Q: I don't like the way it looks, but it's going to work. Here are some basic reasons as to why:
1. The wing is placed at the center of the car.
2. The angle of the wing is at a degree for low speed down force.
3. The wing is placed high enough to get clean air.
4. It's mounted to a chassis point, rather than to fiberglass body panel.Funny how the improvements in racing have never been for fashion but became fashion... case in point the famous front wing drop in F1, when one team started doing it all of a sudden all the teams had it 3 races later. Till this very day there are people that HATE the front wing drop! Bob Varsha has stated the way he feels about it many times, and not once has he said something nice about it.
Here is the wing I'm talking about:
Pre 1993:
Post 1994:
Aero has always been one of those things that is a clear case of "form follows function"
People couldn't stop laughing when they saw this car:
Then they saw it run and everyone put their tails between their legs and walked away, that car still holds race records that blow people away!!
Final thoughts:
I must say however, I would not put a wing like that on my elise/exige just based off of looks, for me, the gains would not be worth the look. Then again keep in mind I'm not going to be racing mine. I think that's the problem people are looking at it as if it's going to be a standard on the 2007 elise/exige.
That was just my two cents... or was that a buck fifty?
A:
A:
What is the washing machine with wheels demonstrating?
A:
It was a sucker car. Basically, it pulled the air out from under the car with big fans and had rubber skirts to reduce the amount of air flowing back under it. The resulting suction produced downforce at any speed, unlike a spoiler. IIRC the rules were changed to make it illegal very quickly.
A:
The sucker car? The two fans in the back are powered by a snowmobile engine and suck air out of the underside of the car, creating a tremendous amount of downforce at any speed with zero drag liability. I think it ran for only four races before getting banned.
edit - beat me to it, sonza68.
A:
Originally Posted by andykeck If you'd been paying attention you'd know this isn't the first time they've run with this wing. Their testing shows it has a positive result which may or may not have real-world applicability. What info do you have that proves it won't work?
My reasoning is a follows...
1. "Clean air" is not worth the increase in cog, extra weight and drag. To prove this, there were many cars running with wings like these some time ago. Now, when understanding of aero became better, there are none.
2. A classical combination of splitter, diffuser and spoiler proves a more effective and more flexible option, since nowa days all race cars use them, and as i said before, no-one uses "clean air" spoilers anymore.
3. Better result doesnt mean its better. Im sure that "wing" might improve on the standart elise, but i argue its not as good as normal spoiler + splitter.
A:
Originally Posted by transio Really? Well, being ET's self-proclaimed genius, why don't you explain it to the rest of us morons who think it'll improve his times? Show your math, please, oh aerodynamics guru. Wind-tunnel tests would be appreciated, too... I'm sure you have some on hand, being a genius expert engineer college freshman and all.
So you're implying that the original owner has done wind-tunnel testing? I'd like to see that.
A:
and here's a quick clip of my brain coming out of my ears when they fired up the 2J's snowmobile fans for the first time in about 20+ years. The guy in the brown jacket is Vic Elford...and Jim Hall was hiding out in the backgroud:
right-click save as
Even modern F1 cars are nowhere near as piercingly loud as this car....and I've been right next to those as well when fired up. Also keep in mind that while the 2J only ran a few races, and suffered from reliability issues, when it was racing, it was something like 4 seconds ahead of the nearest competitor.
As to the debate on whether or not this wing works...most of the time, I'd offer that most modern race cars are more bound by rules that dictate the limit of where wings can be placed rather than being purely for functional efficiency. Those same rules are why we have flat bottom cars and limited areas for ground effect. Perhaps we'd see many more "ugly" but efficient designs if sanctioning bodies allowed them.
A:
Originally Posted by AnsisK So you're implying that the original owner has done wind-tunnel testing? I'd like to see that. Where did I imply that?
A:
Originally Posted by Val "Clean air" is not worth the increase in cog, extra weight and drag. A 40 pound wing will not significantly alter the COG of the vehicle. It's only 2% of the weight of the Elise. If it can produce even 10 or 20 pounds of downforce, its benefits will outweigh its insignificant detriments.
Originally Posted by Val To prove this, there were many cars running with wings like these some time ago. Now, when understanding of aero became better, there are none. "They don't do that anymore" isn't proof that something doesn't work. Look at the Chaparral sucker car posted above - they don't do THAT anymore either. Why? Because it was banned for giving too much of an advantage. That's right, active aerodynamics are not allowed in racing because they're too GOOD. Come up with some form of "proof" that isn't based upon faulty logic.
Originally Posted by Val Better result doesnt mean its better. Im sure that "wing" might improve on the standart elise, but i argue its not as good as normal spoiler + splitter. That's not what you said in your original posts... You called Robert Puertas a muppet, and you said, "Doesnt take a genius to realise its not gonna work." Now you're backtracking and saying it WILL work, but not as well as the aero on a half-million dollar race car that's been designed by the best engineers in the world and wind-tunnel tested and all?
Well, DUH.
A:
Originally Posted by Val My reasoning is a follows...
1. "Clean air" is not worth the increase in cog, extra weight and drag. To prove this, there were many cars running with wings like these some time ago. Now, when understanding of aero became better, there are none.
2. A classical combination of splitter, diffuser and spoiler proves a more effective and more flexible option, since nowa days all race cars use them, and as i said before, no-one uses "clean air" spoilers anymore.
3. Better result doesnt mean its better. Im sure that "wing" might improve on the standart elise, but i argue its not as good as normal spoiler + splitter.
a hatch doesn't need as high of a wing vs coupe.. and the gt3 exige was designed for road racing with higher speeds.. But I don't know much about aero bodywork except what I've read..
I think this wing as ugly as it looks is functional..
Also there maybe some ruling he must follow..
A:
Functional... maybe (otherwise he wouldn't be using it)
Ugly... absolutely
A:
Originally Posted by choi0706 a hatch doesn't need as high of a wing vs coupe. Right. A "fastback" maintains laminar airflow down the back window, making lower wings more effective.
A:
Works for this guys...
A:
It doesn't have to look good.
It looks like it might work!
A:
Originally Posted by MyElise It doesn't have to look good.
It looks like it might work!
I think you're probably right about that - I don't think Robert would have bothered if it didn't have some potential benefit.
A:
Originally Posted by Val 2. A classical combination of splitter, diffuser and spoiler To pick a nit...
The "wing" on the back of an Exige is a wing or air foil - it is not a spoiler.
The lip on the rear of the Elise acts as a spoiler.
A rear spoiler induces turbulent airflow coming off the back of a car, which in turn reduces aerodynamically generated lift and drag at the rear of the car. A rear spoiler does not generate down force, it prevents the generation of lift (and drag).
A front "spoiler" is actually an "air dam" - it redirects air from passing under the front of the car where it generates lift. An air dam does not generate down force, it prevents the generation of lift (and drag).
A front splitter is an improved version of an air dam - it "splits" the air causing all air above it to move up or to the sides - it further prevents air flow from passing under the front of the car.
A rear wing actually generates down force. The air foil shape of the wing creates aerodynamic down force. They also generate additional drag.
Front winglets (like on the front sides of the Elise) serve one of two functions - or both. They can help direct the air flow. They can generate aerodynamic down force.
The rear diffuser generates down force by expanding the air flow (which lowers the air pressure) under the rear of the car. It generates down force with a minimum of additional drag.
Originally Posted by transio A 40 pound wing will not significantly alter the COG of the vehicle. It's only 2% of the weight of the Elise. If it can produce even 10 or 20 pounds of down force, its benefits will outweigh its insignificant detriments. The COG is not just determined by the weight of the part (the wing and support in this case), but by it's weight and moment arm (distance from the COG). The higher the weight (mass) and the higher the weight (distance) the greater the change in the COG.
The wing under discussion is pretty high up there.
But... Unlike most wings (like those in the list of photos), this wing is placed between the wheels providing it's down force to both wheels - notice that many of those other cars have their wings actually extended out behind the car - behind the rear wheels. This may add weight to the rear, but actually lightens the load on the front wheels - not a good thing if you have a car that may tend to understeer...
I'm in the camp that the wing shouldn't be that much help, but the proof will be in the results. At least that wing is innovative - it's placed toward the center of mass, and the supports appear to be cross braced at the base, unlike the ones that appear to be attached with flimsy "erector set" girders...
Robert - good luck with the car, and I hope you get to make fools of all the detractors here (including me - slightly).
A:
But that's just it.....it IS an autocross. All they have to do is beat their competitor by .001 and it was all worth it. I think we've all been here long enough to read about Robert's projects. I doubt this is something they just threw on hoping it might do something. I'm sure there was some planning and testing involved here. It IS between the wheels and not hanging out the back. We know it was tested from that one 'spy' photo we saw of it. Really, it doesn't look that bad....you probably wouldn't put it on your street car. Heck, I would imagine a serious autocrosser would put dog poop on their car if it would give them a lower time.
Kick their butts guys and you won't be able to keep these in stock.
A:
The Elise with the giant wing is in the trophies--both drivers--as of the end of day one runs in Topeka. The wing must be doing some good. Check the results at scca.com for today's action.
A:
Nice way to ruin such a nice car