Drag Coefficient
 

I guess it's got a good one, but cd is really a meaningless measurement. It's kind of like the specific output measure that honda guys want to hang their hats on.

-Justin

Welcome to 2 years ago.... the low Cd isn't as impressive as you think, for a sports car, or sporty car its easy to design the shape to be aerodynamically good.

The only model that comes in .27cd is the GT86 Limited model equipped with a rear spoiler and flat under panels The rest are .28 & .29 respectively.

Do the twins cross through air like any of those vehicles you listed? no, they don't. Those cars also produce good downforce while keeping a low cd. While the FRS/BRZ produce very little downforce to begin with.

Among any of the newer vehicles under 30k, sure the twins are one of the most aerodynamic, but don't mistake that number as being equal to those high performance models you listed.

I disagree. If only what you just said made logical sense and if you understood physics...but no matter. If you feel that way, good for you! :clap:

Don't know about you but my Porsche 991S feels a hell of a lot more stable than my FRS at high speeds.

Downforce generally creates drag, but by focusing this drag only where it's needed (front and rear) and cutting it from places where it isn't (mirrors, wipers, bodylines, gaps, etc) you end up with about the same coefficient of drag but much more useable downforce.

The FR-S might not produce downforce like those other higher end cars with similar numbers. For us the lower drag just equals better fuel economy, these cars weren't meant to produce down force at high rates of speed (autocross/drifting).

A Honda Insight and Prius have similar cd, performance on those cars are close to a GT-R as well.

You could have just said "I don't get what your saying".but no... Instead you'd rather be on my watch list for banning, but no matter.... if you feel that way about banning good for you! :clap:

So im going to assume you know more than me, about physics or about everything in the universe. Then educate me.

I understand that cd is the product of the drag force, divided by the quantity: density r times reference area A times one half of the velocity V squared. or Cd = 2Fd/(Apv^2). To find the total resistance of the vehicle.

I understand that drag force (a + bv + cv2) equals the variables such as rolling resistance from tires, brake pad and bearing drag and resistence, downforce, ect.

I understand that as cd decreases, so does lift increase. I also understand that adding downforce increases cd since it affects the drag force directly.

In a wind tunnel or CFD where all variables are controlled, sure a FRS could be just as resistant as a GTR.

I also believe that if i took a GTR and 86, gave them equal power & equal weight, they would still not be equal in aerodynamics. Around a track a smaller more resistant FRS .27 will still be much slower than a GTR .26 regardless if it sports a larger cdA.

To me, the 86 has low resistance tires, its got a small deck spoiler, it has a flat under panel. and still ONLY manages a .27 with very little downforce applied. vs a physically bigger GTR, with large resistant tires, a large wing for downforce, a low slung under panel, a more overall more drag resistant car still has a cd of .26

That would mean around a track, the GTR would be able to remain more stable, achieve more grip, and be bigger, and still be able to resist air as just if not more effectively than the FRS.



Does that make sense?

:confused0068:

...

Asshole? Says the guy who starts off with, "Welcome to 2 years ago....". Grow up, thanks.

Aw, someone is offended. I get what you're trying to say, but no matter....because what you are trying to say doesn't make much sense. Grats on understanding yourself though! :clap:

Did you get all that information off wikipedia? Happy to know you are sticking to your logic (perhaps lack there of) and that this forum allows people like you to express yourself in a domineering fashion to fellow members. Shame on you.

Peace and Love,
I'm out.

^^^ lol