do seem to work with a variety of respected racers.

In the Vintage spirit, aka the more things change the more they stay the same, I’ve always remembered this letter to the editor from the June 1989 RCCA. Granted the response uses a high speed onroad ancedote, but I thought it interesting just the same.

Aero Information
As you've probably seen, nearly all R/C car have spoilers, and almost every company
is trying to produce aerodynamic bodies to "reduce airflow." I asked a physics
professsor at UCLA and, taking into consideration the average weight and size
of most R/C cars, he agreed with me that spoilers have no effect on downforce, and
aerodynamic bodies have little effect on speed and/or handling. Do you agree with
this, and why?
JOHN WESTLETON
Santa Monica, CA

John, I totally disagree with both the UCLA physics professor and you. If you
had limited your theory to backyard off-road buggies running through chassis-high
grass, I would tend to agree that aerodynamics isn't important. However,
you made a statement about R/C cars in general. Aerodynamics does affect R/C
cars greatly on the racetrack. The faster the cars go, the greater the effect. You
must remember that because the cars we race are so lightweight, it doesn't take a
great deal of downforce or lift to have a major effect. I have seen cars handle totally
differently by adding a wing –or changing the body style. The last time I
had the opportunity to race at Lake Whippoorwill International Speedway, I
crashed during a race and ripped my rear wing off. After that, my car had so much
over steer I couldn't drive it anymore, so I parked it in the infield. In this issue, you
can see where Dick Brinton uses a wing to correct a handling problem in "Budget
Racer." Go out and try some experiments for yourself. Maybe you can invite the
professor to join you for a little aerodynamic trackside testing session.
RH

[Diggley]

I wish the cab forward bodies didn’t work, as I find them horrendous. But sadly I’ve seen a fair amount of evidence that they do seem to work with a variety of respected racers.

In the Vintage spirit, aka the more things change the more they stay the same, I’ve always remembered this letter to the editor from the June 1989 RCCA. Granted the response uses a high speed onroad ancedote, but I thought it interesting just the same.

Aero Information
As you've probably seen, nearly all R/C car have spoilers, and almost every company
is trying to produce aerodynamic bodies to "reduce airflow." I asked a physics
professsor at UCLA and, taking into consideration the average weight and size
of most R/C cars, he agreed with me that spoilers have no effect on downforce, and
aerodynamic bodies have little effect on speed and/or handling. Do you agree with
this, and why?
JOHN WESTLETON
Santa Monica, CA

John, I totally disagree with both the UCLA physics professor and you. If you
had limited your theory to backyard off-road buggies running through chassis-high
grass, I would tend to agree that aerodynamics isn't important. However,
you made a statement about R/C cars in general. Aerodynamics does affect R/C
cars greatly on the racetrack. The faster the cars go, the greater the effect. You
must remember that because the cars we race are so lightweight, it doesn't take a
great deal of downforce or lift to have a major effect. I have seen cars handle totally
differently by adding a wing –or changing the body style. The last time I
had the opportunity to race at Lake Whippoorwill International Speedway, I
crashed during a race and ripped my rear wing off. After that, my car had so much
over steer I couldn't drive it anymore, so I parked it in the infield. In this issue, you
can see where Dick Brinton uses a wing to correct a handling problem in "Budget
Racer." Go out and try some experiments for yourself. Maybe you can invite the
professor to join you for a little aerodynamic trackside testing session.
RH

I'd agree with the aero/downforce benefit on on-road cars, because they travel at (much) higher speeds on a smooth & somewhat predictable surface. Lake Whippoorwill was a concrete oval track. (It had NOTHING to do with dirt racing) Besides bicycles, the only thing I recall being raced there were 1/10th scale Nascar types.

I'll stick with calling BS on any significant off-road benefits of an ass-ugly abomination of a body.

Aero is a pretty important benefit..on-road..there's just too many variables in the dirt to notice anything other than how well a buggy may come off a jump.

Has anyone seen wings on many current Baja's, Buggies, Jeeps, trucks, or anything else in full scale SCORE or short course racing?...me neither.

[ROH73]

I'll stick with calling BS on any significant off-road benefits of an ass-ugly abomination of a body.

Aero is a pretty important benefit..on-road..there's just too many variables in the dirt to notice anything other than how well a buggy may come off a jump.

Wow, you seem pretty sure about this. Do you have any data to back it up?

Modern off-road tracks are very smooth with sections that mimic on-road tracks. At 30+ mph on a long straightaway, body design may be able to make a difference. Moving the cab forward moves the low pressure area that occurs behind the cab forward as well. This changes how the air flows over the wing and decreases downforce on the rear of the car, possibly increasing top speed.

The cab forward bodies may be ugly, but they also may simply work better. Again, actual data would be very nice to have.

[Charlie don't surf]

Areo is huge in 1/10th buggy, truck and Short bus-
think about this as well-

fluid dynamics measures the movement and manipulation of fluids in motion. The atmosphere is of course a fluid, with a specific gravity at a given atmospheric level, and a given density based off of temperature and h2o content-

Automobile racing uses areodynamics and wicker panels ( drag wings ) and such to enhance handling, in fact all professional motor sports have tremendous budgets dedicated to this area alone as part of an overall race package.

1/10th scale areo by the numbers deals with even denser fluid at scale, making aerofoils-wicker panels and barge boards even more effective per surface area by the numbers.

I don't care for the asthetics of any of the cab forward shells period, but as I reported to Jconcepts-

1) the truck averaged 2 tenths faster per lap with the new shell
2) the truck was much looser on entry and exit in low speed sections
3) was tremendously more stable at high speeds and in sweepers
4) the truck had much more agressive corner entry
5) the jump approach speeds were increased as well due to less "hangtime" or parachuting.
6) the truck responded to mid air corrections (specifically brake application)


Like the looks or not ( IMO ) if it don't go fast- chrome it. If it looks like crap, but I finished 3 laps ahead of you then..........

[Lowgear]

Has any company ever done any sort of wind tunnel testing on their bodies before besides BoLink?

[Coelacanth]

There's a very simple way to test this, and until this test is done, I'll remain unconvinced and skeptical. Until one limits the variables as much as possible, everything is just conjecture.

Take ONE car. Mount what appears to be a sleek, aerodynamic body on it. Have ONE driver do 100 laps and get an average lap time.

Take the SAME car. Mount the ass-ugly cab-forward body on it. Have the SAME driver do 100 laps and get the average lap time. Everything the same EXCEPT the body.

Compare results. It's that simple. As long as you eliminate as many variables as possible, the experiment becomes increasingly valid. Has anyone done such an experiment?

[adam lancia]

You still have one variable there: training effect. Wind tunnel would be best to test what the body does differently compared to a conventional one. Whether that can translate into faster laps is completely dependent on the skill of the driver.