Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2006-01-3662

A Systematic Approach to the

Preliminary Aerodynamic Design
of Enclosed-Wheel Racecars
Joseph Katz and Xavier Hamand
SDSU

Motorsports Engineering Conference & Exhibition

Dearborn, Michigan
December 5-7, 2006

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-0790 Web: www.sae.org
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed
SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. This process requires a
minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel: 724-772-4028
Fax: 724-776-3036

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright  2006 SAE International

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract to Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017
A Systematic Approach to the Preliminary Aerodynamic
Design of Enclosed-Wheel Racecars
Abstract
The flow field over a vehicle and the
resulting integral quantities, such as
downforce and drag are a direct outcome
of the vehicle’s shape. During the initial
developmental stage, therefore, it would
be beneficial to have an inverse
capability, dictating vehicle shape, based
on a prescribed set of desirable
aerodynamic parameters. Although such
methods exist for airfoil design, their
extension to complex vehicle geometries
is far more complicated. Consequently,
an alternate approach is experimented
with here, whereby a desirable trend in
the surface pressure distribution is
specified. Using an iterative method, the
vehicle shape is modified until the
‘target’ trend in the pressure distribution
is met.
In the present study such a systematic
approach was proposed and used to
develop an enclosed wheel racecar
shape. During this process of refining
the vehicle’s geometry, computational
fluid dynamic tools were used. The
design was later validated with 1/4-scale
wind tunnel testing, which verified the
expected aerodynamic performance.
1. Introduction
In recent years aerodynamics has
evolved to become one of the main
parameters influencing vehicle design.
2006-01-3662
Joseph Katz and Xavier Hamand
SDSU
In the case of high performance road
vehicles (e.g., race cars) the more
important aerodynamic integral
measures are downforce, drag, sideforce
and also the pitching moment (e.g. the
fore/aft downforce ratio). The process of
achieving the desirable coefficients,
however, is not well documented. One of
the first efforts in establishing a
methodology for selecting suitable
automotive body shapes is presented by
Morelli (Ref 1). In his study he used
experimental tools to validate his
approach, which appears to be more time
consuming due to wind tunnel model
build and test times. A more flexible
design approach, focusing on two-
dimensional airfoil shapes, was
presented by Liebeck, (Ref. 2) and
Eppler & Sommers (Ref. 3). The
significance of this approach is that the
shape of the surface velocity distribution
(or pressure coefficient) was used to
develop the desirable airfoil shape. One
of the objectives of this study, therefore,
is to investigate the effectiveness of
applying such methodology to the
preliminary shape design of high-speed
road vehicles.
The current body shape development
focused on a generic enclosed-wheel
racecar geometry. For simplicity a two
dimensional central body shape was
used and there was no effort to comply
with the rulebook of any current
sanctioning organizations.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

Initial shape (create a design (e.g., not a two-dimensional

Surface enclosing driveline, central body) even better coefficients
cockpit, components, etc.) can be achieved. Finally, this approach
can be integrated into a more
comprehensive vehicle optimization
process.
Evaluate surface pressures
(Calculate/Measure) 2. Preliminary Conceptual Design

In this section the proposed rationale for

vehicle shape development is explained.
Diagnose favorable/adverse Both computational and experimental
pressure areas or pressure tools can be used for the process and the
peaks on vehicle surface resulting pressure distribution is used as
the diagnostic tool (to judge if the latest
modification is moving into the desirable
Estimate aero performance: direction). The schematic flow chart in
downforce, drag, balance, etc. Fig 1 summarizes the design cycle, and
the various steps will be described in the
following paragraphs. As expected, the
Correct vehicle shape first step in this process is the definition
to match desirable of the vehicle’s initial shape:
pressure distribution

no
Target met ?

yes

Fig 2. Initial geometry of the proposed

END
Fig. 1 Flow chart for the configuration
development process.
As noted, the main objective of this
study was to experiment with a
deterministic approach for configuration
development. The secondary goals were
set on a downforce coefficient (based on
frontal area) of about three and
downforce to drag ratio of about 4. Also
it is clear that with a less restricted
vehicle. Color coding depicts the surface
pressure coefficient distribution (red is
high and blue is low pressure). A
laminar Navier-Stokes finite volume
solver (FLUENT, Ref (4)) was used with
819,029 tetrahedral cells.
2.a. Initial Model Geometry
The basic assumption is that vehicle
components such as engine,
transmission, suspension and wheels are
defined prior to this stage. The next step
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017
is then to define the body shape
encapsulating the above components.
This initial design resulted in a shape
which is shown in Fig. 2. For simplicity,
the vehicle shape was based on the
Catamaran configuration (Ref (5), p.
202). The central body is a two-
dimensional wing-in-ground-effect type
with a streamlined single-seater cockpit
on top. The two long box shaped
sidepods house the wheels. Both leading
and trailing edges of those sidepods were
quite arbitrary at this point (but later the
shape of the side pod could be optimized
as well).
Fig 3. Simplified geometry of the initial
configuration. Color coding depicts the
surface pressure coefficient distribution
(but here red is low and blue is high
pressure). A potential-flow based panel
code (VSAERO, Ref (6)) with 2296
panels was used for the computations.
A two-dimensional 14 deg, underbody
diffuser was used as shown at the lower
part of Fig. 3. Diffuser exit starts at a
distinctive line (at about 65% of the
central body) so that the center of
pressure can be controlled (by slightly
moving this line fore/aft). In terms of the
mechanical design, the lower A arm of
the rear suspension would be exposed
(but streamlined) due to this large rear
diffuser.
2.b. Design Tools
The vehicle shape development process
requires the ability to evaluate the
aerodynamic loads and the resulting
pressure distribution for a given shape.
The tools that were available are a
Navier-Stokes solver (FLUENT –
Ref(4)), a potential-flow based solver
(VSAERO, Ref (6) and (7)) and 1/4-
scale wind tunnel testing.
In the absence of inverse (analytic)
design methods for such a three-
dimensional model, the process relied on
an iterative approach. Thus, the ability to
perform fast iterations basically dictated
the type of diagnostic tools used here. It
was quite obvious that the computational
tools will be used during the
development process and the wind
tunnel model will serve for the
validation. For example, the
computations shown in Fig. 2 took about
a week while those shown in Fig 3 run
on the same computer for less than one
minute. It is clear that the full Navier
Stokes equations contain more details of
the physics of fluids, but even when not
using turbulence models, the solution
became too time consuming. At the
other hand the panel code required
further simplifications in the geometry,
such as eliminating the wheels and
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017
forming the streamlined cockpit shown
in Fig. 3 (top). Both computations
included ground effect, with moving
boundary (in the case shown in Fig. 2).
At this time however, the short run time
of the panel code was the decisive
element in using it for the development
process (these computations represent
the second box ‘Evaluate’ in the flow
chart of Fig. 1). Of course computational
tools may improve in the future, both in
terms of speed and the accuracy of the
physics, and can replace the simple
potential-flow model used here.
It is interesting to show the results for
lift and drag coefficients, as obtained by
these two methods, for the models
shown in Fig 2 and Fig 3, respectively:
Panel N-S
CL -1.770 -1.316
CD 0.307 0.701
It is quite obvious that the calculated
drag by the inviscid (panel) solver is
lower and the downforce is larger.
2.c. The Optimization Process
The first effort focused on developing
the two dimensional shape of the central
body (without the cockpit area, as shown
in Fig. 3). The lower surface of the body
had to be ‘close’ to a flat surface
between the two wheel axles, but
elevating the nose and contouring ahead
of the front axle was allowed. At this
point no effort was placed on simulating
cooling inlets or exits, and creating
complex hidden front wings - the type
that directs the flow under the nose and
outside, behind the front wheels (see Ref
(5), p 259). The criteria for a ‘good
design’ was set as follows:
a. Long regions of favorable pressure
distribution, in order to delay laminar to
turbulent flow transition in the boundary
layer (hence low skin friction).
b. Delay or avoid flow separation (e.g.,
no sharp adverse pressure gradients).
This, of course, will reduce form drag.
c. Target for the aerodynamic
coefficients was set at CL = -3, and L/D
of -4 (and a rear-biased fore/aft
downforce ratio – but for brevity this
data is not presented here).
As noted, for simplicity, the Catamaran
model (Fig. 2 and Fig 3) was used with
a two dimensional central body. Also, in
all these studies a single element rear
wing was used. Its shape was not
optimized, and its geometry and
performance will be briefly discussed
later.
The pressure distribution along the cross
section of the baseline configuration (as
in Fig. 3) is shown at the upper part of
Fig 4 (recall that no cockpit was used at
this stage). A ‘favorable pressure
gradient’ is one where the pressure goes
from high to low, along the body’s
surface. To clarify this, the pressure
distribution trends are marked by the
arrows in the central part of Fig. 4. Now,
observing the upper surface pressure
coefficient in Fig 4a it is clear that the
initial slope from the stagnation point
and up to about 5% of the body’s length
may be called ‘favorable’. At the lower
surface the pressure distribution is
favorable up to the diffuser’s inlet, so
long laminar flow regions under the car
are possible. One of the main problems
with this initial geometry (in Fig 4a) is
that the front portion is lifting, and only
the rear diffuser region generates
sizeable downforce (e.g., the center of
pressure is too far back). So whenever
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017
the pressure on the upper surface is
lower than on the lower surface, the
resultant force lifts the body as
highlighted in Fig. 4a. Knowing such
characteristics in advance can reduce
vehicle tendency to blow-over (become
airborne) as was the case with several
prototype race cars in the past (Ref (8)).
Fig 4 Centerline Cp for the idealized
center body (vehicle shape is similar to
the one shown in Fig. 3, with ground
effect).
The central part of this figure (e.g., Fig.
4b) presents the simple airfoil in ground
effect approach. Here a typical airplane
airfoil (described in Ref (9)) was used –
but without major success in regard to
the first task of long favorable pressure
distributions. In this case, too, portions
of the nose create lift but otherwise a
large negative pressure coefficient range
exists under the vehicle. Another
disadvantage here is the too forward
center of pressure, as suggested by the
shape of the central graph in Fig. 4.
Also, if separation appears at the lower
surface it can move fore/aft, affecting
stability – so a well-defined sharp line
(the diffuser entrance in Fig. 4c) may be
better.
The lowest graph in Fig 4 shows the last
iteration which satisfied the initial
criteria, although it could have been
further optimized. Clearly the central
body has long favorable pressure
distribution on both sides, allowing for
possible low-drag, laminar flow there.
Also, the nose area lift was considerably
reduced and the center of pressure was
behind the vehicle centerline. The larger
suction peak at the diffuser inlet
(compared to the top configuration in
Fig. 4) is due to the sharp, well defined
trailing edge.
The three cases in Fig. 4 represent the
three boxes (labeled ‘Diagnose’,
‘Estimate’, and ‘Correct’) in the flow
chart in Fig. 1. It appears that the first
objective of long favorable pressure
distributions was met for the case of Fig.
4c. The second objective of avoiding
flow separation (in the adverse pressure
range) was approached by using a flow
separation criteria that limits the adverse
slope and the shape of the pressure
coefficient curve. To clarify this, the
lower surface pressure distribution from
Fig 4c was replotted in Fig. 5, along with
the target boundaries for the suction-side
pressure distribution (dashed line). This
curve was taken from a family of curves
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017
in Ref. 2, representing several
‘desirable’ suction-side pressure
6 modified to include a generic cockpit
distributions (for Re number of 5 x 10
and for two-dimensional flow). The
particular curve selected here, (e.g., the
dashed line) represent the case with the
lowest suction peak. The shape of the
adverse pressure drop towards the
trailing edge was taken from Ref 10 and
it represents the sharpest slope without
flow separation. Therefore, in order to
avoid massive flow separations the
calculated pressure distribution (solid
line) must lie inside the region
surrounded by the dashed line. Also the
adverse pressure slope should preferably
be less steep than the one represented by
the dashed line. So for simplicity, at this
initial design phase, this intuitive
approach was used (along streamlines)
to define the targeted envelope for the
pressure distribution (in hope that the
three-dimensional flow will have less
tendency to separate than the two-
dimensional flow data taken from Ref.
2).
Fig 5 Example for the calculated suction
side pressure coefficient (solid line), and
the ‘acceptable’ boundaries (dashed line)
borrowed from Ref. 2.
At this point the center body shape met
the initial targets and its geometry was
area representing the driver’s helmet and
the streamlined fairing behind it, as
shown in Fig. 3. This addition didn’t
have a major effect on the calculated
data.
The discussion here cannot be complete
without describing the single element
rear wing. Its shape is based on an
existing airfoil, but rear camber was
increased to generate more aft loading.
(the shape is shown in the insert to Fig
6.). Typical potential flow calculations
done with the complete configuration (as
in Fig. 3) show the surface pressure
variations on the wing as it varies with
wing angle of attack .
Fig 6 Centerline pressure distribution
for the rear wing (AR= 3.7), for several
wing angles, .
Based on the shape of the pressure
distribution shown in Fig 6 it is clear that
the airfoil geometry wasn’t optimized.
Its ‘double hump’ upper surface pressure
distribution shape could be improved by
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

using any of the methods developed in mounted directly to the 6 component

Ref 2, or Ref 3. Of course, in racecar balance under the test section. Wheel
application the rear-loading is needed to rotation wasn’t simulated and frontal
augment the flow exiting the underbody blockage was about 6%. Consequently,
diffuser (by increasing the low pressure no blockage corrections were applied to
there). Furthermore, when using (even a the data presented here. Some of the
small) Gurney flap, flow separation near overall dimensions of the model are
the trailing edge is avoided, and this was presented in Table 1:
verified by flow visualizations during
the wind tunnel testing. As noted, after
the central body shape was defined and a
generic cockpit shape was added (Fig 3),
the following results were obtained by
using the potential-flow based solver
(VSAERO, Ref (6)):
Alpha- CL CL CD
(wing) (total) (wing) (total)
-4.5 deg 2.716 0.765 0.567
-2.0 deg 2.635 0.669 0.520
+0.5deg 2.550 0.571 0.488 Side view of the 1/4 scale model
Although the target was set at a CL of –3,
it was assumed that by slightly pitching
the central body or by improving rear
wing design this goal can easily be met.
Therefore a wind tunnel model, based on
the above shape was built.

3. Experimental Setup

For the experimental validation an

enclosed-circuit wind tunnel with test
section cross-section of 3 by 4 foot was Fig 7 The 1/4 scale wind tunnel model
used. The free-stream speed could reach as mounted in the test section.
velocities of up to 180 mph, but the data
reported here was taken at 120 mph (193 Table 1: Baseline Model Dimensions:
km/hr). At this speed the Reynolds Length = 0.95 m
number based on the body’s length was Width = 40.5 cm
6 Min ground clearance at center body
ReL = 3.45 x 10 and based on the rear
6 =1.5 cm (6 cm full scale)
wing chord: ReW = 0.36 x 10 . An Height = 19 cm
elevated ground plane, as shown in Fig Wing chord = 11 cm
7, was used for ground simulation. The Wing span = 40.5 cm
1/4-scale model was supported by four Wing leading edge height above rear
struts (shielded by aerodynamic fairings deck = 9 cm
under the ground plane), and was Baseline alpha = -2 deg
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017
Gurney height (both wing and body
trailing edges) = 5 mm.
Frontal area = 0.0535 m2 (0.857 m2 full
scale)
4. Validation
The initial sets of experiments were
aimed at establishing the level of
correlation between the computations
and the experiments. Results of these
experiments are summarized in Fig. 8.
The first case (at the left) shows the data
for the body alone. This baseline shape
actually had lift and a moderate drag.
The lack of downforce must have been a
result of the rear diffuser stall (which
was aggravated by the test’s lower
Reynolds number).
6 expected the ideal flow calculations
5 -C
L
C
D
4 L/D
3
2
1 5. Results
0
-1
-2
Body Only Body+Wing Add Gurney
on Wing
Fig 8 Validation and build-up of
vehicle’s aerodynamic loads.
Adding the wing had a huge effect, both
on lift and downforce. Calculated
downforce contribution of the wing was
about CL = -0.6 (using the vehicle
frontal area as the reference), therefore,
the additional downforce is a clear result
of reattaching the flow under the rear
diffuser, due to the suction effect of the
wing.
Because of the low Reynolds number of
the test, it was clear that the aft section
of both the wing and the central body
have sizeable regions of flow separations
(since full-scale criteria was used to
detect flow separation). This was
partially corrected by adding Gurney
flaps to the wing and to the central body.
Basically with the aid of these flaps, the
experimental data got closer to the
attached flow computations. With those
flaps in place, flow visualizations
indicated that the flow is attached over
the wing and the center body upper
surfaces. However, at the lower surface
of the body, some minor trailing edge
separation was still visible.
It is interesting to add the results of the
panel code at the right end of Fig. 8. As
predicted a higher downforce and less
drag. Of course such ideal flow
computations don’t account for skin
friction and flow separation.
At this point two of the three design
objectives were met, but downforce
levels were lower than the targeted
Add Gurney Panel Code
on Body too Results value. However, it was clear that by
slight adjustments to the center body
and/or wing incidence angles, this target
could be met. Thus, the following results
demonstrate the process of fine-tuning
the vehicle aerodynamic coefficients.
The most common mode of aerodynamic
adjustment on a racecar is the adjustment
of rear wing location and angle. In this
particular case, a wing height of h/c =
0.82 above the rear deck, was found to
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

be the best and was used throughout the clear that the computed inviscid results
test. Consequently wing angle was the will yield lower drag and higher levels
only parameter that was varied, and the of downforce.
results are shown in Fig.9. Based on this
data, the rear wing is clearly not
performing well. Increasing its
incidence, increases the downforce, but
7 2.4
drag increases much faster. In terms of
efficiency (e.g. L/D) the best condition, -L/D, computed
according to this data, is at  = –2.0 deg 5.8 2
(we refer to this as baseline).
-L/D, measured

4.6 1.6
-C , computed
L

3.6 1
3.4 1.2
3.4 -L/D 0.9 -C , measured
L

3.2 0.8 C , measured

D
2.2 0.8
3 0.7
C C , computed
D D
2.8 0.6
1 0.4
2.6 0.5
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5
2.4 -C 0.4
L Alpha Body, deg

2.2
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Rear Wing Incidence, deg
Fig 9 Effect of rear wing angle of attack
on vehicle’s aerodynamic coefficients.
At this point, by simply adjusting the
rear wing, the targeted downforce level
wasn’t met. Therefore, the effect of
center body pitch was investigated. The
wind-tunnel model initially was
constructed such that the central body
could be moved relative to the sidepods.
Therefore, reducing center body height
or pitch was quite easy (and planned).
The results in Fig 10 demonstrate the
strong dependence of downforce on the
central body pitch angle. Furthermore,
the lift to drag ratio (L/D) closely
follows this trend. The computed
‘predictions’ are also plotted on this
graph, demonstrating the ability to
capture this trend rather well. Again, it is
0.3
Fig 10 Effect of center body pitch on
vehicle’s aerodynamic coefficients.
From the practical point of view a –1.0
deg central body pitch is doable,
therefore, the target downforce was met!
Results for the sensitivity of the
aerodynamic coefficient to the baseline
vehicle pitch and ride height are
presented in Fig. 11. The side pods of
the baseline configuration were parallel
to the ground and raised 5 mm above the
ground plane. Tire contact point were
simulated by four flexible foam blocks
mounted under the side-pods,
respectively. This baseline condition is
referred to as front ride height hf= 0mm
(so minimum center body ground
clearance was 15 mm, as noted in Table
1). Two additional curves are presented
in Fig 11 for larger ride heights (e.g. hf
=+5mm and hf=+10mm). For each of
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017
these front ride heights, the vehicle was
pitched by changing the rear ride height,
hr, as shown on the abscissa. Thus a
condition of hr-hf = 0 represents a
horizontal orientation. Note, that here
ride heights were measured at the
leading and trailing edges of the side
pods.
3.8
3.4 -C , hf=+10mm
L
-C , baseline
C
L
L
3 1.4
-C , hf=+5mm
L
C , hf=+5mm
2.6 D
2.2
C , hf=+10mm
D
C , baseline
D
1.8
-10 -5 0 5 10
hr-hf, mm
Fig 11 Aero-map of the 1/4 scale,
baseline configuration.
As expected, when pitching the vehicle
nose down, the downforce will increase,
and the CL = –3 coefficient can be met
by raising the rear by 5 mm. This is true
for all three ride heights, and the drag
increase follows similar trends.
However, the downforce in Fig 11
increases when the vehicle is raised, and
this is the opposite trend when compared
with actual race cars. First, due to the
nonmoving ground plane the flow under
the car is more restricted (in this test)
and by slightly lifting it, more flow and
also more downforce can be generated.
The second reason is that when the body
is lifted, the flow under the sidepods
increases and this results in additional
downforce. This is clearly demonstrated
by the fact that after the first increase in
ride height, a large increment in drag is
measured (e,g., the tire simulating foam
blocks were elevated allowing flow
under the whole length of the side pod).
It is likely that the actual (full-size)
vehicle will have higher downforce than
measured here due to the moving road.
But contrary to the data in Fig 11,
downforce will increase with reduced
ride height (and the difference is due to
the different Reynolds number). Recall
that the center body ground clearance of
the baseline configuration is 6 cm, in full
2 scale, and simple calculations of the
boundary layer thickness (of about 2 cm)
1.8
indicate that the flow is not yet blocked
1.6 at this ground clearance level.
1.2 6. Concluding Remarks
C
1 D
A deterministic approach for vehicle
0.8 configuration-design was presented. The
0.6 method was then applied to a generic
15 20 enclosed race car shape and the targeted
aerodynamic coefficients were met.
Such method may prove useful during
the initial design phases and can provide
reasonable estimates of the expected
aerodynamic characteristics.
An actual vehicle will have fine details
such as cooling ducts, wheel-wells,
rotating wheels, etc. Therefore, the final
aerodynamic coefficients may be
different. However, this can be corrected
by more streamlined side pods, various
dive plates, splitter plates, both at the
front and rear parts of the car (all these
modifications were tested with this
wind-tunnel model and worked as
expected).
References
1. Morelli, A., “Aerodynamic Basic
Bodies Suitable for Automobile
Applications,” in “Impact of
Aerodynamics on Vehicle Design,” Int.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

J. of Vehicle Design, Technological 10. Stratford, B. S., “The Prediction of

Advances in Vehicle Design Series, SP3, Separation of the Turbulent Boundary
1983, pp. 70 – 98. Layer,” J. of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 5,
2. Liebeck, R. H., "A Class of Airfoils 1959, pp. 1 – 16.
Designed for High Lift in
Incompressible Flow," J. Aircraft, Vol.
10, No. 10, 1973, pp. 610-617.

3. Eppler, R, and Sommers D. M. "A

Computer Program for the Design and
Analysis of Low-Speed Airfoils," NASA
TM 80210, Aug. 1980.

4. “Fluent User’s Manual,” Version 6.2,

Fluent Inc., Lebanon, NH, 2005.

5. Katz J., "Race-Car Aerodynamics," -

Second Edition, Robert Bentley Inc.,
Cambridge, MA, 2006.

6. Maskew, B., “Prediction of Subsonic

Aerodynamic Characteristics: A Case for
Low-Order Panel Methods," AIAA
Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1982, pp. 157-
163.

7. Maskew, B., “Program VSAERO, A

Computer Program for Calculating the
Nonlinear Aerodynamic Characteristics
of Arbitrary Configurations," NASA
CR-166476, Nov. 1982.

8. Dominy R G, Ryan A, and Sims-

Williams D B, 2000, “The Aerodynamic
Stability of a Le Mans Prototype Race
Car Under Off-Design Pitch
Conditions,” SAE 2000-01-0872 , March
2000, Detroit MI.

9. Hicks, R. M., and Cliff, S. E., “An

Evaluation of Three Two-Dimensional
Computational Fluid Dynamic Codes
Including Low Reynolds Numbers and
Transonic Mach Numbers,” NASA TM
102840, Jan 1991.