Yea ditto that last point. I've also not used Inventor, but any CAD package worth its salt can open large assemblies in a "graphics only" mode whereby only the final geometry is loaded but not all the lofts, sketches and constraints etc... What you have in that assembly there would be dead simple to open up in Catia with the visualisation mode on.
Also, cut down links as much as possible. That is links, constraints, mates etc etc. All they do is slow down an assembly by using computation time and more often than not they cause rebuild errors when you try to change anything. Interesting fact I found was that when you learn solidwaorks/catia/inventor you are taught how to link everything and parameterise everything but when you go out into the industry you realise nobody use this capability because it slows things down and is massively unstable.
RicerDude wrote:The rear wing is mounted about 75cm away from the rear axel so my theory is (correct me if I'm wrong) that the downforce will place more load on the rear wheels because it has more leverage around the front axel but only if I can balance the downforce at the front. Which is why I have gone for a narrower rear wing . I will probably have a two tier front wing similar to the 70's hesketh James hunt drove.
I've always scratched my head at this "leverage" wing theory. A wing behind the rear axle will produce downforce on the rear axle and lift
on the front axle. The further back you move it, the more you lift the front. If you then go and "balance that" by adding a big front wing, the front wing will do the opposite. It will put downforce on the front and lift the rear, putting you back at square 1. Why not just use correctly sized wings in the normal positions to start with?
Then again, do you even know where you want your centre of pressure to be?