What year was the key hole on the passenger side removed?
3/4 of a pound? Why not remove the C5's HUGE ass?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.
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.Patrick96LT4 said:3/4 of a pound? Why not remove the C5's HUGE ass?
You guys are cracking me up! 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.RT66Z06 said:Not fat, huge. There's a difference.
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.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?