Nissan P35

MulsanneMike · 21 Apr 2003, 21:42 (Ref:575935)

Its been pretty slow sports car news-wise (the board here is nearly dead!), so I feel justified plugging my own work!

http://www.dailysportscar.net/technical/nissanp35_1.htm

David Ferguson · 22 Apr 2003, 00:28 (Ref:576028)

Mike,

That's a very nice article, and excellent pics. As always -- fantastic job!

pirenzo · 22 Apr 2003, 00:41 (Ref:576035)

Too mcuh to read, but i read snippets here and there. Nice pics too. Kinda puzzled as to why they found no benefit in the Bi-Plane wing though. More wing surely means more grip?
Maybe it wasn't worth the excess drag.

Es Nes · 22 Apr 2003, 01:27 (Ref:576044)

well, it seems they had troubles finding front end downforce. if thats true, adding a bi-plane rear wing would just incourage the understeer

MulsanneMike · 22 Apr 2003, 03:41 (Ref:576084)

You figure the Suzuka aero philosophy always utilized a low rear wing to interact with the tunnels. Adding the additional wing element really didn't bring anything to the party except a larger wing assembly hung out the rear of the car and therefore a higher polar moment of inertia.

Suzuka never indicated any architectural aero balance issues front/rear and Johnny O'Connell's comments didn't indicate anything like that ("A touch of understeer on [corner] entry, slight oversteer on exit"). O'Connell said the car was fantastic.

gttouring · 22 Apr 2003, 06:20 (Ref:576142)

i am boggled by the numbers you use- 9000 lbs of downforce?!
cripes- that would never spin out, is it estimated?
I know you are seeking employment but me as well, let's start a team...I am in CA San diego now any ideas?

**Aysedasi** · 22 Apr 2003, 11:52 (Ref:576353)

Quote:

Originally posted by MulsanneMike
Its been pretty slow sports car news-wise (the board here is nearly dead!), so I feel justified plugging my own work!

Sorry Mike, I'll let you have this one (as I know you're a staunch supporter of the forum), but quiet or not, I can't let you plug quite as blatantly as this......

Tim Northcutt · 22 Apr 2003, 14:20 (Ref:576512)

One word derscribes this, Mike...

Outstanding....

Anyone who is familiar with your work would expect this high standard....

Thanks from all of us sportscar fanatics, and keep building your info base...we all learn a great deal about the sport and the cars that comprise it from your work

RacingManiac · 22 Apr 2003, 14:29 (Ref:576519)

boy...how can we sportscar fan live without these things coming from Mike...

C_g · 22 Apr 2003, 22:48 (Ref:577470)

Nice one Mike!

IanGrohse · 23 Apr 2003, 18:19 (Ref:578370)

Amazing article, wonderful information.....

carbsmith · 23 Apr 2003, 22:42 (Ref:578739)

Maybe if they had run bigger wing up high, and the small element low instead it might have worked?

pirenzo · 23 Apr 2003, 22:54 (Ref:578753)

Well if the smaller wing was designed to be an underbody extractor, then it wouldn't make sense to put the least effective section of the bi-wing in it's place...

MulsanneMike · 24 Apr 2003, 03:47 (Ref:578986)

Ummm, yeah, I really have to think Suzuka knew what he was doing. Afterall, how many years did the Nissan GTP ZX-T win the IMSA GTP Championship?

And again, it simply goes back the the Suzuka philosophy. The idea of the low wing extractor goes back to Tony Southgate and the Le Mans Jag. But Suzuka showed it wasn't mearly a low-drag detail. When combined with very effective tunnels, the low rear wing could generate useful levels of downforce for the higer downforce circuits. Suzuka simply continued that theme with the P35. By then it was highly refined and he simply saw no need for the high up element as the P35 was generating all the downforce they could use. Anything else would be more drag with little gain in downforce or adjustability.

The XJR-14 originated the bi-plane wing idea and I might be stepping out on a limb with this, but I'm starting to suspect that perhaps their front wing flap somewhat spoiled the rear wing. So the second element up high helped them regain any loss. Tony Dowe has said unequivically that the front element didn't spoil the rear wing, but without actually doing flow-visualization testing, how could one really know? And if it spolied the rear wing only a little, that could be the difference between having to run the higher element and not having to run it. Also, you figure the 905 originally started out with a high double element rear wing and then followed the XJR-14 lead with the bi-plane unit. They probably put the entire unit on and saw a big gain and never really experimented with removing the upper element. A bit of monkey see, monkey do. A lot of aerodynamics is like that.

I'm glad everyone enjoyed the article. Thanks for the positive response.

NissanGTP · 24 Apr 2003, 10:07 (Ref:579213)

I'd also like to thank Mike for all the work put into the P35 article. Some of the info and Pics of the car must have taken some really thorough research as info on this car is very thin on the ground.

For all those interested we should have our P35 on the track by the start of next year and maybe even the end of this year if all goes well with the restoration. We will hopefully be running it in the Group-C/GTP race series so you guys can come down and see the car in the flesh.

C_g · 24 Apr 2003, 18:43 (Ref:579752)

Mazda experimented at Le Mans in 1992 with running a biplane rear wing, and then running it with the top element removed. This was on the XJR-14 chassis with the Mazda-tuned Judd motor. In the race, they ran onc car with, one car without.

Some of Phil Brantley's photos from that year below illustrate.

Single element:

Double element (white/silver Mazda in the background):

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nissan	gttouring	NASCAR & Stock Car Racing	17	29 Oct 2003 17:20
Nissan 350	Osella	Sportscar & GT Racing	12	2 Sep 2002 05:06
Nissan no to F1	Crash and Burn	Formula One	1	23 Oct 2001 14:14
Would this nissan have the same appeal ...	vauxhall	Touring Car Racing	8	19 Mar 2001 01:57