05GT v. WRX

spidermaxx300 said:

actually the wing is very functional, it does what it is supposed to do(adds rear downforce, just not much) you sir (GP001) need to do some research before you start spouting.

Click to expand...

OK, I'll play I love these kinds of posts.

How much down force does it generate?
How much lift is actually created by the car (you know, the forces the wing must counter to be FUNCTIONAL)?
How many pounds of pressure does it take to dent automotive sheet metal?
How many pounds of pressure does it take to explode an automotive grade rear window?

Now, the above does not even begin to address how much horsepower is needed to overcome the drag created by the wing.

I eagerly await your answers

***I can't wait to address the whole corvette thing, but I will wait for the reply to these questions cause it'll just be fun

spidermaxx300 said:

actually the wing is very functional, it does what it is supposed to do(adds rear downforce, just not much) you sir (GP001) need to do some research before you start spouting.

jfischer:

funny how the corvette is a completely different car, it was built to go 180 mph
. its also funny that when you look at a le mans corvette what do you get....thats right a big giant wing. dont get me wrong i hate the wing, but that "ricer" of car would spank any stock gt and probably most cobras around a road course.(please no "if i put this much money into it it would do bla, bla", thats just gay, any car can be fast with $$$)

i guess since ford once made any even more "ricey" wing its ok though (corbra R), oh but wait that was a race car for the street so it needed one.......what the heck do you think the sti is. man, sometimes the lack of knowledge and general arrogance on this board really frustrates me.

anyways, i love mustangs and always will but it damn sure isnt the best car out there, niether is mine. you dont have to like it but you can atleast show some respect where its do. we are supposed to be automotive enthusiast.


NY05GT4ME:
you are very right, MOST of us on www.nasioc.com are very anti "rice", we dont like street racing and we on average tend to be very open minded. i think that general subaru community is very friendly and accepting of others. (we even waive at other suby drivers). hell, i even waive(or thumbs up) at other sweet cars.

that is all,
shaun h.

Click to expand...

Quoting just to preserve the text

AJC-05GT said:

Not suprised at all by a modded WRX beating the stang...
The WRX are fast little cars without mods.
http://www.ssmoparmuscle.com/speedcomp.htm

Click to expand...

Those times are off, it says a '91 gt is 15.6....

you stated that the wing is not functional, i said it is.although i did state it doesnt produce much, i do believe its around 60lbs at around 70- 80mph and like 100lbs at 120 but like i said it does provide some downforce but it also reduces rear lift. Also, without actual wind tunnel aero data, it's not quite correct to state that the rear wing is negative hp at high speeds. If the STi's general profile was highly aerodynamic, I would agree, but it's not(but i bet the corvette is). And around the rear, the stock non-winged WRX lends to a very messy aero flow at high speeds. The rear wing may actually clean up the air flow at the rear on an sti. i am no engineer nor do i care to have lessons from one. what i said was correct, the wing does produce some down force it also reduces rear lift.

i am not asking you to play a game, i merely corrected you on your statement...... end of story. its to late and im to tired to bicker and spout out random useless facts about a cars aerodynamics. nor do i car about your pointless questions.i guess because i cant nor want to answer all of them that means you win......fine by me..... ill go piss in another toilet. so, please spare me your ramblings on the whole corvette matter, they are two different cars and designed to go fast in different ways.

laters,
shaun h.

you can make fun all you want but the whole basis of your argument is that the wing is "rice" and the lack of function, i agree i dont like it either. subaru is not known to dress cars for favorable appearances ...they tend to strive more for function(as a whole) than anything else . i know that a race cars wing is there for reason so you dont have to tell me that... but none-the-less it looks "ricey".


so i will list some functions of the sti wing

1. provides SOME rear downforce
2. reduces rear lift
3. blindspot in the rear view mirror
4. picnic table
5. a kite for cross winds
6. to annoy people like you and me

laters,
shaun h.

^^^Just for the info. Reducing lift and generating downforce are two different things when it comes to aerodynamics.

I would say that the STis rear wing does reduce lift but generating downforce, I don't think so.

Either way, both functions do increase drag. The latter is more . . .

spidermaxx300 said:

you stated that the wing is not functional, i said it is.although i did state it doesnt produce much, i do believe its around 60lbs at around 70- 80mph and like 100lbs at 120 but like i said it does provide some downforce but it also reduces rear lift. Also, without actual wind tunnel aero data, it's not quite correct to state that the rear wing is negative hp at high speeds. If the STi's general profile was highly aerodynamic, I would agree, but it's not(but i bet the corvette is). And around the rear, the stock non-winged WRX lends to a very messy aero flow at high speeds. The rear wing may actually clean up the air flow at the rear on an sti. i am no engineer nor do i care to have lessons from one. what i said was correct, the wing does produce some down force it also reduces rear lift.

i am not asking you to play a game, i merely corrected you on your statement...... end of story. its to late and im to tired to bicker and spout out random useless facts about a cars aerodynamics. nor do i car about your pointless questions.i guess because i cant nor want to answer all of them that means you win......fine by me..... ill go piss in another toilet. so, please spare me your ramblings on the whole corvette matter, they are two different cars and designed to go fast in different ways.

laters,
shaun h.

Click to expand...

Wait....let me get this right, you say "I need to do research", you post to others like you have a clue, and then post this cowardly response when I call you out?????

The ONLY downforce that wing creates is the added weight of itself. If it generated ANY aerodown force it would merely crease the DECK LID it is mounted to. It is not mounted to a structural component of the chassis. The rear body pieces would flex/twist/distort/buckle if that wing was functional.

Le Mans Corvette = lightweight, high horsepower, aero designed
Street Corvette = low coefficient of drag, heavy street car, low horsepower

Anything extended upward into the airflow generated drag. Most of a car's horsepower is used trying to overcome drag.

Oh, and for the record, I think the STi is a bad ass little car(looks and performance). I like performance cars, country of origin is irrelevant. I mainly buy American made cars because of some strange loyalty to keep my $$ in the US, and thre fact that I am a big guy and Asian and Euro cars aren't always size friendly

gp001 said:

Wait....let me get this right, you say "I need to do research", you post to others like you have a clue, and then post this cowardly response when I call you out?????

The ONLY downforce that wing creates is the added weight of itself. If it generated ANY aerodown force it would merely crease the DECK LID it is mounted to. It is not mounted to a structural component of the chassis. The rear body pieces would flex/twist/distort/buckle if that wing was functional.

Click to expand...

That all depends on your definition of functional. A Wing is unlikely to have only 1 sole purpose.

As has been mentioned already, areo packages will often include some/all of these requirements

-downforce
-reduced lift
-cleaner airflow, thus reduced drag

As I have no wind tunnel data for the STi I can not accuratly tell you what the 'wing' does and does not acheive. But I will make some assumptions.

The wing will akmost certainly have a function, thus making it functional. This really should not be in dispute, the question is the level of functionality.

I would guess its primary aim is for reduced lift, so at high speeds and high cornering speeds it should be helping prevent the rear of the car lifting up, this does not mean it will have any great force pushing it back down however.

Closley link is the downforce issue, well just by looking at the car it is quite square shaped, so I doubt it has a very efficent drag CO which is why the top speed is often comparatively low on this type of car. One of the few road cars I know off to have real areodynamic down force which increases at speed is this:


The ofther issue is drag. Well I don't know how efficent the body style is without the wing. I would assume that with it it does produce more drag, but it may well tidy up the air flow over the rear of the car which could be reducing drag. Without actual data there is no way we can really know.

One interesting point I'd like to make about the wrx..............................

ITS GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and it IS rice

gp001:
so tell me this, if for a rear wing to be functional it has to be a structual component of the car, then why do wrc cars trunks open it not attached to anything structual......yet their wings are very functional.
[/IMG]

i guess i need to do more research ......speaking of which i did my research and i can only spout info Subaru Tecnica International has given out.
maybe we got off on the wrong foot, i dont know, but i really dont see how i was beeing cowardly by saying i give up, arguing is pointless, i say the wing works in positve ways...you say it doesnt. i guess untill one of us puts it in a wind tunnel we will never no.

doc gto:

i agree with you on reduction of lift and downforce are not the same.

spidermaxx300 said:

gp001:
so tell me this, if for a rear wing to be functional it has to be a structual component of the car, then why do wrc cars trunks open it not attached to anything structual......yet their wings are very functional.

[/IMG]

i guess i need to do more research ......speaking of which i did my research and i can only spout info Subaru Tecnica International has given out.
maybe we got off on the wrong foot, i dont know, but i really dont see how i was beeing cowardly by saying i give up, arguing is pointless, i say the wing works in positve ways...you say it doesnt. i guess untill one of us puts it in a wind tunnel we will never no.

doc gto:

i agree with you on reduction of lift and downforce are not the same.

Click to expand...

So, you think a WRC car has an aero package??? They usually have more ground clearance than your average road car and they are almost never flat and level. Kind of dificult to have an aero package when you rarely in a stable air stream. Do they use downforce on the jumps, landings, or sliding sideways?

Yes reduction of aero lift and downforce are not the same ON A RACECAR, but since we are talking street cars that will never see enough speed and a good enough aero package to overcome their bulk the WING people are claiming is functional must be used to counter lift (you certainly don't believe a 300hp street car weighing 3000+ lbs would need more downforce for anything other than to counter lift, do you?).

There is a really good series of articles you can find online called "The Physics of Racing" or something like that. You guys should read the section on how much horsepower it takes to overcome drag. A wing on a street car, however aesthetically pleasing, is just a drag creator.

Cowardly was jumping in correcting people like you were all knowing, then retreating when confronted with a debate. If you didn't want a discussion you could have not posted, or posted without singling out people.

jfischer said:

No matter how fast it is, you're still driving a Subaru

Click to expand...

And a fugly subaru at that!! WRX looks like sh it to me

heres my understanding of why that wing may be there. i havent done much research or anything but the airflow off a wrx body is VERY bad. the roof drops down to the trunk at a pretty good angle compared to most cars that we consider fast. This creates a lot of "dirty" air, the wing sticks up just enough to catch clean air and helps scour out the old air reducing the airflow across the whole car.

the sti's are an awesome car, i even like that wing better than the wrx wing. maybe it has to do with being a kid but i still laugh at all the ricers with park benches on their trunks

I think the sweet wing is there so that ALL the 15 year olds will want one when they turn 16.

Nothing funnier than when a grown man gets out of a ricer and thinks he's cool

gp001 said:

So, you think a WRC car has an aero package??? They usually have more ground clearance than your average road car and they are almost never flat and level. Kind of dificult to have an aero package when you rarely in a stable air stream. Do they use downforce on the jumps, landings, or sliding sideways?

Click to expand...

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)

Subaru's updated aerodynamics package first appearing at the 2003 Rally Monte Carlo. The new rear wing has four vertical slats that improve high-speed stability by maintaining downforce when driving sideways. The WRC rear wing uses the wind to help push the tail back behind the nose of the car.

As the wing pushes through the air, the air following the top surface of the wing gets flung upward. The force of air being redirected up off the wing pushes back down on the wing. On the bottom surface, the opposite happens; with the wing surface suddenly pulling up, air is sucked up to take its place, and when that happens, the air pulls back down on the wing. This generates a significant amount of downforce on the vehicle.

Slide into a corner at a 30-degree angle two things happen. First, the wing is effectively narrower to the air approaching it. Second, the cross section of the wing, carefully designed in the wind tunnel for optimal downforce, gets elongated, taking some of the violence out of the air's journey upward.

Violence is everything when you're dealing with air, so the no-longer optimal cross section of the wing means less downforce.

The slats force the air to straighten out and go across the wing as the team aerodynamicist intended. All the air slamming into the side of those four slats, plus the two end plates, also work to straighten the car out, much like the vertical stabilizer on an airplane.

Click to expand...

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.

gp001 said:

Cowardly was jumping in correcting people like you were all knowing, then retreating when confronted with a debate. If you didn't want a discussion you could have not posted, or posted without singling out people.

Click to expand...

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. in fact you were the first to call some one out......but you had no facts to back it up.

gp001 said:

Dan, Dan, Dan. Before you post something like that you should really be sure of what you are spouting. The wing on the Sti is in no way functional. Unless, of course, you consider generating more parasitic drag (which is the biggest force to overcome with speed, ie it eats the most horsepower) functional

Click to expand...

"quoting to preserve the text"

so, 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. 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?).

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.


Stangnet i am very sorry for wasting your time......please move on there is nothing to see here.

laters,
shaun h.

p.s. gp001 i checked out your homepage & you have two bada$$ cars, although i do like the 05 much better......props on the wheels too.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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?).

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Ah...you edited your post since I copied it, so I'll resond to the changes in this here new fancy post

spidermaxx300 said:

"quoting to preserve the text"

Click to expand...

Thanks! Now read the physics of racing link and you'll see why I made that statement

spidermaxx300 said:

p.s. gp001 i checked out your homepage & you have two bada$$ cars, although i do like the 05 much better......props on the wheels too.

Click to expand...

Thank you. The 66 is great to cruise around So. Cal. in. All these unsuspecting sports cars to embarass. It's really funny when hey pull up next to me on the freeway and think it is harmless because it is not taching out (6 speeds are great) only to get their doors blown off. The 05 is much slower, but I'm workin on that (anyone have a wrecked 05 gt ya wanna sell the engine and computer out of? )

Did I mention the G word