Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,067 Posts
Tim,
You know what biz I am in. that's what we were told back when it started. Not only the lock cyl, but the rods too, may only equate to 3/4 of a pound but trying to make epa mpg requirements made anything fair game.
 

·
DC Crew
Joined
·
53,221 Posts
stilcrazee said:
Tim,
You know what biz I am in. that's what we were told back when it started. Not only the lock cyl, but the rods too, may only equate to 3/4 of a pound but trying to make epa mpg requirements made anything fair game.
3/4 of a pound? Why not remove the C5's HUGE ass? :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,067 Posts
Patrick, I think you are correct! However, read between the line$ here, the time spent installing and extra materials if 2 rods and a bellcrank in the door. Europe was leading the way with only 1 lck due to the advent of remote openers. The reduced theft accesibility and possible warranty/service issues!!

Flat out, they did not need the expense of the lock cylinder, pawl, rod to bell crank, rod from bell crank to latch assy, even if it was a net cost to GM of anything! Cost savings, labor and possible warranty service savings, cause us lazy arse American's prefer to use a remote control!!

What ever the cost or weight savings per vehicle, multiply that by the total number of vehicles manufactured and $uddenly..$$$!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
662 Posts
Patrick96LT4 said:
3/4 of a pound? Why not remove the C5's HUGE ass? :p
Actually, the huge ass was designed in from the beginning for the factory racing program. It produces what is called the "Kamm effect" (named after the German automotive engineer who discovered the principle). If you remember back to the Porsche 917k and Porsche 917LH you'll recall that although the LH (for Lang Heck or long tail) was faster down the Mulsanne straight than the 917k (k for kurz or short tail) it was unstable. But the high, straight drop rear of the 917k produced better aerodynamic stability. Corvette wanted a car that could compete at Le Mans and be stable on the long straights. So the design guys were persuaded to make that huge rear-fascia that I hated until I actually spoke with the Corvette racing engineers at Laguna Seca and found out that it is actually functional (albeit at very high speeds). In order to be homologated for the ACO GTS class, the race car has to use body panels shaped like the production car.

I have since developed a fondness for the Bauhaus design of the rear-fascia.

Ray
 

·
DC Crew
Joined
·
53,221 Posts
RT66Z06 said:
Not fat, huge. There's a difference.

Ray
You guys are cracking me up! :p I think a "fat ass" would be a car that has a truck deck 18 inches higher then the hood to add more truck room. Like a Jetta or some of the other "blend in with each other - no idea what they are named" cars.

I actually never knew that it was really needed for high-speed stability. Do you think we'll see the same larger rear on the C6?

Wouldn't a small wing-lip on the back do the same thing as the larger rear?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
662 Posts
Patrick96LT4 said:
I actually never knew that it was really needed for high-speed stability. Do you think we'll see the same larger rear on the C6?

Wouldn't a small wing-lip on the back do the same thing as the larger rear?
Last one first. The rear-end shape has more to do with directional stability than down-force which is what a wing provides. That's why the C5-R has a rather large wing.

Corvette has been extremely successful in the last two years in ALMS, Le Mans, and at Sebring and Daytona. Notice that after winning the Rolex 24 Hours at Daytona outright in 2001 (they finished first overall) they didn't bother to compete in 2002. Why? Because just winning the class would have been a step back after winning it outright. They have finished 1-2 at Le Mans two years straight. In 2003 they will go for the hat trick. Whether or not they win GTS it's a good bet that it will be the last year for Corvette Racing because the return on investment will start to diminish.

Therefore the C6 body does not need to conform to ACO rules for production homologation. Hence the stylists need not include any features that are primarily racing oriented.

Ray
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
RT66Z06
Very interesting reply on the why & wherefore of the C5 rearend. I learned something new again today as to the design of the C5. Thanx, I never really looked at the racing /aerodynamics of it
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top