FC rear wings
06-13-07, 02:27 AM
#26
Really? I thought that it was beyond debate that properly engineered ground effects, wings, diffusers and canards had potentially huge effect on downforce and handling.
As to optimal wing settings. I think it is unanswerable because there are hundreds of factors to consider making it different for every vehicle
As to optimal wing settings. I think it is unanswerable because there are hundreds of factors to consider making it different for every vehicle
The settings I'm talking about are basic raw data numbers provided by every single major racing wing manufacturer, to give the tuner a starting point. Nobody who actually builds racing wings for a living just ships you a wing and tells you to figure it out.
06-13-07, 10:27 AM
#27
defenestrated
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right, the debate is not that aerodynamic devices can be used to enhance performance. The debate is that these aerodynamics devices may or may not work, and there's little to no hard data to prove much of anything.
The settings I'm talking about are basic raw data numbers provided by every single major racing wing manufacturer, to give the tuner a starting point. Nobody who actually builds racing wings for a living just ships you a wing and tells you to figure it out.
The settings I'm talking about are basic raw data numbers provided by every single major racing wing manufacturer, to give the tuner a starting point. Nobody who actually builds racing wings for a living just ships you a wing and tells you to figure it out.
06-16-07, 12:54 AM
#29
W. TX chirpin Monkey
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Mesquite, TX
Posts: 2,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure even the most generic of wings will create some down force...But at what cost. They don't tell you speeds, nor do they even imply what angle of attack? They don't publish a Cd. They don't mention anything about actual Aerodynamics. For that same reason, you can just make something yourself, for alot less $$$.
01-11-10, 11:19 PM
#30
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry to bump this up, how wide with the RE wing and the buddy club wing? I can't seem to find out how wide the RE wing is from google. The buddy club i think its 1550mm?
01-14-10, 02:48 PM
#31
dude don't be such a lazy ***. Buy a real wing that actually comes with some data and make some mounts so it will fit. I am working in formula 1 now, you would be amazed at the amount of research that goes into the wings on these cars. Even tiny little aero changes can be the difference between 1st place and last place in any given race. If you consider that that is on a purpose built car that is designed to be aerodynamic from day 1, just think about what kind of improvement you could see on a production car if you got everything just right.
Check out APR Performance, they have CFD (Can't Find Drag?) data for their wings. I would prefer wind tunnel data, but it is so hard to find any body parts that are actually engineered at all that I'll take what I can get. Unfortunately, APR performance wings are godawful expensive.
Another thing to think about is how to get air to the wing. If you look at the streamline drawing of an FC that is floating around online, you should be able to figure out how high to mount the wing to get the best effect, and you might also consider using some diffusers along the roofline to direct the air onto the wing.
The above is only for 3d wings that have a lower AoA in the center, they can be mounted lower and still work well, but if you can't find one that is made for the FC (good luck on that one) try to find one that has a center section close to the width of the FC roof. Otherwise if you use a straight airfoil it needs to be at or above the level where the streamlines flatten out and the air is relatively 'free'
Did I see you selling your 20b? If so what are you using now?
Check out APR Performance, they have CFD (Can't Find Drag?) data for their wings. I would prefer wind tunnel data, but it is so hard to find any body parts that are actually engineered at all that I'll take what I can get. Unfortunately, APR performance wings are godawful expensive.
Another thing to think about is how to get air to the wing. If you look at the streamline drawing of an FC that is floating around online, you should be able to figure out how high to mount the wing to get the best effect, and you might also consider using some diffusers along the roofline to direct the air onto the wing.
The above is only for 3d wings that have a lower AoA in the center, they can be mounted lower and still work well, but if you can't find one that is made for the FC (good luck on that one) try to find one that has a center section close to the width of the FC roof. Otherwise if you use a straight airfoil it needs to be at or above the level where the streamlines flatten out and the air is relatively 'free'
Did I see you selling your 20b? If so what are you using now?
01-14-10, 11:15 PM
#32
Like a G6
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: In the Dutch Mountains
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqjKxDFEK98
I actualy saw that video 2 days back on the blog of a fellow member. More interesting then the added downforce, look at the drag increase. If this is all real (which I'm not sure, cause it's also advertising) the drag might be worth it for your application. The products on this car are Voltex.
Where and what are you exactly doing in F1?
Riz.
I actualy saw that video 2 days back on the blog of a fellow member. More interesting then the added downforce, look at the drag increase. If this is all real (which I'm not sure, cause it's also advertising) the drag might be worth it for your application. The products on this car are Voltex.
I am working in formula 1 now
Riz.
01-15-10, 12:34 AM
#33
Has been.. hangin' around
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Milpitas, CA
Posts: 2,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patman, I wanted to disagree with you, but frankly I talked myself into agreeing with you. 
Look, the actual lift numbers are pretty meaningless to most folks without access to an engineer (or someone who's a mech or aerospace engineer), but knowing what AOA to set the wing for, for the speeds you plan to run, is pretty valuable info.
(but really, calling someone lazy, then not knowing what CFD data was, when the words Computational Fluid Dynamics is on the data sheets... I had to laugh at that)
Look, the actual lift numbers are pretty meaningless to most folks without access to an engineer (or someone who's a mech or aerospace engineer), but knowing what AOA to set the wing for, for the speeds you plan to run, is pretty valuable info.(but really, calling someone lazy, then not knowing what CFD data was, when the words Computational Fluid Dynamics is on the data sheets... I had to laugh at that)
01-15-10, 01:45 PM
#35
It is a common engineers joke that CFD stands for 'Can't Find Drag' because when you run CFD you can easily get a result that looks good but is actually meaningless. It takes a really good operator to be able to get a feel for the right inputs and the outputs that they produce. Wind tunnel work tends to be much more straightforward and produce more usable data.
So, nice try, but sorry, if you bothered to check my forum info before assuming otherwise, you would see that I have got a masters degree in mechanical engineering, and I actually do have some idea what I'm talking about.
Riz. I am working a temp position doing R&D for Renault F1 in the UK.
So, nice try, but sorry, if you bothered to check my forum info before assuming otherwise, you would see that I have got a masters degree in mechanical engineering, and I actually do have some idea what I'm talking about.
Riz. I am working a temp position doing R&D for Renault F1 in the UK.
01-15-10, 03:52 PM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What blows my mind is the mounting of some of the wings. Body sheetmetal bends really easy. If you are hoping to generate enough downforce to make a difference you can feel you need to really think about the mounts. I used the stock body mounting points for my ricer wing, but I built an internal structure that braces the wing mounts to the rear subframe tubes. I can hang off the wing with no movement and I'm about 230 lbs. I've changed the angle of attack between sessions and the difference in rear grip is quite profound. I'd say a degree of attack is worth at least an extra 5 mph through the high speed sweeper corners. (70-80 mph corners)
-Trent
-Trent
01-15-10, 07:54 PM
#37
Has been.. hangin' around
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Milpitas, CA
Posts: 2,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I have to do background checks on every tom dick and harry who post smart *** comments to people, I'd never get anything done 
That's nice sonny. Next you gonna tell me you have 60 more posts than I do. Wanna fite? 
(ok calm down, I'm just yankin' your chain... breathe in.. breathe out... )
I have got a masters degree in mechanical engineering, and I actually do have some idea what I'm talking about.
(ok calm down, I'm just yankin' your chain... breathe in.. breathe out... )
02-21-10, 01:45 PM
#46
So what was the verdict here? What're the wing options? How wide can we go? Are the mounts on to the sheetmetal strong enough? Is the AWR front end with an alumalite splitter enough to balance the wing? NASA CCR says 8 inches above the roofline for the wing...
02-26-10, 05:55 PM
#47
the implications matter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Tustin, CA
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got thetech's RE-A gt2 wing for the FC (the OP on this thread eventually threw down the top dollar for oversees shipping).
When I first got it mounted I didn't like was the height of the mounts. I redesigned and cut my own so it wouldn't interfere with the rear view mirror as much. Getting the curvature right in CAD so it'd match the deck was a pain but it came out good. I ended up going 2.25 inch taller than the stock RE-A. I also didn't like that the AoA range of adjustment was only about 10 degrees. Given aero data is so hard to come by I built in about 2.5 times as much available travel so I can play with the tuning and see what feels good.
The best thing about the RE wing is the fact that the mounts land on the rear deck immediately next to two chassis braces on the inside. It just means the sheetmetal is much stiffer than mounting it closer to the middle as some have done.
I'm been thinking about getting a mold pulled off so I can make these... (I won't call it a replica because I'm improving the bond line where the thetech had his delaminate).
When I first got it mounted I didn't like was the height of the mounts. I redesigned and cut my own so it wouldn't interfere with the rear view mirror as much. Getting the curvature right in CAD so it'd match the deck was a pain but it came out good. I ended up going 2.25 inch taller than the stock RE-A. I also didn't like that the AoA range of adjustment was only about 10 degrees. Given aero data is so hard to come by I built in about 2.5 times as much available travel so I can play with the tuning and see what feels good.
The best thing about the RE wing is the fact that the mounts land on the rear deck immediately next to two chassis braces on the inside. It just means the sheetmetal is much stiffer than mounting it closer to the middle as some have done.
I'm been thinking about getting a mold pulled off so I can make these... (I won't call it a replica because I'm improving the bond line where the thetech had his delaminate).
03-29-10, 01:33 PM
#50
the implications matter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Tustin, CA
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got thetech's RE-A gt2 wing for the FC (the OP on this thread eventually threw down the top dollar for oversees shipping).
When I first got it mounted I didn't like was the height of the mounts. I redesigned and cut my own so it wouldn't interfere with the rear view mirror as much. Getting the curvature right in CAD so it'd match the deck was a pain but it came out good. I ended up going 2.25 inch taller than the stock RE-A. I also didn't like that the AoA range of adjustment was only about 10 degrees. Given aero data is so hard to come by I built in about 2.5 times as much available travel so I can play with the tuning and see what feels good.
The best thing about the RE wing is the fact that the mounts land on the rear deck immediately next to two chassis braces on the inside. It just means the sheetmetal is much stiffer than mounting it closer to the middle as some have done.
I'm been thinking about getting a mold pulled off so I can make these... (I won't call it a replica because I'm improving the bond line where the thetech had his delaminate).
When I first got it mounted I didn't like was the height of the mounts. I redesigned and cut my own so it wouldn't interfere with the rear view mirror as much. Getting the curvature right in CAD so it'd match the deck was a pain but it came out good. I ended up going 2.25 inch taller than the stock RE-A. I also didn't like that the AoA range of adjustment was only about 10 degrees. Given aero data is so hard to come by I built in about 2.5 times as much available travel so I can play with the tuning and see what feels good.
The best thing about the RE wing is the fact that the mounts land on the rear deck immediately next to two chassis braces on the inside. It just means the sheetmetal is much stiffer than mounting it closer to the middle as some have done.
I'm been thinking about getting a mold pulled off so I can make these... (I won't call it a replica because I'm improving the bond line where the thetech had his delaminate).
