Reply to "side scoops ?"

> Dan, there are negative numbers for the GT40 in your chart for the front lift.
> Am I misreading the chart? The Mustangs are showing them too.

The forum software removes the formatting (Is there a way around that?) but
negative numbers are in the "rear lift" column indicating rear downforce.
Apparently, the Boss 302 rear wing actually works.

> Are you saying that your information indicates that is from testing chin
> spoilers?

The second set of data (the one with the Lola data) had the reduction in
lift due to front spoiler designs.

> I don't know how "they" calculated the .29 either for the Pantera.
> It is just a number quoted by the press way back before anyone even knew
> what it meant. I think it was refered to as a very "slippery design".

It is a fairly slippery design. The product of the drag coefficient
and the frontal area is what matters and compared to the Boss 302 Mustang
it generates 200 lbs less drag at 160 MPH

> I think the Studebaker Avanti has a good one too.

Yes. I've seen a drag coefficient of 0.30 claimed for the Avanti.
I wonder what the Raymond Loewy Studebaker Starliner came in at.
It was a favorite at the Bonneville salt flats due to the streamlined
shape. Dad had a Studillac, a Starliner with a Cadillac V8 (bored an
1/8" of an inch, dual quads, ported heads, Isky E-2 solid lifter cam,
4 speed). Twas a fun ride.

Dan Jones