# I joined the dark side...



## Tempes_TT (Oct 24, 2010)

So I was bored yesterday so I thought Id do a little debadging and stuff! :thumbup: 


*Before:*









*After:*


----------



## 20psi now (Feb 26, 2009)

nice i have been thinking about painting my rings on the front grill for some time now.. but i cant make my mind up sell the oem 5 bar and do a badgeless grill or just paint it black...

have to say the rings painted black look good :thumbup:


----------



## TTwizted13StrtRcr (Jun 7, 2008)

looks very good! love it. and its the fastest color car there is


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

mmmmmmm... darkness..:sly:


----------



## Tempes_TT (Oct 24, 2010)

haha thanks guys!  next project on the agenda is shaving the reflectors and polishing the tails! :thumbup:


----------



## dogger (Jul 29, 2005)

The black looks good on silver. Debadging is clean too! Have you thought about blacking out the rear valance?


----------



## Tempes_TT (Oct 24, 2010)

dogger said:


> The black looks good on silver. Debadging is clean too! Have you thought about blacking out the rear valance?


Yes sir I have. Im actually going tomorrow to get me a quote on a custom exhaust so ill most likely be getting a black dual tip valance. Ultimately though, I'm saving for the osir matte carbon valance and spoiler lip to match! :thumbup:


----------



## Neb (Jan 25, 2005)

black rings look great. :beer:


----------



## 1.8 skeet skeet (Aug 11, 2004)

Well played Sir! :thumbup:


----------



## omerkm1 (Feb 23, 2010)

:thumbup:


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Not bad. Personally I like rocking the bling emblems, but it looks good on lighter cars


----------



## dogger (Jul 29, 2005)

Tempes_TT said:


> Yes sir I have. Im actually going tomorrow to get me a quote on a custom exhaust so ill most likely be getting a black dual tip valance. Ultimately though, I'm saving for the osir matte carbon valance and spoiler lip to match! :thumbup:



I'm planning to make a full real carbon fiber version of the 3.2 trunk spoiler and not just the extension part. I just need to get the money together for tooling and take the spoiler off my car for a couple of weeks. The quality will be really good too. My composite guy does amazing work. We make a carbon fiber wing for Corrados that is really nice. Eventually I plan to do a valance as well using the 3.2 valance as a basis. Your car will look sick with some CF. :thumbup:


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

dogger said:


> I'm planning to make a full real carbon fiber version of the 3.2 trunk spoiler and not just the extension part. I just need to get the money together for tooling and take the spoiler off my car for a couple of weeks. The quality will be really good too. My composite guy does amazing work. We make a carbon fiber wing for Corrados that is really nice. Eventually I plan to do a valance as well using the 3.2 valance as a basis. Your car will look sick with some CF. :thumbup:


If you do so, please give it a little more agressive rake. 
The factory angle of attack is a little too flat and could use some viagra. It would be more effective and at the same time, more visually appealing. PM me if you want to know how much more degrees to add, without creating too much drag. 

I am in the process of building one for solo racing, highly effective even at low speed but is not good looking enough to be DD.


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

dogger said:


> I'm planning to make a full real carbon fiber version of the 3.2 trunk spoiler and not just the extension part. I just need to get the money together for tooling and take the spoiler off my car for a couple of weeks. The quality will be really good too. My composite guy does amazing work. We make a carbon fiber wing for Corrados that is really nice. Eventually I plan to do a valance as well using the 3.2 valance as a basis. Your car will look sick with some CF. :thumbup:


Seen the rado one and it looks amazing. You should make a cf hatch


----------



## dogger (Jul 29, 2005)

madmax199 said:


> If you do so, please give it a little more agressive rake.
> The factory angle of attack is a little too flat and could use some viagra. It would be more effective and at the same time, more visually appealing. PM me if you want to know how much more degrees to add, without creating too much drag.
> 
> I am in the process of building one for solo racing, highly effective even at low speed but is not good looking enough to be DD.



I would be interested in this. Sending you a PM now. :thumbup:


----------



## dogger (Jul 29, 2005)

PLAYED TT said:


> Seen the rado one and it looks amazing. You should make a cf hatch



Thanks! It took work and patience but the final product came out great. I am working on a CF Seat Cupra R lip right now too.


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

dogger said:


> working on a CF Seat Cupra R lip right now too.


Hmmmmmmmm..............intriguing


----------



## dogger (Jul 29, 2005)

Added more material to make mounting/installation easier.


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

dogger said:


> I would be interested in this. Sending you a PM now. :thumbup:


Without going into too much detail, you want an obtuse angle of 127 degree vs the wider factory angle. Adding an inch or two to the height should also make a difference beside the angle of attack.

I will send you a more detailed PM and maybe mail you templates with the actual trunk curvature if you are interested(not sure if the coupe hatch and roadster have the same curvature where the wing mounts) .

The picture came out too small but it's an acutal scale pic of the angle you need to get



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

I heard you mention that you were gonna polish the tinted tails, but i highly suggest you hit them with at least 1 coat of clear.


----------



## Tempes_TT (Oct 24, 2010)

Love that Cupra lip! I want! 

And yeah Im planning on wet sanding my tail lights. Theyre kinda smokey and not polished and have some grayish scuffs on it I wanna take off. wouldnt putting a clear coat prevent me from taking those off? Ill have to take pics of what need fixing once I start my build thread! :thumbup:


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Tempes_TT said:


> wouldnt putting a clear coat prevent me from taking those off? QUOTE]
> 
> taking what off? is your tint ed tails a spray of a film? not sure what you mean by taking "those" off..


----------



## Tempes_TT (Oct 24, 2010)

warranty225cpe said:


> taking what off? is your tint ed tails a spray of a film? not sure what you mean by taking "those" off..


haha sorry, should have specified. yeah, theyre sprayed on, its not a film. I personally think it looks better, but theyre oldish now, so like I said, theyre a tad scuffy and could use a polish! lol

Ill try taking a closer pic of them tomorrow and ill show you what I mean :thumbup:


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

madmax199 said:


> Without going into too much detail, you want an obtuse angle of 127 degree vs the wider factory angle. Adding an inch or two to the height should also make a difference beside the angle of attack.
> 
> I will send you a more detailed PM and maybe mail you templates with the actual trunk curvature if you are interested(not sure if the coupe hatch and roadster have the same curvature where the wing mounts) .
> 
> ...


madmax, have you run into the front suspension being floaty on high speed due to not getting enough frontal downforce?



dogger said:


> I'm planning to make a full real carbon fiber version of the 3.2 trunk spoiler and not just the extension part. I just need to get the money together for tooling and take the spoiler off my car for a couple of weeks. The quality will be really good too. My composite guy does amazing work. We make a carbon fiber wing for Corrados that is really nice. Eventually I plan to do a valance as well using the 3.2 valance as a basis. Your car will look sick with some CF. :thumbup:


Nice James, count me in for 1 :beer:


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

DeckManDubs said:


> madmax, have you run into the front suspension being floaty on high speed due to not getting enough frontal downforce?
> Nice James, count me in for 1 :beer:


I've been felling my front end float a little on the highway. I think that's my worn out control arm bushings though.

Make that 2! The 3.2 is IMO the best option for a TT spoiler. And one in CF would be like the Holy Grail. I'd be down for one for SURE. 
(sorry to get ot)


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

DeckManDubs said:


> madmax, have you run into the front suspension being floaty on high speed due to not getting enough frontal downforce?


With the factory rear wing installed the front is a little floaty at speed over 90 mph. I now run without the rear wing in my car and that help with the front end at the expense of some rear downforce.

*Here you can see that the rear wing, while adding a little rear downforce, also create some unwanted front lift*


Uploaded with ImageShack.us




*I also have an effective front lip that reduce the amount of air going under the front end significantly.*








Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Now that's an interesting picture. Makes me wonder how lift/downforce is affected by ride height.


----------



## raart (Aug 9, 2010)

madmax199 said:


> With the factory rear wing installed the front is a little floaty at speed over 90 mph. I now run without the rear wing in my car and that help with the front end at the expense of some rear downforce.
> 
> *Here you can see that the rear wing, while adding a little rear downforce, also create some unwanted front lift*


Does that DTM Wings help with anything?

http://www.thettshop.co.uk/exterior.asp?cat=2003&product=701427


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

raart said:


> Does that DTM Wings help with anything?
> 
> http://www.thettshop.co.uk/exterior.asp?cat=2003&product=701427


"The DMC Audi TT 3.2 Concept DTM wings not only look great..."

Wait, they look great? Could have fooled me. :laugh:


----------



## raart (Aug 9, 2010)

:laugh: I didn't read the description...

Anyway probably they serve the purpose, but in the DTM they are slightly bigger and I don't think they put them on for "the look"...


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

20v master said:


> Now that's an interesting picture. Makes me wonder how lift/downforce is affected by ride height.


Lift is definitely affected by ride height. How much, is hard to quantify and is going to depend on several factors such as speed, amount of drop, flatness of the undercarriage and mostly rake. 

I bet that a car with the nose dropped significantly lower than the back will have much lower coefficient of lift vs a car with the nose higher than the rear. The problem with that however is that dropping the front more than an inch screw up the geometry and handling. The rear with the multi link geometry can be lowered a good amount without any real drawbacks.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

madmax199 said:


> Lift is definitely affected by ride height. How much, is hard to quantify and is going to depend on several factors such as speed, amount of drop, flatness of the undercarriage and mostly rake.
> 
> I bet that a car with the nose dropped significantly lower than the back will have much lower coefficient of lift vs a car with the nose higher than the rear. The problem with that however is that dropping the front more than an inch screw up the geometry and handling. The rear with the multi link geometry can be lowered a good amount without any real drawbacks.


I guess I should have included "much" in that question, as you know that I already knew what you stated. Reason I was wondering is because my GTI, which doesn't have the TT's suspension benefits, is lowered well beyond what degrades the handling, and I haven't felt any lifting or floating at speeds up to ~160mph. It has a level stance BTW. Obviously different bodies, so was just curious, as I'd assume the TT has a better cD compared to the square butt of the GTI.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

20v master said:


> I guess I should have included "much" in that question, as you know that I already knew what you stated. Reason I was wondering is because my GTI, which doesn't have the TT's suspension benefits, is lowered well beyond what degrades the handling, and I haven't felt any lifting or floating at speeds up to ~160mph. It has a level stance BTW. Obviously different bodies, so was just curious, as I'd assume the TT has a better cD compared to the square butt of the GTI.


TT cD is like .42 I believe. Over 140ish the front bumper causes air to travel under making the front feel unstable. On my Corrado prior to running a Euro lip, I noticed on Bonneville salt flats that the front of the car would get light (130's), with the front/rear had equal height. Tossed on a 90mm Lip, raised the rear ~.75" and that solved the problem to ~170's. At that point the car needs both more front and rear down force. 

The TT chassis feels great to about 140, but needs some work for sure.


----------



## vdub mk4 luv (Dec 30, 2010)

tints are next


----------



## Tempes_TT (Oct 24, 2010)

vdub mk4 luv said:


> tints are next


haha now that were somewhat back on topic, Ill be the first to say that it looks good! :thumbup:

You talking about window tint?


----------



## dogger (Jul 29, 2005)

Are they strict on front license plates being installed there?


----------



## Tempes_TT (Oct 24, 2010)

dogger said:


> Are they strict on front license plates being installed there?


I'm not 100% sure, but I've been meaning to test it lol. If anything they'll try to pull You over for something more "serious" and then hit you for anything else lol.


----------



## dogger (Jul 29, 2005)

Like tinted tail lights? :laugh:


----------



## Tempes_TT (Oct 24, 2010)

Haha yeah.. surprisingly though, I've yet to get pulled over for anything. :laugh:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

DeckManDubs said:


> TT cD is like .42 I believe.


That seems, really high. This site claims 0.35, assuming pre spoiler update.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

20v master said:


> That seems, really high. This site claims 0.35, assuming pre spoiler update.


I could be mistaken, Corrado's run .32 and they are much more slippery than the TT. Cd of .42 is stuck in my head for some reason, I remember a few years ago when I heard is I was like


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

DeckManDubs said:


> I could be mistaken, Corrado's run .32 and they are much more slippery than the TT. Cd of .42 is stuck in my head for some reason, I remember a few years ago when I heard is I was like


Corrado's are square front and more of a butt than a TT, I doubt their cD is less than the TT's.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

20v master said:


> Corrado's are square front and more of a butt than a TT, I doubt their cD is less than the TT's.



Its all about flow. The bumper looks flat but how the air flows over and under it make a huge difference. @ 140 a TT feels like a mk2, @ 140 its business as usual with a Corrado. After taking my Corrado north of the 170 the 8N chassis does not have squat on it. 

TT's just look hot :laugh: and make good GT cars.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

cD has nothing to do with how the car feels at speed, that would be lift and downforce aspects of aerodynamics. cD is just a factor that relates air resistance to the body shape and the power needed to overcome it to achieve a desired acceleration/efficiency at cruise. The TT suffers from a lack of downforce as noted by the spoiler effect shown earlier in this thread. Again, this has nothing to do with high speed stability.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

20v master said:


> cD has nothing to do with how the car feels at speed, that would be lift and downforce aspects of aerodynamics. cD is just a factor that relates air resistance to the body shape and the power needed to overcome it to achieve a desired acceleration/efficiency at cruise. The TT suffers from a lack of downforce as noted by the spoiler effect shown earlier in this thread. Again, this has nothing to do with high speed stability.


Yes and no. Larger frontal area of the TT vs a Corrado and the way of air flow on the front bumper causes both stability issues and the higher cD of the TT. The Corrado front bumper is angled to induce flow over the hood, pushing the front down. The TT tends to lift on the front end from air flow going under rather than up and over. 

Thus the whole idea fro a 3" splitter on the front end to use some of that front lift as rather a force of frontal down force. 

"The Corrado's drag coefficient of 0.32 was better than the Porsche 944's 0.35, or even the Ferrari F40's 0.34." - Motivemagazine.com

TT listed for 1998 European model @ .35 cD. 

I cannot support my earlier claim @ .42, so I must retract that. If I stumble across where I found it I will post it up for sure. But as it seems the TT is about as slippery as a Viper/F40. Not too shabby for a Golf based platform. 


:beer::beer::beer:


----------



## vdub mk4 luv (Dec 30, 2010)

Tempes_TT said:


> haha now that were somewhat back on topic, Ill be the first to say that it looks good! :thumbup:
> 
> You talking about window tint?


Thanks! Yep, im thinking 20% all around. Not looking for a ticket but it will improve the overall appearance by quite a bit. (I also have to do the side markers soon)


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

DeckManDubs said:


> Yes and no. Larger frontal area of the TT vs a Corrado and the way of air flow on the front bumper causes both stability issues and the higher cD of the TT. The Corrado front bumper is angled to induce flow over the hood, pushing the front down. The TT tends to lift on the front end from air flow going under rather than up and over.
> 
> Thus the whole idea fro a 3" splitter on the front end to use some of that front lift as rather a force of frontal down force.


cD is a coefficient used to relate the effects of air resisting the direction of travel of the vehicle. 

F(drag)=cD*density of air*(1/2)*(Velocity)^2*front surface area. 

Frontal surface area has no affect on coefficient of drag, only on the total drag force. A lower cD lowers drag force, making the vehicle require less power to move the same velocity as compared to a vehicle with a higher cD. Whether air has to go over or under the car does not affect cD either, the air only knows it has to move around the object trying to go through it. Flipping the TT upside down doesn't improve it's cD as long as it's still pointed nose forward. Unless you have lots of CFD and CAD time to model the fronts of the cars, the only other way to determine cD is a coast down test. Quoted values on the interwebs vary greatly and should be taken with a grain of salt. Was the coast down test done on level ground? Were all four tires evenly inflated? Had the temperature dropped a few degrees between tests, affecting air density? Were the windows up or down? You are lumping cross sectional area into coefficient of drag. A smaller car with a flat face could have the same (CSA*cD) as a larger car with a more slippery profile. Everything I find has the Corrado frontal area as a low 1.8x, with the TT having a value of a high 1.9x m^2. Bigger car has slightly worse cD, means more power to get through the air. This is all independent of downforce though. I don't know or care if the Corrado has a higher or lower cD as I don't have a Corrado, but my point remains, cD has nothing to do with high speed stability, only how much power it takes to reach said high speed. The bigger impact would be aerodynamic styling and how its used to direct air over, under, or around the car, as you have alluded to with a splitter and bumper design.


----------



## Tempes_TT (Oct 24, 2010)

vdub mk4 luv said:


> Thanks! Yep, im thinking 20% all around. Not looking for a ticket but it will improve the overall appearance by quite a bit. (I also have to do the side markers soon)


Whats the limit in your state? Cause when I get around to doing mine, Im going the state limit, 50%. Im excited! lol :thumbup:


----------



## vdub mk4 luv (Dec 30, 2010)

Tempes_TT said:


> Whats the limit in your state? Cause when I get around to doing mine, Im going the state limit, 50%. Im excited! lol :thumbup:


In IL you can have 35% all around. Or you can have up to 5% but then you can't have the driver & passenger windows at all. I'm thinking about doing 20% all around even though its illegal because tons of cars around chicago have illegal tints. im in the suburbs so the cops aren't as strict about it. And your state's limit is 50%? That makes me feel lucky that I can even get away with 35%  haha


----------



## Tempes_TT (Oct 24, 2010)

vdub mk4 luv said:


> your state's limit is 50%? That makes me feel lucky that I can even get away with 35%  haha


I know, right...?  Dont rub it in! :laugh:


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

20v master said:


> cD is a coefficient used to relate the effects of air resisting the direction of travel of the vehicle.
> 
> F(drag)=cD*density of air*(1/2)*(Velocity)^2*front surface area.
> 
> Frontal surface area has no affect on coefficient of drag, only on the total drag force. A lower cD lowers drag force, making the vehicle require less power to move the same velocity as compared to a vehicle with a higher cD. Whether air has to go over or under the car does not affect cD either, the air only knows it has to move around the object trying to go through it. Flipping the TT upside down doesn't improve it's cD as long as it's still pointed nose forward. Unless you have lots of CFD and CAD time to model the fronts of the cars, the only other way to determine cD is a coast down test. Quoted values on the interwebs vary greatly and should be taken with a grain of salt. Was the coast down test done on level ground? Were all four tires evenly inflated? Had the temperature dropped a few degrees between tests, affecting air density? Were the windows up or down? You are lumping cross sectional area into coefficient of drag. A smaller car with a flat face could have the same (CSA*cD) as a larger car with a more slippery profile. Everything I find has the Corrado frontal area as a low 1.8x, with the TT having a value of a high 1.9x m^2. Bigger car has slightly worse cD, means more power to get through the air. This is all independent of downforce though. I don't know or care if the Corrado has a higher or lower cD as I don't have a Corrado, but my point remains, cD has nothing to do with high speed stability, only how much power it takes to reach said high speed. The bigger impact would be aerodynamic styling and how its used to direct air over, under, or around the car, as you have alluded to with a splitter and bumper design.



The off topic discussion in this thread is so much more interesting than the real topic, maybe you guys should stop the hijacking and start a new thread about TT aerodynamics.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

madmax199 said:


> The off topic discussion in this thread is so much more interesting than the real topic, maybe you guys should stop the hijacking and start a new thread about TT aerodynamics.


I was wondering why you weren't participating. :laugh:


----------



## dogger (Jul 29, 2005)

madmax199 said:


> The off topic discussion in this thread is so much more interesting than the real topic, maybe you guys should stop the hijacking and start a new thread about TT aerodynamics.


I forgot what this thread was originally about...
:laugh:


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

20v master said:


> I was wondering why you weren't participating. :laugh:


I was trying my best to not intrude too much. Those interested in the original discussion kept posting around us but the off topic discussion is something I'd really want to partake in, on a dedicated thread


----------

