nemo evo details and specs

 nemo evo title

Sneak Peek: The NEMO Racing EVO, Part 2

Story by Eric Hsu, MotoIQ photos by Jeff Naeyaert, other photos by NEMO Racing

In Part 1 we covered a little of the history behind Chris Eaton and the NEMO Racing EVO, some of the build process, and the car's exterior features including the balls out aero. This time in Part 2, we'll cover what's going on inside and some of the awesome details that makes this EVO the fastest Time Attack EVO in the world.

If you think about it, the name "NEMO" sounds like something a young child would say. We as adults probably automatically associate the name with children because of Pixar's wildly successful "Finding Nemo" movie. As it turns out, it was Chris' then two year old son that accidentally named the EVO. Here's an excerpt I stole from in an interview with Chris:

"I brought her home on the car trailer the night before the event. My then two year old son walked out and said, “Dad what’s that?”. I said, "That’s my racing car I am driving tomorrow." He asked; “Is that a Porsche?” I said “No. It’s an Evo”. He responded, “You are going to race a Nemo?

You gotta love the baby babble of a two year old. My son is three so I know all about baby babble.

To top it off, when Jeff, Martin and I were walking around at WTAC 2012 looking for the car, Jeff said to me, "Hey I can't believe it. We're actually finding Nemo." CLICK HERE

After two years of design, fabrication, and assembly, the NEMO Racing EVO is what it is today. The NEMO Racing EVO was designed, built and assembled by race car engineers, fabricators, and mechanics. It wasn't the brainchild of not any one person, but the team as a whole. Tony Porter and Nathan Leech, experienced Aussie V8 Supercar fabricator and engineers, designed and built most of the car. Andrew Brilliant had a lot to do with the car's component packaging and the integration of the aero features into the car's build. Brad Cawthorne from Cawthorne Composites fabricated all of the panels from scratch. Paul Mason, who wires many Aussie V8 Supercars, wired the car and its extensive list of Motec components. Will at JHH Performance has everything to do with the engine. McElrea Racing, an experienced Porsche cup car team, assembled and runs the NEMO EVO. With all of this motorsport talent working toward one goal, there's no doubt the result would be today's ultimate Time Attack cars.

Let's get straight into the details:

nemo evo door

A mass of triangulated tubes is the basis of the cage/chassis here as with any proper race car. Here the main hoop and driver's seat position can be see in relationship to the A and C pillars. The B pillar's spot welds were drilled out and removed. The extensive cage renders the OEM B pillar defunct. The driver's seat is essentially where the rear passenger's feet would have been. Moving the driver this far back enhances the car's fore/aft weight distribution since the EVO's natural weight distribution is so far forward.

nemo evo

The front section of the OEM unibody is mostly intact with the radiator/core support and front section of the wheel wells cut off. Tubes come forward from the main cage structure to stiffen the unibody greatly of course. Very little of this is visible with engine in place and the final packaging. Notice the fabricated steel front K-member/subframe from Part 1. It only weighs 6Kg or 13.2lbs.

nemo evo chassis

The double A-arm front suspension eliminates the factory McPherson strut and all of its inherent disadvantages. The uprights are from a Ginetta (a small British, low volume sports car) and allowed Nathan Leech to design the double A-arm front suspension at a much lower cost than having to design and machine uprights from scratch. The AP 6 pot front calipers appear to be loaded with Project Mu brake pads. Its really quite hard to miss that creamy, mint green paint isn't it? The bar directly right above the brake caliper is a mechanical bump stop that prevents the upper and lower A-arms from maxing out the rod end travel and damaging things. 

nemo evo suspension

The double wishbone front suspension is controlled by custom multi-adjustable MCA Suspension dampers from Australia. The springs are Eibach units. Fun fact:  all of the WTAC 2012 Pro Class cars on the podium were using MCA dampers. That's the NEMO EVO in 1st, the Tilton Interiors EVO in 2nd, and the MCA Suspensions S13 in 3rd. I'll be writing features on the Tilton EVO and MCA S13 soon so check back on MotoIQ soon.

Page 1 of 9 Next Page
Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:39 AM
Speaking of the "dramatic duct". Since it is covered in gold tape (the heat resistant kind?) it seems that the finish on the duct is not smooth. I would think that the rough finish would actually be bad for aero.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:34 AM
Great write up...both parts!

Thank you!

Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:04 AM
Just a general comment, but I think the Nemo team has more to fear from sanctioning bodies than competitors.

A couple of rules changes, like ALMS did to BMW...twice in the past decade, and this wonder of engineering could be ineligible to compete.

I hope that the pro class continues to allow "all-out" engineering and fabrication efforts to compete.
Dan DeRosia
Dan DeRosialink
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:13 AM
Ha, load cells! I like it! If you think about it, it's not going to tell you *everything* a shock pot would, but it tells you some other stuff that a shock pot won't, and having priced shock pots out, I have to assume load cells are a bit more affordable.

The front aero is interesting, and from what I can see of a general pattern of what I'd expect... from an LMP car. ;)

Love the attitude towards data acquisition too, though I imagine plexiglass is affecting the front tire IR sensor readings a bit, unless they're poking through. Still, not anything that couldn't be compensated for. Also, other details are neat - keeping heat exchangers out of the air, the Kinsler mechanical fuel pump, etc.

For reference, if the downforce levels are correct (I'm going to assume they're pretty close to it at the very least) that puts the downforce at higher levels than a lot of the prototypes we have hard data in the public domain for - more or less all of them, except some of the late IMSA GTP cars, a few of which (Eagle Mk3 and NPT91 for example) were at around 5200lbs of downforce at 150mph... but with significantly more wind tunnel budget. ;) I'm willing to bet it's comfortably more downforce than any open wheel car that drives on asphalt (outlaw sprint dirt cars I dunno, but maybe) It's probably nowhwere near the same lift/drag ratios or light weight as prototype cars, but it's not quite a prototype car then either, is it.
Mike Kojima
Mike Kojimalink
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:45 AM
Ugh we have our work cut out for us.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:28 AM
5000lbs downforce O___o

The electronics on these modern race machines are surely mad
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:31 AM
Wow...this is confusing stuff!
Kiet Le
Kiet Lelink
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:33 AM
Amazing stuff. Amazing write-up and details. Thanks guys at MotoIQ for putting in time and effort to get this type of information to us. Many of us dream to have a race car of this nature, but for now I will live vicariously.

I would love to see this thing race in the U.S soon... Maybe you guys can convince them to ship it here! :)
Dan DeRosia
Dan DeRosialink
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:50 AM
@Mike: Well, if you guys had an infinite budget and had planned things out that far back, you could have purcahsed Swift Engineering's wind tunnel back in January or so - it was in San Clemente I think. ;) Rolling road and everything! (This was a joke) I think they still do aerodynamic development though, likely not at a low price. Or I heard that there's this guy named Andrew Brilliant who does consulting, maybe you could find his contact info.

Seriously though, yeah, daunting. I mean, I suspect the VQ based GT-R could exceed the 4G63 in power output and driveability, weight distribution should be helped a bit by longitudinal layout instead of transverse, but man, the aero...
Andrew Brilliant
Andrew Brilliantlink
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:00 AM
Let me clarify a little. When I started designing the aero it was about 2 years before the team that ran the car for the event had even been arranged. I had no idea what to expect and thought it best to gamble on something easy to set up. With the diversity of that track it just seemed like the way to go. In the end I had very little to do track side, they had made the balance adjustments on their own and gotten it just to where I would have wanted it on their own intuition the wing change was done before I even showed up! A lot of other things were totally unknown like the manufacturing tolerances for the aerodynamics or how well the team would adhere to the designs. Those things get thought through and have a huge effect on the designs. It was those sort of executions that set this build apart in my mind. The only serendipity about it really was that I happened to be in the right place to be a part of it. The rest I attribute to skill of the construction team and to the management decisions that were made.

It wasn't so much about clashing personalities as it is of knowing that you are there in a supportive role to the race engineer. It can get really tough for them to do their job when the aero to dictates so much and changes their toolbox for car setup in the worst possible time. So I often design around the team. Now that know the team, I dont think i would ever need to hold anything back and I could seek out the best compromise for ultimate performance.

The "broad power band" parallel was mostly centered around pitch and ride height sensitivities. Having a car that could be setup mechanically for the lower speed stuff and not struggling in the high speed or vise versa. A higher peak downforce number could have been obtained with a car setup like an F1 or LMP. But that may not have been faster. It was about quality and not just quantity. I would think of all those things differently at a different track something with higher speeds in a few more corners and lower speed in the fastest corner. A lot of these things are totally unique to time attack and that track. Even an engineer from LMP or F1 I would think through the same compromises except probably going the other way and wanting to push them away from the stiffer setup designed around extreme aero sensitivity.
Micah McMahan
Micah McMahanlink
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:42 AM
I like it!
Not much else for me to say other than it's what I expected to see...or much like what I see in my dreams haha
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:47 PM
Wow!!! I was expecting to be blown away, I really was, but I wasn't expecting to be blown away this much!

A big THANKS goes to Chris Eaton for sharing with us his long-term project master-piece.
Thank you Andrew for also sharing with us a lot of insight that would be otherwise very difficult to find on the net (without paying someone big money).
Last but certainly not least, thank you Jeff and Eric for the outstanding feature on the car, I am literally speechless.

EVERY single area: from the electronics, to the chassis development, to the engine, suspensions, everything is just mind blowing!

I hope someone with the intelligence and the means would challenge Team NEMO next year, or at least (since the bar has been raised), more teams will take note and step it up as well :) 2013 looks promising!

Thanks again everyone for the effort!
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:35 PM
The engineering debriefing with all those sensors must take over an hour.
I wonder if the old double wishbone package from a. Honda Civic could be mated to a Subaru Impreza drivetrain to similar effects.
Der Bruce
Der Brucelink
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:59 PM
First - Amazing write up and excellent insight! I'm looking forward to the other WTAC challenge cars as well.
Second - I forgot to mention the awesome reference to "The Beast" and the build crew in Part 1. They sure did fab up 2 pieces of work. Watch the movie people, Eric Bana is an Australian treasure, haha!
Third - Are we gonna see some shake down runs from Team America by......say, November!? You guys will have HP, braking and Mike's suspension down cold. Come on, you only need a LITTLE aero!
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:13 PM
The openness to share this many details of a winning car has made me a fan of mister Eaton and the Nemo team way more than their astonishing results ever did, just wow! These two articles make my brain cells active and happy, so inspirational stuff. MotoIQ delivers again, thank you guys! :)
Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:26 AM
Anyone know why the car needs 3 brake master cylinders? 2, I could understand, but 3?
Micah McMahan
Micah McMahanlink
Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:12 AM
One is a clutch reservoir ;)
Mike @FIGS Engineering
Mike @FIGS Engineeringlink
Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:52 PM
This feature makes me very happy as all of my engineer senses are pleased at once. Great insight from the other side of the world to my laptop. Keep it up MOTOIQ
Street Surgeon
Street Surgeonlink
Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:01 AM
These are awesome articles, I'm lovin' it over here! Nice to see some fellow NABR folks this way as well!
Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:51 AM
Wow, amazing detail in this article!

I believe those 2 large ports on the upper IC piping are for a throttle-bypass antilag system that's apparently not being utilised. I can't imagine what else they'd be for, and that's the only type of system that needs that amount of airflow from that source I can think of.
Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:13 PM
Never this car has 5000lbs downforce@150MpH !!!
If they have 5000lbs we had to see 4g on the fast corner!
2500-3000lbs and a drag like a truck would be near the truth.

But really a fast car and a crazy built!

Eric Hsu
Eric Hsulink
Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:06 PM
I'll let Andrew comment on that if he wants to, but remember this car isn't as light as an F1 car, the car's CG isn't nearly as low, and the tires aren't nearly as wide. Turn 1 at Eastern Creek isn't super-elevated or banked either. Turn 1 isn't taken at 150 miles an hour either like an IndyCar on a superspeedway.

There are many other factors that affect maximum lateral G's and not just downforce.
Andrew Brilliant
Andrew Brilliantlink
Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:45 PM
Tomy, how are you calculating that exactly? Theres a lot of data you would need to make that assumption that I dont even have or had to kill to get.

At first I thought nemo had way more drag than I expected, which directly contradicted our early tests. I am sitting there at WTAC running these simulated values and none of them are adding up. The number I expected for drag was pretty good, about like a typical SuperGT car. So I lean over and ask Leigh (the engineer) "hey are we hitting a brick wall with engine power or gearing or something?" He shows me the log of us down the straight into 6th gear. I crumple up my piece of paper with the calculations and take a 3 point shot at the garbage can with it.

You gotta remember this car had never been run and it was run with everything setup for a totally different power output with far bigger fish to fry than changing the gear ratios.
Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48 PM
When I calculate the diffusor area and calculate the wings I estimate this.
It is impossible to reach downforce efficiency with an Evo limousine like the few best group C race cars, sorry.

This Evo here has a lot of diffussor area and a very good working wing and produce estimate 2000lbs@250Mph.
Where do you think it will generate the other 3000lbs on the nemo? Only on the rear wings? Ok then I will understand why it reach only 2g with 5000lbs.

Andrew Brilliant
Andrew Brilliantlink
Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:56 PM
Chris Eaton
Chris Eatonlink
Friday, September 21, 2012 12:26 AM
Be kind Andrew.

Interesting Hypothesis though.

I am actually more interested to to see what the power and gearing ratio's would be needed to push the Evo to 400kmph.
Andrew Brilliant
Andrew Brilliantlink
Friday, September 21, 2012 4:25 AM

Alright so I calmed down a bit about you basically calling us liars and I'll take some time to explain. Maybe this will benefit others as well.

first of all,
Check the speed at the apex, its not 150mph. dont forget to scale to the actual speed of the corner, thats really basic and its like 1/4 the forces in play right there.

What you are dealing with here is complicated and I just dont think you can ever calculate this on the back of an envelope, frankly and before you get offended let me explain why I feel that way. You need a LOT of data and I will list the biggest examples of it off the top of my head.

The essential factor for your lateral acceleration is first and foremost the coeffecient of friction for the tire. Again this actually a very very in depth topic I am massively oversimplifying it here.

1) tire friction coefficient

Lets assume your tire Cf is 1.7, typical of a slick. Now you assume that your vertical or normal load is 1000kgf you would in theory have a total capacity in lateral acceleration of 1700kgf or 1.7G in a steady state corner.

If you start out with a treaded road tire tire that has a Cf of say 1.3 vs a full slick at 1.7 you have a very different multiplier.

Assume two cars, A and B .... both cars have a mass of 1000kg.

Car A is on slicks, no downforce: 1700kgf lateral friction is available for (1.7G)
Car B is on a traded DOT tire and has 1300kgf lateral (1.3G).

Now add in 1000kgf of downforce on top of the assumed 1000kg base weight.

Car A = 2000kgf normal load x 1.7Cf = 3400kgf friction capacity vs 1000kg of actual mass (for 3.4G)
Car B = 2000kgf normal load x 1.3 = 2600 for the same 1000kg of mass (for 2.6G)

But it gets even worse, because the cars dont weight the same and the tires dont react the same to forces

2) load sensitivity & saturation

Assume you have two different weighing cars on the same tire Cf = 1.7
2000kg car has 3400kgf lateral capacity for 1.7G
1000kg car has 1700kgf lateral also for 1.7G

But that dosnt happen, everone knows the heavier car is slower, why is that? Load sensitivity. Every tire has a curve for load sensitivity, at 500kgf of normal load it might have a Cf of 2.0 and at 1000 it might be 1.7 and at 1500 it might be 1.3. The curves can be pretty steep in the ranges we got into because frankly these tires wer never designed for it. The tires on LMP and F1 are 100% different than what we use. They respond to downforce or any load really in a completely different way, how exactly? Mail Michellin or dunlop and ask them but I can tell you its 100% different, because I have tested many of the tires in question.

We had serious safety concerns about it and had to design a test regimen for safety until Hankook was gracious enough to put me in touch with their engineering staff. A lot of money gets spent to determine that sort of data. I have it because I gathered it and spent days pouring over heavily instrumented testing and because a gracious tire company spent a LOT of money to get it.

What this really boils down to is that a car that weighs 800kg (or 640 in F1 with driver) vs one thats 1000 incl driver has a quite different coefficient of friction and that is a multiplier of the effect listed above in section 1. To put it simply, the response to downforce is even less than we calculated in section 1 because the car is heavier and the tires are not designed for those kind of loads.

3) the question is more important than the answer, how we rate for 150mph

When you measure downforce, its all a matter of how you do it and aerodynamicists all know how its done but outsiders may not, so I will explain. Ask any professional aero guy how this works and they will tell you the same.

You have a test speed that you use and then you have an industry standard speed to rate at. Even the crazy germans who make up their own units all the time and swear they are superior to all other units, they still use 150 (241kmh) or 200mph (sometimes for le mans cars). Thats just how its done. Everyone takes their test speed and scales up or down, so that they can compare all their other tests in the past in terms of measuring improvement. Thats the nitty gritty of what we do, a million little improvements... so you have to be able to compare stuff or you are lost.

You test you test with a static ride height, because you have to. You cant test any other way because your job is to learn how the car reacts to different ride heights as well. You just cant have a big variable flapping around in your tests or a load cells changing values as the car bounces on its springs. 150mph is not always a realistic test speed, especially in a wind tunnel thats a lot of fan, power and a lot of problems to overcome in design. If you tested at 80mph, you know that downforce goes up at the square of velocity so you do some basic arithmetic and theres your number for 150mph.

We measured on Nemo and we did CFD, but you never trust CFD for absolute values (or wind tunnel for that matter). You need to do correlation testing no matter if you tested in a billion dollar wind tunnel or not. You MUST test in the real world using instrumentation and at whatever speed you can, if its a lower speed you multiply it up so you can compare to the wind tunnel and CFD. If you arent improving your CFD and wind tunnel from on car testing you need a new job.

We probably don't actually make that number at 150mph because the car gets pretty low to the ground and that doesn't bode well with tunnels We could make that number though, we just need stiffer springs like how an LMP or F1 sets the car up. Actually third springs would be nice, and we wanted to do that and pushrods but frankly we would have gotten banned for sure. People already want us in our own class or excluded completed.

On EVERY car the numbers are in motion all the way around the track with every speed, pitch, roll, heave and yaw it all swings massively in some scenarios it would exceed that 5000lbf number quoted and in others its less. Your boiling all that down into one single number because humans cant visualize a 5 dimensional chart in motion around the race track. That includes me I get totally freaking lost, so I write software to do it for me. Because I am dumber than a $50 calculator when it comes to this stuff.

I have years of work into extremely vigilant methods for on car correlation testing and boiling stuff down into a way that human can make sense of. It takes a lot of discipline to get that right, its bloody hard and sometimes you are WRONG so you learn to be very careful and dont say the number unless you are really friggin sure about it. Ask Chris about how conservative I was with every number from day one, unless I had solid test data you always under promise and over deliver, thats the engineering mantra.

The Nemo teams first tests were centered around gathering data on the aero and even without a bunch of the aero installed it was already making stupid numbers on the load cells. They tested installing aero bits one at a time and gathering load cell data down the straight. The final number was greater than we expected, by quite a bit, it was a happy moment.

While our drag is nothing like a prototype car, admittedly, it has a roofline like a brick! I never claimed otherwise. What I said was that its efficiency was similar to a GT car. that is in terms of L/D so yah it gets easier to have a good L/D when you have a heap ton of downforce. But the reason we use L/D as an industry standard is because: unlike an aircraft, the downforce is much more important for us. You want the best efficiency you can but before that, you want the fastest lap time. We had the lowest top speed and the fastest lap time. We aren't wheel to wheel we dont need to pass anyone on the straight.

The way I look at all of this in the end is simple though. Disagree or agree... its all a bunch of theory and the person whos number is right is the one who is in the winners circle. Would love to see that Evo you posted a link to come out to WTAC and see what kind of G forces it does in T1. It is always nice to see all these different ways of doing things come together and compete. That is what is so special about this sport.

Micah McMahan
Micah McMahanlink
Friday, September 21, 2012 5:09 AM
^^^Andrew, the more I hear/read from you, the more I like. Now I want to sit down over a beer, after a track day and dork it up with you. I'll be the first to admit that my aero knowledge is extremely rusty and no where near your depth but I think it would be fun. My head has been completely buried in engines since I stopped working at the tunnel in early 07.

Just curious, where did you do your schooling?
Are you going to be at Buttonwillow in November by chance?
Eric Hsu
Eric Hsulink
Friday, September 21, 2012 12:39 PM
School is in session (edited to be nicer)

tomy gets taken to school

Chris Eaton
Chris Eatonlink
Friday, September 21, 2012 2:26 PM

I think exactly what you are saying shows out on 2 youtube clips.

The one of Wazza at WTAC and the one of Garth at WTAC. Both through T1.

Both cars have a peak G of 1.9G. Both were on the same tyre

There is however a significant difference in T1 in there respective lowest speed.

Weight also would be a contribution to this as well, but downforce is also a major part of the difference.

T11 and T12 is another one which shows a big difference too. Both minimum speed but also G's in this one.
Micah McMahan
Micah McMahanlink
Friday, September 21, 2012 4:10 PM
You busted me Eric! The emails alerts show the comments ;)

I just like shooting the shit with people who know what they're talking about. I was actually brushing up on Milliken not long ago because of an issue that I believe could be caused by our Hankooks. So his brief comment on tires makes me wish I could still test them at MTS....Hankook won't give me real data.
Friday, September 21, 2012 11:11 PM
"Because I am dumber than a $50 calculator when it comes to this stuff." Ummm...where do I get one of these!!! :).

Seriously though great article and great to see Andrew chime in. Maybe Mike will do the budget Aero article he teased us with on the forum a ways back? Or maybe a guest article by Andrew if I may be so bold as to hope.

Monday, September 24, 2012 5:39 AM
While the article detailed some incredible stuff it only made occasion for the intense lecture from Mr. Brilliant! And to think he does this stuff without some data!
Thanks for expounding on variables and scale. Oversimplified indeed, but very informative.
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:20 AM
Hey Andrew Brilliant,

we would like to join the conversation with a bit delay. We are two team members of the white EVO 7, Tomy has linked. One did the design of the aero, the other one puts his hands on CFD.

Firstly we want to apologize for the imprecise argument that the NEMO don´t reach the 5000 lbs at 150 mph. When we found the NEMO in the world wide web we followed your progress with great interest. And of course we noticed all the big aero equipment. Surly a new level of a time attack car. But yes, it´s hard to believe you getting this much downforce.

Secondly a big thank you to your great post. Surly it will benefit others, but on the other hand it shows your self-assurance and that you have no problem to improve your work. So we like to pick your numbers and give it a go from our self.

Third point, you may already gave a good argument by telling you extrapolated the 5000 lbs from a very different speed and thereby a different ride high. So in case its just the view on the numbers.

So we have the assumption that T1 must have been faster with the NEMO, if you coming close to the downforce you are claiming for.

To get a start we take a look at the video where Warren Luff did the 1:25.73. Speedo goes down to 217 kph = 60,3 m/s and the G-sensor is going up to 1.8 = 17,66 m/s^2. To check that numbers we approximated from google maps the corner radius. Minimum radius191 and from outside – apex – outside 224 meter. Calculating Radius = Speed^2/1.85G we get 200 meter Radius. So that fits.

Just for comparison: A look at a 1,8 tone Nissan R35 reaching 1:39 with 180 kph in T1. Recalculating this as seen above, result is about 1,28 G and also quite close to the real world.

To put our criticism on a base, we just have one option: Make it more theoretical.

So we have done a keen simplified balance of forces to the car when it get at the apex, don´t neglecting the bank angle, but making an average tire friction (C_f). We made an excel sheet to get a look at different scenarios. So maybe we can agree somewhere.

EDIT: how to upload picutes? Without this post will be pretty mystery.

So we made four scenarios to discuss. Always same speed (217), mass (1050 kg), radius (200 m). But changing Cf and Downforce coefficient. Always assuming that Warren Luff squeezed the NEMO.

1. If we assume 5000 lbs at 150 mph, a bank angle of more than 30 degrees would be needed to let NEMO leave the track.

2. So let´s put down the C_f as it´t your argument we mostly would agree. Even at a C_f of 0.7 the bank angle could be about 5 degrees.

3. Downforce just 3000 lbs at 150 mph and a C_f of 1. Again, the bank angle could be more than 5 degrees.

4. If C_f stay at 1.2 the downforce can be cut down to 2000 lbs, still reaching 5 degrees bank angle. This scenario is by the way pretty equal in tire loads as the R35 has without downforce.

So Andrew, by all your truly good points to the variation of the friction performance respectiv speed, load, etc. We stay with our doubts. Anyhow tires are a point where our arguments are vulnerable indeed. And we have to say that we are highly jealous that you got insight some tire data. You can assume we also asked already. Doubtless the NEMO has shown a new benchmark on performance and also the downforce is on a new level.

Respectiv the white EVO: A major point on this aero design was that it has a chance to reach a german vehicle inspection sticker... which is for crying out loud a pretty hard target. So no fancy distant wings or on ground scratching carbon parts. Together with the weight it has, it is not comparable to the NEMO though we think we have a decent amount of downforce.

Best regards,
Alex and Paul
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:33 AM
I uploaded two pictures on my account here hopefully all have access to.
Andrew Brilliant
Andrew Brilliantlink
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:22 AM
Paul, I never said anything about your evo or its aero forces, someone else drew a comparison as a way to say the numbers were exaggerated. As I said before i really oversimplified this to respond to the above implication we made up the numbers.

Unfortunately I think to address your points I will need to go into much greater depth and another long winded post which I have no interest in doing. But feel free to doubt the numbers... I have no issue with you having doubts or anyone else for that matter. Its our duty to think the numbers through and try to poke holes in them and find the reality. Its what I do every day so applaud your efforts and I hope you apply the same to your car and continue to improve it as I will hopefully do with nemo or the next car I develop.
Eric Hsu
Eric Hsulink
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 7:16 AM
To insert images into comments, you'll have to use some good old fashion HTML because of our good old fashioned software here on MotoIQ:

img src="http://yourhost/yourimage.jpg" alt="Your Image" width="620"

You will have to insert the above text within the greater than and less than signs "<" and ">"

Obviously "yourhost" would be the location on the web where your images are hosted and "yourimage.jpg" would be the file name. It is very important to keep the image width at 620 pixels so it doesn't screw with the page format either.
Micah McMahan
Micah McMahanlink
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 8:48 AM
Alex and Paul, it's old school html style. This site will help if you don't know it:

Scroll down to 'To Post an Image'

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:49 AM
Ok, now the pictures with some delay. I have to help Paul with the Internet :D.


Best regards
Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:52 AM
Sorry, didnt work.
next try

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:02 AM
Sorry for the german text in the screenshot.

I translate.
Masse = mass in kg
Erdbeschl. = gravity in m/s^2
Radius = radius in m
Geschw. [km/h] = speed in km/h
Cf = tyre friction coefficient
downforce 150mph [lbs] = downforce@150 mph in lbs
downforce 150mph [N] = downforce@150 mph in N
Geschw. [m/s] = speed in m/s
Zentrifugalbeschl. = centrifugal acceleration in m/s^2
Downforce = downforce@corner speed

In the graph F_zentrifugal means force pointing outside curve and F_zentripetal means force pointing to the center of the curve. So equilibrium will be at alpha(F_zentipetal=F_zentrifugal).

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:46 AM
@Andrew we dont want to anger you or somebody else. We only want to explain and argument that our doubts are not made out of thin air. So long...

greetings from germany
alex and paul
Andrew Brilliant
Andrew Brilliantlink
Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:46 PM
Paul, no offense taken at all but at the same time I can see your motivations as well.

The first post on this topic here came from someone who was obviously way out of his understanding making a claim that crumbled with even the most basic high school physics explanation. So now it continues with a bit more math and still way off the mark and still missing huge chunks of data making big assumptions. If I spent my time to explain everything to you guys would still sit there and try to find a way to say the numbers are not right and receive the benefit of that education and so would anyone else reading this publicly. I just won't suffer it. You didnt even read the original rebuttle and apply some of the most basic things like scaling the downforce to the speed and that you have NO idea about the tire load saturation. These arent small details these are like 40% less downforce than you calculate for and tire grip changes of a similar magnitude. But even more basically than that, you are trying to prove a negative and I wont get caught up in the same logical fallacy, only in reverse.

I will however speak to our testing methods. We used calibrated strain gauge tests and physical tests. At first the downforce numbers were so high I frankly did not trust the strain gauges based on the numbers the guys were reporting from the aero test days at QR.

When I got to Eastern Creek I measured based on spring displacements and the numbers from the strain gauge tests were +/- 2% of what I calculated. So you have two different groups of people using two totally different systems of measurement with the same result. A colleague of mine did the same thing just based on photos and data in this article and came up with the same number and said "at least 5000lbs" .

Its possible we are wrong surely. As a scientist you always acknowledge that possibility but you are going to have to do a lot better than what you did above to make me recheck all those correlated test results.
Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:26 AM
Again thanks for the answer Andew! You obviously have a lot more experience than we have.
I know its not nice from us to assert your numbers to be wrong. And why our inducement to do so...
In general: The NEMO has smashed all opponents, so you dont need to hyperbolism in any way.
Usually the guys preparing the motor always naming the power output lower than it is.
Maybe the NEMO reach 5000 lbs at the perfect ground clearance and angle of attack, but at T1 our example 4. has some points, especially because the tire load can be comparable with a R35 where the tire generate a friction coefficent of 1.3. No doubt, if we calculate at other corners with lower speed where the Nemo reach 2.2 G we came much closer to the Downforce you are claiming for!

Anyway, if we like to prove you wrong, the only classy way would be to beat you on the track. Thats for sure.

Post Comment Login or register to post a comment.

MotoIQ Proudly Presents Our Partners:

© 2018