SRT Hellcat Forum banner
  • Hey Everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part of this months Ride of the Month Challenge!
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

3,474 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
"When it comes to aerodynamics, a world-first innovation is the transformable outer skin of the intake scoop on the roof, which provides active airflow optimisation. If the car is driven at a slow speed, the surface of the scoop remains smooth. In contrast, a field of bubbles bulges out when driven at fast speeds. At 320 km/h, the downforce is at 1,800 kilograms at the rear wing and 800 kilograms at the front wing. "

Right. 1800kg of downforce at 200mph. Gotcha. With a wing that is not even one foot in chord, and about an inch thick. Bingo. So, FOUR THOUSAND POUNDS.

For comparison, I will show photos of the Bugatti and the all-dominating Porsche 917 that had actual performance, not just inflated hype to appeal to rich stupids. The rear end of the 917/30 produced around 2800 pounds of downforce at 300km/h, more than ALL of which was provided by the wing. (as in, the body without the wing had net lift, so the wing had to provide enough to cancel that AND still provide net downforce.)

Porsche 917 rear wing: about two feet (or more) in chord.


Average wing chord: about 1 foot or so. Similar widths.
The downforce of the ENTIRE 917, front and rear combined, was about 3500 pounds. POUNDS.

The claimed downforce of the Bugatti rear wing is around 4000 pounds.

Nah. For comparison, Here is a very efficient wing at a quite aggressive AOA, fourteen degrees:

Plugging those numbers into some calculators gives us some interesting numbers:
1607 pounds of downforce/lift at 300 km/h for the 917/30-sized wing.
IF the wing is 2 feet by 6 feet.

Nah. Bugatti is just flat-out lying, or they are going on the rear HALF of the car, including the amazingly trendy but parachute-like for efficiency "wing" on the back.

It is hard to imagine five grown men, each with three more grown men all standing on their shoulders, standing on that rear wing and it not collapsing.

Now, if it is the entire back half of the Bugatti, that is far more believable. There is a lot of surface area on the underside of the car to glue it to the track, and no ground-hugging flat 12 belching out airflow-disturbing hot air from below it (the type 912 engine was air-cooled like the flat-6's and flat-8's that Porsche raced.)

When marketing to oil-rich pre-teens is your goal, then you have to focus on swoopy looks more than actual effiiciency.

Swoopy, exaggerated-curve wings are used in two places: F1 cars that are only allowed a certain number of square feet of wing when viewed from the top, so they massacre efficiency in the name of lift-per-unit-of-area, and hypercars to look swoopular.

Want to see efficient wings? Look at gliders and airliners. Note how none of them look like the snow-shovel profile seen on far too many exotic cars.

Challenger SRT Hellcat
2,108 Posts
I knew it. I'm canceling my order.
  • Like
Reactions: WVHEMIS

Durango Hellcat
376 Posts
I'm sure the downforce numbers quoted by Bugatti are net, meaning it includes downforce created by the entire car, including and especially the rear diffuser. The Bugatti is a far more powerful and faster car than the 917 is/was and technology has improved exponentially since then. Not to take anything away from the 917, it is a true legend.
1 - 4 of 4 Posts