Robert - nope - I'll post info tomorrow.

James!
 

Really like what you have done! In the process of getting stuff together for a 68 Camaro project and a wing was at the top of my list along with some areo mods. That wing is very tricky.

Looking forward to future updates.

James

Everything is looking awesome!!! I think that all of these modern body mods on a '60s muscle car look great. Even more so when they serve a purpose. Can't wait to see more.

for the lights i am sure he is talking about :
https://lateral-g.net/forums/show...&highlight=led

are you going to do any tuff testing on the aero setup? what about a vortex generator for the rear wing? its good to see someone getting serious about the aero on there car. :yes:

Thanks Payton and Chris.

The wing is pretty incredible - I hope that it (a) works and (b) works well.

Rallystyle - yep, those are the headlights. I picked up a pair to test on the '68 to see it they were as good as they looked - yeah... they are pretty awesome. They also make a 4.5" driving light that we'll use.

We did some tuff testing on the old front end and learned a few things (mostly the obvious) and that led to some of the design elements that we're using. That, a couple of good aero books/texts, and some detailed pics of a C6.R all helped. There are a few things that aren't obvious in the pics or fully integrated yet. We've changed the shape of the back part of the wheel well (ala C6.R) and will be modifying the front of the wheel well once the wheels and tires are on next week. We were (are) planning on doing some more tuff testing with the new setup before it's done.

The wing was designed to work as is and I'm going to give it that chance. The Gurney flap on the deck lid will probably be a two piece deal that will allow for height changes (or at least testing) and I have a couple of styles of vortex generators here that we'll play with on the track.

James the car is looking great! It was an awesome car before but i really like everything your doing. Not only does everything look really cool but it will all function well to make a really cool car an even badder a$$er car. :lol: :thumbsup:

kevin miller

I'm hoping to post some info soon on the headlights. If the in-garage testing is anything like what they will be on the road, it's a serious improvement over the bad-boy glass 90/100 watt Hella's that were in the car. Working at 1/4 the power requirement, and having more than a 100 hour lifespan, is a big plus as well.

Think you missed a zero or two on the lifespan buddy but yeah... the difference between the LEDs and the halogens that I had in the car are huge. I think having 4 will be overkill but then again, driving through that reservation in the middle of the night on that 2 lane road... no such thing as too much light.

Nope. 100 hours is too close to trust, and anything with less power just isn't bright enough.

http://www.rallylights.com/detail.aspx?ID=263

Isn't there something in the OLoA rules about auxiliary lighting restrictions?

EDIT:

Just this:

"All forward-facing lights must be controlled by a single dimmer switch."

My bad - I misread your post. The LEDs have a (claimed) life span of 50 times the halogen although some also say 10,000 hours. Either will do me fine.

10,000 hours at an average of 50 miles/hr = 500,000 miles of night driving. That ought to do a few OLoA's. :thumbsup:

Cool that the legendary Dick Harrell put this American Racing wing on the COPO cars he tweaked back in '69. The 'Spoiler equipment package' was $48 back them.

Wings are about the same now, right James? :unibrow:

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k1...psce08952f.jpg

Here is another picture of the OLC's new fenders, which might give a better idea of the shape. Once everything is painted I don't think the changes will stand out that much.

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/o...ps81edee0b.jpg

My thinking is more along the lines of "what would Jim Hall and Hap Sharp do if they could build a '67 today?" I know that I am WAY far away from where they would end up but they are certainly an inspiration. They used some from aero tricks that I'd love to figure out (believe me I've been scratching my head about them) but there are limits...

Thanks Matt - I think that the new HRE's should be there in the next day or two and Mr. Rupp has the tires (if he hasn't dropped them off already) so the front fenders should take their final shape this week. There are a couple of "other small" touches to come on the fenders and the lower valence but nothing "huge". :)

I was referring in a facetious way about the price of wings being about the same now as in '69. :)

But that is cool how you're looking to figure out some of the tricks they used that have lasted for over 40 years now. :thumbsup:

Is this car running stock height body bushings? It rides sooo low, that I assume it has 1/2" lowering bushings on it. I can't wait to see the front fenders with some paint. The guys at BOS did one hell of a job.

Yes - stock height body bushings from SpeedTech; I found that the half height bushings create their own issues.

Best of Show is doing a great job - I agree 100%. Front tires arrived over the weekend (they are old rear tires that I ran for OUSCI last year - Michelin Pilot Sport 305/30-19) and then new HRE front wheels are due any day. Once they arrive and get mounted up then BOS can take the final steps on the lower valence.

I doubt the fenders will ever truly see paint...

Is this because of the vinyl graphic "wraps" used now?... or:question:

More than likely I'll end up wrapping the car but at this point I'm not sure. I've done partial wraps for 3 years now with good luck and since this is a bit of an experiment I don't know if I want to get caught up in painting a front clip that might only be on the car for a short while.

The original plan was to do some track testing with the front end in primer to verify that everything was working "as expected" while still having the flexibility of making minor changes or improvements before calling it a day. That's still the plan but there are a lot of moving parts to the equation.

Plus, coming up with a new look is harder than it seems...

just a quick update... we've needed the new front wheels before we could get too much more done but they arrived last week and we've mounted up the 305 and work is once again progressing...

a comparison of the old and new wheels and tires:

http://www.onelapcamaro.com/1967%20O...comparison.jpg

and some of the progress on the trailing side of the front fender - the changes will be (mostly) subtle but should be effective

http://www.onelapcamaro.com/1967%20OLCR/shop%20188.jpg

http://www.onelapcamaro.com/1967%20OLCR/shop%20192.jpg

not at ride height yet but you get the idea...

http://www.onelapcamaro.com/1967%20OLCR/shop%20194.jpg

http://www.onelapcamaro.com/1967%20OLCR/shop%20197.jpg

We're still playing with exact fitment on the fronts - we've got a small spacer in back right now and with the 305s we've now got 3/4" more room on the back side so we should have better turning radius. Once we get some testing done we can fine tune that bit.

http://www.onelapcamaro.com/1967%20OLCR/shop%20195.jpg

Now we'll work on tweaking the leading edge and should be getting close to looking like something...

looks great James!
Has this taken the life of two fenders to make one?

Nope - just one (cheap aftermarket) fender per side. Best of Show essentially cut the skin off them, reshaped it, and welded it back together. We wanted a pretty big rework on the lower front of the backside of the fender and it necessitated another cut to pull it off. It would have been nice to go further with it but I didn't want to sacrifice any of the existing rear structure so I can bolt the old front clip back one when we're done.

There is another part of the "Reinventing the OLC" story and that is the "Reinventing the Driver" part of the program. I'll keep it brief since it's more "personal" than "mechanical" but it is part of the project none-the-less. Ask any of the top drivers in our (or any other) community - Mary, Brian, Mark, Kyle, etc. - and they will tell you that seat time is the key to success. Unfortunately it's not always possible to be on the track as often as you'd like - especially here in the Great White North where they are bulldozing the local race track to make room for the dump (don't get me started) ...

I've done some simple driving schools - Racing Adventures here in Calgary and Mario Andretti in Las Vegas - both of which were ok introductions to driving but didn't really do much in the big picture. I've done the Evolution Autocross school which is run by Mike "Junior" Johnson and features instructors like Ann and Andy Hollis, Danny Popp and others and I would highly recommend this course to anyone who wants to get some hands on instruction for autocross driving. I've also done an introductory course with Skip Barber at Laguna which was probably the best road course experience I've had to date but I still have some bad habits which I want to get over before next years OLoA.

I think that everyone has areas where they can improve - and I know that I do - but it's particularly frustrating to know where those issues are but not have "the answer". Seat time is the solution but without the ability to get some in the OLC right now I decided to try something completely different... Rally School.

Over the summer I headed down to Washington State and the DirtFish rally school - particularly their two day "Introduction to Rallycross" course. It's a cool setup they have on old sawmill - some 300 acres of dirt roads, paved lots, and everything in between. They've got a dirt slalom course, a 2 mile dirt/pavement road course, and they've got a great cross section of instructors and top notch equipment. And if you're old enough to remember... the sawmill is also the setting of the old TV series "Twin Peaks".

http://www.onelapcamaro.com/1967%20OLCR/DF1.jpg

http://www.onelapcamaro.com/1967%20OLCR/DF2.jpg

http://www.onelapcamaro.com/1967%20OLCR/DF3.jpg

It was a good experience and certainly helped... lots of time with Left Foot Braking... lots of time learning a completely new way to turn - lift, turn, brake vs lift, brake, turn... and lots of time learning new ways to get around a corner - from E-brake turns to the Scandinavian Flick. Definitely worthwhile and hopefully a step in the right direction

http://www.onelapcamaro.com/1967%20OLCR/DF4.jpg

It didn't solve all of my problems but I have added some new tools to the box...

You should really plan on figuring out a way to block that front tire from the front view even if its a removeable spat just for racing. Take a look at a 2005-200 Shelby to see what I mean, they tie a vertical surface into the splitter and it doesn't look too bad. It might look a little draggy but it will much cleaner than the air hitting the rotating tire. Also, by putting a small dam there and creating a high pressure zone right at the front outside of the tire, it will create a slight bit of low pressure behind it which will help pull air through the wheel well reducing underhood pressure and brake cooling. Some people even fence in these little deflectors to create additional downforce in front although I'm pretty sure the drag:downforce ratio is only 1.1 in that case.

I am sure it is hard to capture full detail but I think it looks very subtle, especially in the pic from the rear looking down the door. In my opinion these are the best kind of mods, if you get sick of it just pull it off and try something different.
It looks great man, I still haven't had the pleasure of meeting you or your car in person. I need to make that effort.

Preston - that's on the list of "next" but we needed the front tires on the car before we could put those together. There are two more treatments for the lower valence that need to be done before we get to the spats/dams but they will come. And you are - of course - correct, although they are somewhat contrary in nature (adding surface area) they are 100% effective.

For the record... we took inspiration from four cars in the design and they are, in order of significance of their influence on the design - the Corvette C6.R, the Camaro ZL1, the Ferrari ALMS and the Shelby that you referred to. We will try to implement the pieces of the four in that order so the degree of how much of the C6.R leading edge we can achieve will determine the magnitude of the Shelby dam that is required.

James, I read a post of yours somewhere and you had mentioned that you had come across some cars that had slightly wider track width in the front than the rear. Any recollection how much slightly is? Any thoughts about a front track width (overall outside to outside) that was 2" or even 3" wider than the rear?

Thanks!

Slightly would be something like 0.25 to 0.5" wider on the front vs the back.

Some slightly dated examples:

Noble m15 89mm wider at front
Ferrari F430 53mm wider at the front
Lamb Gallardo 30mm wider at the front
Porsche Cayman 42mm wider at the rear

I would think (and I may be wrong as this seems to be a bit of a point on contention among some engineers) that if you get "too" wide then you're going to have a car that probably wants to understeer (more than it may do now)... because as you increase track width you decrease tire loading and, at some point, you will lose front traction.

BUT, in actual practice, I think that it is somewhat dependant on your starting point... as think that it will reduce (or at least correct) some understeer up to a point. (I think) that the OLC understeers in some environments because I am overloading the front tires (too much weight from being to close together). My hope is that by increasing track width then the (marginal) weight reduction on the tires will result in a more stable front geometry.

You can look at it this way... By increasing the front track width you should decrease the front end weight. So if you start at 53/47 then you might end up at 51/49 or ??? If you go to far then, in theory (I think) then you will end up with too much weight on the rear...

I honestly don't know where that happens and I may be completely off here...

J

I just got done trying some 3" back spacing wheels, on my dirt car. They say a narrowed track width helps to get the car to turn in. We start with one wheel inset and go to 2 if we want more. It is truely amazing what wheels spacers and changing offset Will do to the handling of a car. My dirt car can go from being a rocket to a car I cannot turn with just one too many 1/2" wheel spacers.

If Ferrari thinks 2" more width in the front is okay it will probably work for what I am doing.

That is something I had not considered. By widening the front track it will transfer corner weight to the rear? In that case its a win/win.....right?


If the starting point was a relatively narrow car and outside widths of 67.5f/66.5r so I don't know that we could ever get too wide in the front......narrow rear = fast slaloms.

Sorry for the slight hijack......Isn't it time for more pictures?

I was typing this quickly last night and it needs a bit more clarification... We have to keep in mind that what I quoted above is the technically correct track width - which is properly measured from the centerline of the wheels and not the outside edge of the wheels.

So... the most consistent info I could find:

Noble m15
Car Width = 72.8" Front Width = 62.8" Rear Width = 59.2" So the difference in track width is 3.6" wider on the front BUT...
Front wheels = 18 x 8 Rear wheels = 19 x 10.5 Making the difference in wheel width 2.5" wider on the back.
So in reality, measuring from the outside to outside, the front is 0.55" wider than the rear.

Ferrari F430
Car Width = 75.7" Front Width = 65.7" Rear Width = 63.6" So the difference in track width is 2.1" wider on the front BUT...
Front wheels = 19 x 7.5 with +31.5 offset Rear wheels = 19 x 10 with +39 offset Making the difference in wheel width 2.5" wider on the back.
So in reality, measuring from the outside to outside, the rear is 0.4" wider than the front.

Lamborghini Gallardo
Car Width = 78.8" Front Track = 63.74" Rear Track = 62.57" So the difference in track width is 1.17" wider on the front BUT...
Front wheels = 19 x 8.5 Rear wheels = 19 x 11 Making the difference in wheel width 2.5" wider on the back.
So in reality, measuring from the outside to outside, the rear is 1.3" wider than the front.

In the case of the OLC...

Front Track (old) = 65.0" Rear Track (old) =65.0" So 0 difference in front to rear when measuring proper track width...
But...
Front Outside (old) = 68.0" Rear Outside (old) = 71.25" So to be where we wanted we needed to move the front out ~3.25" at the outside

Technically correct although we'll have to see if it is practically correct as well...

More pics coming soon.

Quick pic...

http://www.onelapcamaro.com/1967%20OLCR/shop%20231.jpg

Did these old outside measurements fit under stock fenders and quarters?

"yes" with a but... we did do some work to the lips (but we did not change their shapes)

Aw yeah... :thumbsup:

With a wider front track: Less front cornering load (the term weight should not be used here) is transferred from inside tire to outside tire. This reduces load on the outside front tire, increases load on the inside front tire in a corner and so increases front lateral traction available to the front tires. It will reduce under steer and increase over steer. What can then be done is to re-balance the handling by reducing rear anti-roll bar stiffness, or lowering the watts or Panhard bar. End result is more total cornering grip for the whole car.

There is no change in static weight F/R, but there is in dynamic load transfer percentage front to rear.