It kind of makes sense (8 HQ Photos)

I guess it makes sense if they kept the front wheel drive on that car. Front wheel drives need lots of downforce to keep the wheels sticking to the pavement.

It looks like a Pikes Peak Hillclimb car–they have wings all over to stick them to the ground on their way up.

with all those wings and power I think audi is still king of the hill

This one is rare.

haha you are an idiot whiskey, you're so dumb it's a trip just reading your post! wow…

I bet your a sp*c with a 1987 honda accord with a $400 paint job from maaco with a glass pack muffler and stickers on it to make yourself feel better about banging the wail that your girlfriend became after she wouldnt let u waste ur seed near her face and gave it to her with out the common sense to pull out, while fantasizing about your sister and your father getting it on all while mommy dearest gags ur baby brother with a spatula while he kicks the family dog.

Now, back to my post, read it again and this time if you have anything intelligent to add, you may do so. If not, reserve your comments for when you grandmother rides you for halloween.

Ok pumpkin?

Ok

what tha … y dont u write a wall text of complete bullshit, oh i c u did. seventh and most improtat !!! LOLOL

That is on point out of seven, go on hun. lets here the rest of your defense…

No? Nothing to say Pumpkin?

Thanks for coming out.

Whiskey with all the knowledge you seem to have Googled I'm surprised that the team who now has one of the fastest time attack cars didn't ask your opinion. I mean why else would they spend a large amount of money on a car just to add a useless platform like are you fucking stupid this car is built for acceleration and handling not top speed therefore making this platform necessary to handle the courses it drives or did u think everything is a nascar track? So next time you wanna look smart on the internet do your fucking research! Not everything is 4X4 with a sticker that says lifted cuz fat chicks cant jump. Oh and the pumpkin thing makes you sound like a fag but I'm sure your boyfriend already told you that.

Wrong.

Just thinking aloud here, but if they were willing to convert the original platform of the FWD tC to a RWD, why wouldn't they opt to simply make it AWD? Its been proven again and again that AWD has better acceleration, traction, handling, and steering/friction dynamics than the other drivetrains on their own. Since it doesn't specify (which is kind of annoying) any details of the car, and we can assume that a company like Toyota and a team of racing engineers aren't idiots, maybe we should assume that the car is now AWD. Just throwing that out there.
Whiskey; real men think before talking, and they support what they are saying with facts. Real men also accept other peoples differing opinions and don't degrade them for it. Grow a pair.
Commonsense; that Nascar jab made my day. Thank you.

ok after not only carfully reviewing the pictures and all of your "comments" all i have to say is this, Whiskey maybe you should lay off the booze so you might actually notice that.
One the spoiler on the front of the car does not block the air going to the intercooler, as a matter of fact it sits a few inches above the intercooler… if anything it adds air to that area.
two, there has been a problem with front traction, at 120 the front tires of my truck start to skip and if your in a car going around curves in a car (which is what the plaform is for)theres a thing called body roll and the last thing you want at high speeds is to flip a tiny car going around a corner.
If you have anything intelligent to add to that bud try but im pretty sure you dont so dont ever try for you have proven to me that your are not anywhere close to being even a grease monkey let alone an auto tech…

1st. A wing proved downforce, which they have one in both the front and the back to keep the front of the car down when going fast and the rear of the car to get traction. You don't need to go 300mph for a wing to be useful. Indy cars are only doing about 100mph when they take corners.

2nd if angled correctly the front wing should provide less downforce and be there to keep the car firm on the ground at its average speed. and in order for the car to nose dive that car would have to be going like +500mph to lift the other 2,000lbs behind the front wheels, that is if the wing didn't break first.

3rd the pressure/ downward force exerted on this car would not be more then a 100 lbs per tire more then likely (cause even racing cars with their huge wings only provide around 150 – 250lbs of down force per wing on average.) and this is a race car so its not like they have to worry about the ball joints lasting 50,000 miles.

4th all of the equipment on the front of the vehicle is probably MAYBE and extra 40lbs since its lightweight carbon fiber and what I assume would be aircraft grade aluminum. Then add the 200 lbs of down force at 150mph and you have 200lbs extra forcing the car to stay on the ground.

5th the opening is right under the wing so that is essentially forcing a little more air into the intercooler and radiator fins keeping it cooler the faster it goes.

6th BOlting stuff on with proper grade bolts is just as strong as welding and if not I sure as hell would rather have something snap off then be stuck on untill it completely fucked the car up at 150 mph.

7th The plateform added under the vehicle helps keep the air going under the car instead of hitting the bumper and rolling under. it is a flat surface but with the wind on it and the fact that the car its self is tilted forwards slightly prevents the vehicle from flying face up. If you notice on most lemans 24 and other european cars they ALL have that little flat section on the front of the vehicle. Even Rally cars have them.

Also This car is rear wheel drive which… makes everything they did actually worth it.

So before you decide to spew you "knowledge" you should probably actually know something about what your trying to argue… Thank you

so its not to plow away the snow?

your first statement… cars dont need wings at the front because front wheels dont have a traction problem? thenwhat do u call understerr?

Not wanting to spout 7 pages of BS…here's the info you need. This car is AWD and its got 1500hp. Thats all you need to know!! And it's used in Timeattack, not drifting…..have a look here
http://octanereport.com/tuned-cars/2010/11/08/qui…

Whiskey, I'd like to know where you acquired your extensive knowledge of how things work, such as the physics of airflow and the effect it has on a moving object. How do you get through life?
Oh and I'm sure most of you know how google works. but to make life easier for you go here and have a read http://www.world-racing.com/AugustWS2010pr%20.htm…

Laters

"Down force is meant to hold the back of a car down and keep traction. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A PROBLEM WITH FRONT TRACTION"

Since when?

Downforce is downforce, plain and simple, front or rear, side to side, top and bottom.

As for your second sentence – ever heard of an obscure phenomenon called "oversteer/understeer"?

Funny how that happens, and no race engineer in the world can seem to figure out why…

That being said, this design does seem a slight bit obnoxious and over-necessary

"Therefore your argument is as invalid as a monkey pirate riding a raptor over a rainbow"

Exactly

Negative news – Syria’s ‘mutilation mystery’ deepens…