Shave Seconds Off Your Lap Times by Adding Aerodynamics

[Clay_from_Verus]

Testing Goals
The goal of the tests was to quantify track times before and after adding our aerodynamic parts to the car.

There are 2 different drivers; one a professional driver and the other an average track enthusiast.

This was to show how track times change with two different drivers of different skill sets. We also wanted to see how aerodynamic components can impact lap times for two different drivers with different skill sets.



Setup
The customer BRZ was setup with laser ride height sensors and an AIM Evo 5 for data acquisition. This allows us to quantify the lap time differences, estimate downforce levels, and visually see the differences in lap times from setup to setup as well as driver to driver.

Drivers
Dan Clarke – Professional race car driver who has driven in many racing series

• Formula Ford
• British Formula 3 Championship
• Champ Car
• A1GP
• Indy Lights
• NASCAR
• Continental Tire SportsCar Challenge

Dan also works as a driving coach at Putnam Park Road Course.



Justin Green – Average track car enthusiast and owner of the test car.

• Professional Automotive Painter
• Avid track enthusiast
• Owner of two dogs
• Loves working on cars
• Gamer

Dan Clarke No Aero vs Verus Aero
Verus Aero Added:

1. Rear Diffuser
2. Splitter with Race Upgrade
3. Splitter Endplates
4. High-Efficiency Wing

Best Lap WITHOUT Verus Engineering Aero
1.20.636

Best Lap WITH Verus Engineering Aero
1.19.386

Lap time improved by 1.25 seconds


Orange is lap with Verus Aero
Blue is lap without Verus Aero

The car had 3 laser ride height sensors installed where the ride heights at the tire center can be calculated. See our video of how laser ride heights work

.

The ride height sensors allow us to write math channels to calculate downforce. The easiest place to calculate downforce would be the straight while the car is still at full throttle, no braking, and no steering input.

At the end of the straight, we are calculating around 380lbs of downforce at 110mph.


Orange is lap with Verus Aero
Blue is lap without Verus Aero

The ride heights throughout the lap are lower with the Verus Engineering aero. We then calculated average downforce throughout the lap.

The average downforce increase compared to no aero throughout the lap is 230 lbs!


Orange is lap with Verus Aero
Blue is lap without Verus Aero


Orange is lap with Verus Aero
Blue is lap without Verus Aero

1. With aero, Dan was able to brake less and carry more speed. In most places, no aero required more braking and more braking pressure. In one specific track location (turn 3 to 4), no braking was required using the aero kit where braking was necessary for no aero.
2. With aero, two turns had higher braking pressure, but the speed was higher and throttle was on longer with aero, necessitating the need for slightly higher brake pressure.
3. With aero, Dan’s steering input was smoother. From driver feedback, this was because the downforce made the car feel more planted and was easier to drive. The car was less tail happy and required less steering wheel correction throughout the corner.
4. With aero, Dan was able to get on throttle quicker.
5. With aero, Dan was able to stay on throttle longer.

Orange is lap with Verus Aero
Blue is lap without Verus Aero

1. With aero, more speed can be carried throughout the corners.
2. Speed with aero is lower in the higher speed straight because of the added drag.

Justin Green No Aero vs Verus Aero
The data on the enthusiast driver was much more difficult to decipher. The ride heights were more erratic so I would not trust the numbers as well compared to Dan’s ride height data which was more consistent.

Because of this, I will emit the downforce numbers for this. However, visually the ride heights are lower throughout the long front straight (purple and light blue are lower).


Dark Blue is lap without Verus Aero
Purple is with Verus Aero
Light Blue is Verus Aero and swapping High-Efficiency wing for UCW

The ride heights throughout the lap are lower with the Verus Engineering aero. We then calculated average downforce throughout the lap compared to no aero.

The average downforce throughout the track is 140 lbs. This is lower than Dan which makes sense as Dan carried more speed throughout the track, thus generating more downforce.


Dark Blue is lap without Verus Aero
Purple is with Verus Aero
Light Blue is Verus Aero and swapping High-Efficiency wing for UCW

Conclusion

Ultimately Dan preferred our High-Efficiency Rear Wing compared to the other wings we tested. It also resulted in the fastest time around the track. The reduced drag and high efficiency of the rear wing compared to the other units tested proved to be the best setup for this specific front aero package and Dan’s driving style.

Justin preferred substantially more rear downforce and was more confident with our UCW rear wing. Justin was able to reduce his lap times further with the UCW than with the High-Efficiency Rear Wing due to his driving style and the increased confidence the UCW unit offers him. Justin reduced his lap times by an *additional* 0.671 seconds with the UCW off the setup with the High-Efficiency Rear Wing.

[Jstyle]

Just curious, what was Justin's stock time, UCW time and HE time?

[VerusEric]

Originally Posted by Jstyle

Just curious, what was Justin's stock time, UCW time and HE time?

No aero: 1.25.997

UCW: 1.22.419

HE Wing: 1.23.090

Thanks,
Eric

[ML]

what is #6 call out?

[M0nk3y]

Originally Posted by ML

what is #6 call out?

I'd assume the same, T9 is a long right hand sweeper so ability to stay in throttle longer without having to light to manage rear stability

[Clay_from_Verus]

Originally Posted by ML

what is #6 call out?

#6 signifies that in this corner, Dan is able to stay on the throttle longer. We fat-fingered the number on the graph, it should be a 5 as well.

[Clay_from_Verus]

Originally Posted by M0nk3y

I'd assume the same, T9 is a long right hand sweeper so ability to stay in throttle longer without having to light to manage rear stability

You are correct. 6 is the same as 5.

[GrandSport]

Were you able to calculate front downforce?
I have APR wing, but I'm almost certain I'd be faster without it unless I got more front aero. I just have a small APR carbon splitter.

[Clay_from_Verus]

Originally Posted by GrandSport

Were you able to calculate front downforce?
I have APR wing, but I'm almost certain I'd be faster without it unless I got more front aero. I just have a small APR carbon splitter.

We just calculated the total downforce on track, but attached is our informative packet that goes over our Ventus aero packages.

[GrandSport]

Really impressive.

[dsc_pat]

Amazing info. Thank you so much for sharing.

Goes to show how valuable good aero parts are on track compared to useless exhaust and intake, sometimes heat-screwing mods.

[timurrrr]

Cool stuff!

Originally Posted by Clay_from_Verus

The car had 3 laser ride height sensors installed where the ride heights at the tire center can be calculated.
[...]
The ride height sensors allow us to write math channels to calculate downforce.

Curious why you went with laser sensors instead of suspension potentiometers.
I presume the latter would give you other useful info that you could use for suspension tuning, and work better over uneven surfaces (kerbs?).

[plucas]

Originally Posted by timurrrr

Cool stuff!



Curious why you went with laser sensors instead of suspension potentiometers.
I presume the latter would give you other useful info that you could use for suspension tuning, and work better over uneven surfaces (kerbs?).

So you could certainly go with potentiometers, but it would give you slightly different data. Ideally, you would want both for suspension and aero tuning.

With 3 laser ride heights, we can calculate any point of the chassis/car and its height off the ground at any point on the track. This will include tire compression and suspension compression. So basically with lasers, if you know the spring rates and (estimate/calculate) tire spring rate, calculating downforce/estimated downforce is easier than with potentiometers.

Potentiometers will only measure suspension compression or rebound and not take the tire into consideration. You would also need to find the motion ratio, which isn't difficult. At the end of the day, both can be used to do it. In our opinion (since we focus on aero development), lasers are easier and better for what we use them for. Lasers are also easier to switch from car to car than potentiometers (which is only an issue for a company or team).

If you are an enthusiast looking for data on the track to tune and make your car faster, I'd go with potentiometers as they will allow suspension and aero tuning. That is if you can only do one or the other.

Hopefully, that answers your question

[timurrrr]

Thanks for the detailed answer!
I agree both can be used, and it makes sense that lasers are easier to switch between cars.

Originally Posted by plucas

This will include tire compression and suspension compression. So basically with lasers, if you know the spring rates and (estimate/calculate) tire spring rate, calculating downforce/estimated downforce is easier than with potentiometers.

Potentiometers will only measure suspension compression or rebound and not take the tire into consideration.

Isn't that a benefit of potentiometeres rather than a downside?
If you know the spring rate (hopefully it's linear), and adjust for the motion ration, you know exactly the weight/force applied at each corner. That value will is not going to be not affected by the compression of the tires. When calculating weight based on dynamic ride height, you have an unknown variable (tire compression) in the equation.

I believe you need some kind of filtering/averaging whatever is it that you measure.