spidermaxx300 said:
yes i do and that is a proven fact.
this is from an S.W.R.t. website talking about the wing (one pictured above)
since i pulled this off a srwt website, though it gives no specifics of the wings performance, i can atleast back up my claim .....somewhat. second do you really think that a multi-million dollar racing organization is gonna put something nonfunctional on their race car. come on man, get real. thats just crazy talk.
You might want to read that again. They are describing a rudder more than a wing, which supports my position. The VERTICAL slats (endplates and internal slats-not shown in your pics) are used to PUSH the car back in line when sideways. So, it is functional, but not as a wing. Physics don't lie, you need airflow to make a wing functional. Positioning is critical. Imagine putting a car in a wind tunnel and then bucking it wildly like a WRC car. Can you imagine what the smoke stream would look like? The entire flow would be detached and disturbed.
spidermaxx300 said:
i think i know more about this subject than you do( i could be wrong). yet you still havent proven anything but i know nothing( insert sarcasm). i didnt call people out, i called YOU out.
So, posting pictures = knowledge? How bout this: The WRX has a large frontal area and a disturbed air flow over the roof (due to the bird catcher), so very little lift would be generated as the air crosses over the roof (normally the air flow would slow against the barrier of the windshield, creating a high pressure area, and then accellerate over the large surface area of the roof creating a low pressure area, and therefore lift.). Now, as the air drops down the rear glass and the deck lid to meet with the flow coming from under the car the flow stays attached. Since most modern day cars have a sloped rear window the airflow stays somewhat neutral over the rear deck. When you stuff a wing (or even a spoiler ike on my 05 mustang) on the decklid you now disturb that flow and it becomes "detached". This detached air now generates massive drag. You could argue that the benefits of the "wing" outweigh the negative effects of the drag, but what are the benefits of the wing? Well, if it is designed right, and the car can use the downforce, it might be worth it. So why would a vehicle need a wing: to generate downforce for traction (light weight car + high horsepower) or to counter the aerolift generated by the design of the body. But since a street WRX (or any street car) is realtively heavy and inefficient aerodynamically, the wing has no redeeming qualities on a street car.
But lets look at the wing to see what benefits it may or may not have. A wing has to have certain properties to be useful: 1. it has to be designed precisely. The thickness, anle of attak, etc all play a role in how the air ressure difference (and hence lift or negative lift) is generated. But, does it stop there? Well no, of course. Here is a quote, pay attention to the last 2 lines
What happens is that the lower pressure area under the wing allows the higher pressure area above the wing to "push" down on the wing, and hence the car it's mounted to.
Wings, by their design require that there be no obstruction between the bottom of the wing and the road surface, for them to be most effective. So mounting a wing above a trunk lid limits the effectiveness.
So, can some explain to me how this wing is "functional". So far we know it creates drag and is mounted in a location that limits it's effectiveness. We know that the air flow over the body will not generate any great amount of lift (see above). So it must create some massive amount of downforce to aid.....traction? Does a 3000+ lb car with 300 hp (or whatever a WRX has, but we can apply this to all street cars, not just the WRX) really have a traction issue? Let's say it does, how many lbs of downforce does this functional wing create? We'll move on to the next section to investigate
spidermaxx300 said:
if you want to call walking away cowardly thats fine, you where looking for "fight" i wasnt. like i said it was no game for me.....to you it was. i know what your type likes to do.....you are just responding to try and own me at something but yet all you come on here with is opinions, thats it. i mean look at your responses about the Subaru wrc team not having a fuctional aero package and the fact that a functional wing as to be mounted to a structual component of a vehicle
First off, I made a simple post that applies to ALL street cars. Here is the
Physics of Racing article I was referencing (found it online, I have an old printed out copy from an e-mail list years ago). You will see that the greatest eater of hp is overcoming drag. YOU came in singling people out with rantings like you were Patrick HeadYep, aero needs a steady stream. That's why wings are mounted in line with the direction of the car. The air FLOWING over the wing generatess the pressure differences that create lift (neg lift). So, you think downforce is transmitted through a "wing", to the decklid, through the trunk latch, into the rear body, back over to the suspension/chassis, through the tires, and to the ground?
spidermaxx300 said:
. my brother whos is about 6'3" and 230 stood on my trunck with his feet spread out to match the sti's wing "spread" or "span"...guess what it didnt twist or dent at all. yes it did flex but so what, so does a nascars rear trunk wing so does a funny cars wing, so does a formula1 cars wing.........in fact so does a boeing 747. im surprised the damn thing even makes it off the pavement.
. this is pure lunacy (sp?).
Have your brother stand with all his weight focused on one point (like his toes) and tell me how that works out for your decklid. That is how "downforce" would work with a real wing. Since the STi wing is just a drag creator it does not hurt the body. NASCAR uses spoilers and they are mounted to a structural point (the whole car is basically a tubed cage), Funny car wings are mounted right to the chassis, as are F1 and all other open wheel cars, 747 wings are mounted right to the fueslage (chassis) and the fueslage better not flex in relation to the wing or the wing will rip right off. In all cases the surface of the wing does not flex. Wings are very precise and if the surface were to flex the airflow would not be predictable (kind of defeats the whole purpose).
spidermaxx300 said:
i feel that i dont have to try and prove anything to you......the information is out there so why dont you go find it. i am retard(at least in your eyes) and i had zero problems finding info on all subjects. the only thing that i am possibily wrong on is its actual downforce (in pounds) so, if i am so wrong about the wings function as an aid in handling perfromance prove me wrong.
Posting pictures of race cars with rudders in a discussion of street cars is information? I have posted enough "actual" information to back my initial and following claims. Not rippin on ya, just spouting info
spidermaxx300 said:
atleast i can sound somewhat knowledgeable unlike this guy
Stangnet i am very sorry for wasting your time......please move on there is nothing to see here.
laters,
shaun h.
Ya, he is not knowledgeable at all. He has no clue on how to build and race a 78 Corvette (400hp, Richmond 6 speed conversion) and a 99 Camaro Z28. His 1/4 mile times are horendous and his autocross and open track skills are lacking the something special
kickarse ride....(and when winter rolls around and us northeasterners have to put the stang away and in my case get out the 88' beater truck...i'll REALLY wish I had that STi) 
