Does the stock wing generate any downforce?
05-03-07, 06:26 PM
#1
Diamond Cut Seven
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: with all the rare parts
Posts: 1,446
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Does the stock wing generate any downforce?
Does the stock wing generate any downforce? if so at what speed would it actually help? Also what wings can generate a significant amount of DF with out looking like an erector set?
05-03-07, 07:24 PM
#2
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Brisbane Aust.
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The stock S6 wing doesnt increase the downforce seen by the rear tyres at all. Mazda held it close to their chest (as they sold the car in base trim without front splitter and rear wing).
A wing like the S8 with an adjustable chord section to increase the angle of attack would be sufficient to make the rear stable (probably 50kg DF @ 200km/h at a guess), but the issue being if the car is relatively balanced aerodynamically already (as the front if anything would see lift not DF) then all you are doing is making the car understeer on high speed corners and as always with downforce comes drag, so unless you changed the front bumper to increase DF also there is no point in doing so
A wing like the S8 with an adjustable chord section to increase the angle of attack would be sufficient to make the rear stable (probably 50kg DF @ 200km/h at a guess), but the issue being if the car is relatively balanced aerodynamically already (as the front if anything would see lift not DF) then all you are doing is making the car understeer on high speed corners and as always with downforce comes drag, so unless you changed the front bumper to increase DF also there is no point in doing so
05-04-07, 02:15 AM
#3
There is conflicting information.
The downforce/lift numbers for base and R1 models were printed in a book. The R1 had less lift in front (presumably due to the front lip). The rear lift was the same for both.
Possible interpretations:
1. The rear wing does nothing.
2. The rear wing does something when used in conjunction with the front lip, but the net effect is no change in rear lift.
3. Misprint? Bad data?
I am inclined to believe #1 is the most correct of the 3.
Then there was an anecdotal report by an amateur race team that claimed even the stock U.S. model wing produced some downforce in their car. I don't remember the details of how they made the determination.
-Max
The downforce/lift numbers for base and R1 models were printed in a book. The R1 had less lift in front (presumably due to the front lip). The rear lift was the same for both.
Possible interpretations:
1. The rear wing does nothing.
2. The rear wing does something when used in conjunction with the front lip, but the net effect is no change in rear lift.
3. Misprint? Bad data?
I am inclined to believe #1 is the most correct of the 3.
Then there was an anecdotal report by an amateur race team that claimed even the stock U.S. model wing produced some downforce in their car. I don't remember the details of how they made the determination.
-Max
05-04-07, 07:48 AM
#5
rebreaking things
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by maxcooper
There is conflicting information.
The downforce/lift numbers for base and R1 models were printed in a book. The R1 had less lift in front (presumably due to the front lip). The rear lift was the same for both.
Possible interpretations:
1. The rear wing does nothing.
2. The rear wing does something when used in conjunction with the front lip, but the net effect is no change in rear lift.
3. Misprint? Bad data?
I am inclined to believe #1 is the most correct of the 3.
Then there was an anecdotal report by an amateur race team that claimed even the stock U.S. model wing produced some downforce in their car. I don't remember the details of how they made the determination.
-Max
The downforce/lift numbers for base and R1 models were printed in a book. The R1 had less lift in front (presumably due to the front lip). The rear lift was the same for both.
Possible interpretations:
1. The rear wing does nothing.
2. The rear wing does something when used in conjunction with the front lip, but the net effect is no change in rear lift.
3. Misprint? Bad data?
I am inclined to believe #1 is the most correct of the 3.
Then there was an anecdotal report by an amateur race team that claimed even the stock U.S. model wing produced some downforce in their car. I don't remember the details of how they made the determination.
-Max
05-04-07, 08:45 AM
#7
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: va
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say very little at all. You need the basic design of flat across the top and a curve on the bottom to create any downforce at all( Air plane wing) and then it has to be high enough to reach the most effective air and pressure zones anyways.
Trending Topics
05-04-07, 09:58 AM
#8
Diamond Cut Seven
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: with all the rare parts
Posts: 1,446
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Noxlupus
Are we talking about the the 93-95 stock wing or 99 spec wing? What's the downforce (if any) on the 99 Spec wing?
& Does the 96-01 Rz (not the 99 spec) wing work as well?
