05GT v. WRX

but you really havent given me any facts about the item at hand....the STI. sure you posted a link about the physics of racing, and it is very informative. although it still doesnt tell us, you , or me that the STI's wing has no function at all other than drag.

so if i told you Paul Hansen from www.apexjapan.com stated that driving the car back to back with and with out the wing on, on a road course the wing made a difference in handling and control......that would mean nothing?

my wrc statement was and is true there are many rally events where the cars will see some 100mph+ driving....on gravel, its only reasonable/logical to assume the wing does provide downforce. it does aid in it for sideways driving but dont you think that the egineneers took into acount the fact that they do have staightaways and slight bends. if you cant see this to be true then i really dont what to think. you will probably never find a website/article/documentation of the actual downforce beeing generated by a wrc or sti wing but it doesnt mean they dont produce downforce. rather it be 20lbs or 100lbs doesnt mean crapola.....because my argument remains it does produce some downforce. with that being said and seeing as how you cant prove the wing has no function and i am only limited to my information, (other then what prodrivers and SPT, SOA, Prodrive say) we will have to agree to disagree.

i merely posted the pic to show that a functional wing can be mounted to a trunck.....you even agreed that the wing is functional......you just doubt the downforce capabilities.....right? that was my point....the wing can be functional an be mounted to a trunk......which brings us back to the STI.we are not talking about F1 downforce here,obviously, something of that force would buckle the trunk lid, using your qoute the STI and WRC is limited to its capabilities, it doesnt say it wont or cant work, just that there are limitations . i dont know what to say other then that qoute from s.w.r.t said the wing "generates significant amount of downforce"....they must be lying and you should go be a wing designer.

i really dont know what else to tell you, other than i give up....cowardly or not, i dont care.....we are just stuck making 4 right turns.

you seem like a nice fellow and somewhat educated(to what degree i dont know), i think you should be able to understand why i edited my qoute about your 2MFF buddy. these types of debates dont need post like the ones he made. it got under my skin, so i edited my post to take it out after i thought about it, . apparently i wasnt quick enough.....you caught me.

regardless of his automotive achievements, his post were lacking in the info department......again thats why i edited it.... i try not to judge people.

quick question before i go..... i once did a frame off restoration of a 78 chevy 4x4(it looked just like the fall guy's without the eagle), i do autocrossing on occassion,i used to race karts, my 1/4 times in my scooby are quite impressive for my level of mods.......not to be a smart ass but does that make me knowledgeable.?

have a good one,
shaun h.

Any body wonder what happened here???? What the f$%^ is going on here that there is even a post wondering what to do to beat a SUBARU??? I love Mustangs, have had 4 going on 5 now, and I just can't see the light here.... Ford, if you're watching- A SUBARU is beating up on us. PLEASE GIVE US MORE POWER!!!!

spidermaxx300 said:

but you really havent given me any facts about the item at hand....the STI. sure you posted a link about the physics of racing, and it is very informative. although it still doesnt tell us, you , or me that the STI's wing has no function at all other than drag. .

Click to expand...

Physics apply to all cars. The STi, despite what the backward hat crowd says, does not defy the laws of physics.

spidermaxx300 said:

so if i told you Paul Hansen from www.apexjapan.com stated that driving the car back to back with and with out the wing on, on a road course the wing made a difference in handling and control......that would mean nothing?.

Click to expand...

A guy who is given cars by factories to review and right tIgHt ArTiClEs hyping the cars up? Uh...ya.....I'll stick with physics...thanks

spidermaxx300 said:

my wrc statement was and is true there are many rally events where the cars will see some 100mph+ driving....on gravel, its only reasonable/logical to assume the wing does provide downforce. it does aid in it for sideways driving but dont you think that the egineneers took into acount the fact that they do have staightaways and slight bends. if you cant see this to be true then i really dont what to think. you will probably never find a website/article/documentation of the actual downforce beeing generated by a wrc or sti wing but it doesnt mean they dont produce downforce. rather it be 20lbs or 100lbs doesnt mean crapola.....because my argument remains it does produce some downforce. with that being said and seeing as how you cant prove the wing has no function and i am only limited to my information, (other then what prodrivers and SPT, SOA, Prodrive say) we will have to agree to disagree..

Click to expand...

Are you serious? Aerodynamics is not about straightaways, turns, etc., it's about airflow. The height of the vehicle has alot to do with it's aero ability. The wing doesn't just operate on it's own. Downforce for gravel? That's great. Take another look at that WRC wing, this time from the rear. See the slats? They would detach any flow over the wing, hence affecting the pressure difference, hence NO LIFT. Sorry my friend.

spidermaxx300 said:

i merely posted the pic to show that a functional wing can be mounted to a trunck.....you even agreed that the wing is functional......you just doubt the downforce capabilities.....right? that was my point....the wing can be functional an be mounted to a trunk......which brings us back to the STI.we are not talking about F1 downforce here,obviously, something of that force would buckle the trunk lid, using your qoute the STI and WRC is limited to its capabilities, it doesnt say it wont or cant work, just that there are limitations ..

Click to expand...

Nope, I never agreed the wing was functional. The end plates and slats (look at the rear view of the wing) are functional as RUDDERS, but these would also affect any attempt at downforce. No smooth flow over the flat surface of the wing = no donwforce

spidermaxx300 said:

i dont know what to say other then that qoute from s.w.r.t said the wing "generates significant amount of downforce"....they must be lying and you should go be a wing designer.

Click to expand...

Ya, you read it on a hype page on the internet, it must be true. Get real. Maybe you should read something besides hype. I think I have proven that a wing on a street car is useless. You are just grasping at straws attempting to glorify the silly STi wing.

spidermaxx300 said:

i really dont know what else to tell you, other than i give up....cowardly or not, i dont care.....we are just stuck making 4 right turns..

Click to expand...

A square?????

spidermaxx300 said:

you seem like a nice fellow and somewhat educated(to what degree i dont know), i think you should be able to understand why i edited my qoute about your 2MFF buddy. these types of debates dont need post like the ones he made. it got under my skin, so i edited my post to take it out after i thought about it, . apparently i wasnt quick enough.....you caught me..

Click to expand...

He gets under my skin too

spidermaxx300 said:

regardless of his automotive achievements, his post were lacking in the info department......again thats why i edited it.... i try not to judge people. .

Click to expand...

He's not a man of many words.

spidermaxx300 said:

quick question before i go..... i once did a frame off restoration of a 78 chevy 4x4(it looked just like the fall guy's without the eagle), i do autocrossing on occassion,i used to race karts, my 1/4 times in my scooby are quite impressive for my level of mods.......not to be a smart ass but does that make me knowledgeable.?.

have a good one,
shaun h.

Click to expand...

Did your 4x4 have a wing?

The laws of physics! How can a 4cyl compete with an 8cyl? In theory, the 4cyl (total car weight) should be less than an 8cyl(total car weight) by the lbs of extra 4 cylindars-pistons-heads- and misc.
I still can't get over the fact that an 8cyl can't mop up on ANY 4cyl.... WTF??FORD, you are getting beat by a 4cyl!!! Ford, scrap the Mustang GT program... Bring back the SVO.. Com' on-Get R' Dun.
:damnit:

giddy-up said:

The laws of physics! How can a 4cyl compete with an 8cyl? In theory, the 4cyl (total car weight) should be less than an 8cyl(total car weight) by the lbs of extra 4 cylindars-pistons-heads- and misc.
I still can't get over the fact that an 8cyl can't mop up on ANY 4cyl.... WTF??FORD, you are getting beat by a 4cyl!!! Ford, scrap the Mustang GT program... Bring back the SVO.. Com' on-Get R' Dun.
:damnit:

Click to expand...

You do realize it is not just any 4cyl right? There is a little extra induction thrown in it to give it the hp #'s

Of course! A turbo, seriously.. When was the last time you heard of a Vette or GTO dude crapin' themselves over a Subaru. Turbo no turbo, this GT should rock... period. It's plenty of power to have fun with and get into too much trouble, but if you are afraid of a Subaru at a stoplight, things need to change.
These Mustangs have the look and heritage, they should lay the smack down.

giddy-up said:

Of course! A turbo, seriously.. When was the last time you heard of a Vette or GTO dude crapin' themselves over a Subaru. Turbo no turbo, this GT should rock... period. It's plenty of power to have fun with and get into too much trouble, but if you are afraid of a Subaru at a stoplight, things need to change.
These Mustangs have the look and heritage, they should lay the smack down.

Click to expand...

I never find myself afraid of a subaru at a stop light. And if I did. Then I would spend the price difference between the cars on a blower. And if I owned a vette and wasn't confident that it could beat many other cars. I wouldn't own it very long.

SVTDriver, we're both jumping post to post. The Vette thing was on a different post, I'm trying to make a point that there is a clear distiction between the Stang, Vette, and any 4 cyl import.
Let's put it this way. If you could buy a Vette for 40k or a Mustang for the same price, would you not wat to be able to buy a Ford for the same price and give them a run for their money? Ok, so take a 4cyl.... I don't care if you're a GM nut, Mopar, or Ford. Tell me that your V8 shouldn't put a beating on them? That's all I'm trying to say. Yeah there are some Turbo 4's that are quick, but there shouldn't be a V8 post on the internet wondering if they can beat a 4 cyl or not.

A square?????

Click to expand...

same point we started at




and a wrc team puts stuff on their cars for the look too, right.they like throwing all that r&d money out the window. i understand that airflow makes the wing work the way it should if design properly. it wont create downforce at 0mph.....but it will at say 100mph......given it more rear traction at high speeds, in dry, wet, or gravel conditions. thats what i was trying to get at. if its just a rudder then why not just put a rudder on there. . you say its rudder, right... then the amount of force to push the rear behind the nose must be pretty intense, huh, if it can push the car back straight instead of down then it should have enough force to rip the trunk right off. there goes the logic of the stuctual mounting point. there has to be a reason for their design.

thats right its all hype everything that i have read ever on the intrAw3b is hype. it was a press release article explaining how the wing works, and its function as "rudder" and wing. if the wing is so detrimental to performance then why use it in a sanctioned race be it the wrc wing or the sti wing. so i guess nobody should believe anything they read,ever (lets start a book burning party) . your logic makes no sense, please tell me why a million dollar racing team would risk the disadvantages of the wing just for "looks".

sanctioned race pics at the "the ring" 24 hr

[/IMG]

there gonna use this so it can make them slower.....by your own admission, thats all the sti wing does. nah, better yet its just a ploy to get all us ricers out there to buy the giant wing. i finally see your ifinite wisdom......</writes out check to Yo Ricer Racing/>

would you like for my 4x4 to have a wing cause i can put one on it for ya, what do want plastic, aluminum, or better yet carbon fiber.....since its so light i wont have to worry about the weight.... so i can bask in all my mad downforce, yo . well let me go buy a bed cover first, no i got it, i should get a topper then mount the wing on top of that, so it will have all the air it wants. i bet i could do 1billion mph...

You are just grasping at straws attempting to glorify the silly STi wing.

Click to expand...

trust me i dont want to glorify the wing. i am merely stating that its there for a reason other than drag. you are the physics god and everyone should listen to you because of why.......you read the "physics of racing" its all so clear now. i would possibly be compelled to rethink my beliefs if you could actually prove something........to me a professional race team that runs the wing says something about the item in question......take it for what you want, im gonna leave it at that.

I’ll resolve your retarded little tête-à-tête right now brb……

45 minutes pass………

Ok, I’m back. I just stole one from the parking lot and took it for a joy ride. It was pretty fast. I then got out of the car and kicked the wing off onto the ground, then got back into the car and went for another drive. It was just as fast. It appears that the wing doesn’t do much on a street car, but might help out the race car version.

Oh ya, and some little punk ass ricer was busy picking up the spoiler and mounting it to his civic when I drove by.

giddy-up said:

SVTDriver, we're both jumping post to post. The Vette thing was on a different post, I'm trying to make a point that there is a clear distiction between the Stang, Vette, and any 4 cyl import.
Let's put it this way. If you could buy a Vette for 40k or a Mustang for the same price, would you not wat to be able to buy a Ford for the same price and give them a run for their money? Ok, so take a 4cyl.... I don't care if you're a GM nut, Mopar, or Ford. Tell me that your V8 shouldn't put a beating on them? That's all I'm trying to say. Yeah there are some Turbo 4's that are quick, but there shouldn't be a V8 post on the internet wondering if they can beat a 4 cyl or not.

Click to expand...

And as I said before. If someone spends more money that I did. I won't care that their car is faster. They had to spend more money to get a faster car. Speed is a matter of money. The faster you want to go. The more you need to spend.

jfischer said:

That big-ass factory hoop spoiler on the STi just screams "rice"

Click to expand...

doh!

Thats that mean this is RICE too?

300bhp/ton said:

doh!

Thats that mean this is RICE too?

Click to expand...

By definition, yes it is rice. The real problem is too many people use a big wing as an excuse to call a car rice. Without looking beyond surface comparisions. If the wing is useful it cannot be rice.

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...

Look I hate to flame, but you really have got this wrong, and for all the hundreds of readers of this site some of your mis-information needs correcting.


Now, bear with me here, don't get all cross and start posting anything and everything. As I will try and explain so that everyone can understand it (including ME!).


Your statement - WRC cars have no aero package!

Afraid they do, and aerodynamics play a major role in a modern rally car. Now as I've already posted prior, an aero package does not JUST mean down force, there are lots of things it can do such as reduce lift and create stability.

You claim that rally cars run in turbulent air - well no not really. Think about it on a race track the car infront will be pushing a hole thru the air whicvh will then cause turbulance ie referred to as 'dirty air'. However rally cars do not run nose to tale, for the most part they are on their own running in comparitivly clean air. The fact that they have a high ground clearance and are going over rough terrain will have little bearing on it. Again think about it, a stunt areoplane has massive ground clearance up there in the sky, and they will be going up and down and cornering hard yet aerodynamics will play a large role still (not downforce, but as already stated that is not the only affect that an areo package is for).

I would guess that the main reasons rally cars have wings is for reduced lift and stability, going down a bumpy gravel road at 120mph requires a very stable car, as it will be skipping and jumping into the air, an yes it will some times be sidesways too.

Here is a Ford Escourt Cosworth rally car, this is the original rear wing:


However after later rivsions in the aero package Ford's RS department (Rally Sport) came up with this rear wing as it offer greater stability at speed and reduced lift (and as with all modern rally cars can actually be seen working when on a dusty rally):


If they are so pintless why would they have gone to the time and expense to develop a new one. Even more so as the Cosworth was only a limit production vehicle and was never sold with the later wing (I'll explain why in a bit).

As for road cars having them, well that extends from two main areas. Originally to qualify for holomogation for a Group A rally car it had to resemble a production model. So if these aero aids where wanted in competition (another peice of proof that they do, do something!) they had to appear on production models. Hence road cars like the Cossie and the STi have them, over the years it has also been noted that such add ons also help sell cars. This is for many reasons, one some people like the look of them and it allows people to have a race/rally car look and go a-like for the road. But this is not a new idea. Take a look at the 1970 Trans Am, it was basically the same car as the Formula but with an aero package which was holomogated for the Trans Am race series.

Concerning drag, well without wind tunnel testing it is hard to prove, as it will largly depend on the rest of the aero package whether or not the wing causes drag.

Take the Noble M12, it has a twin turbo 3.0 Ford V6 425bhp, 0-100 8.5 seconds and a top wack of 170mph. It has been rated more than once as one of the best handling and performance road cars available today.

See the big rear wing, do you think it causes lots of drag and slows the car down? Well so did a lot of people, so Noble actually removed it from the car and did some high speed runs. The car had exactly the same top speed without it as it did with it. And before you ask the car was still aerodynaically top speed limited not gearing. What was happening was that the front of the car had so much downforce impeading on it that it was limiting the top speed, so there was next to no drag or loss of power from the large rear wing. What it did provide however was reduced lift and more importantly stability, esp under high speed cornering. This is exactly the same reason GT cars like the Z06 Corvette and Aston DB9 have these large rear wings, however in their cases they will also probably offer a little more in the way of downforce, but it will be limited as the rest of the car will not have altered that much, and the air flowing onto the car is just as important as how it leaves it.

Concerning you earlier question, on how much force is need to bend sheet metal and so forth. Well ok, but do you mind if I ask a few questions too:

1. What grade of steel and thickness is the rear boot skin of an STi? As this will have a very large bearing on its strenght.

2. What is the torsional stiffness of the boot lid structure and associated brackets for the wing?

Some pics of rear wings in action

Note how the dust ploom is staying below the rear window hieght, this is due to the air flow coming off of the top of the wing. For any of you guys out there that have ever owned a pick up, estate car, hatch back or even a convertable you'll know that iif the roads are dry and dusty that the dirt will get sucked onto the back of the car, making the rear window all dirty, or sometimes even sucking dust indside the car. So this pictures proves the wing is doing something, and that something is positive.


again, see how the dust ploom is restricted due to the air flow from the wing:

^good info there and very well said. i


laters,
shaun h.

I'm really starting to like these subaru's

I'm sure your wing works great, just like the one's that PEP Boys sells for the little ricer guys.

cute car

300bhp/ton said:

Note how the dust ploom is staying below the rear window hieght, this is due to the air flow coming off of the top of the wing. For any of you guys out there that have ever owned a pick up, estate car, hatch back or even a convertable you'll know that iif the roads are dry and dusty that the dirt will get sucked onto the back of the car, making the rear window all dirty, or sometimes even sucking dust indside the car. So this pictures proves the wing is doing something, and that something is positive.

again, see how the dust ploom is restricted due to the air flow from the wing:

Click to expand...

AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I could not have set it up any better if I tried myself. Now I can use pictures to prove my point (since neither of you want to use science).

You say those pictures show downforce? Brilliant! The AIR FLOW actually moves UPWARD off the wing when creating downforce. What you have shown is that these wings are AT BEST neutral. Here are soe examples, pay close attention to the last one (you too Shaun)

Is this old volvo a downforce machine????? I mean the air flow is the same as the pics you posted. Maybe a ghost wing?



Or how bout this monster. It must have taken years of design to get this awesome downforce


Here are some real cars with downforce. Notice the rooster tail generated behind these cars by their wings. Their aero package must suck because it is not pointing down like the rally cars. Maybe they should hire the WRC designers cuz them F1 aerodynamicists must be tards.






But wait, my swami powers are tingleing. I know what you're thinking "but gp, those rooster tails are kicked up by the big tires". Well, let me head off the next argument





OK, I'm done. Carry on. Have a good weekend. wErD tO yA wInGz Yo!!!!!!

spidermaxx300 said:

http://www.tfd.chalmers.se/~lelo/rvad/reports/rva2002_gr04_rally-cars.pdf

Click to expand...

from link said:

As a consequence of the rules all the competitor’s cars are based on typical road going car shapes from which they have to keep the original outer form. Moreover the car model used by a manufacturer within its different car types in such a competition is not chosen in accordance with the aerodynamic department. Indeed, according to Mr Stadler, director of the aerodynamic department at Peugeot Sport, as it has to fulfil size regulations and as this competition is a reference in term of quality and performance for the public, it is rather the marketing department that is the one that makes the decision.
.
.
.
However, a regulation point we couldn’t find out by ourselves but provided by our contact in Peugeot concerns this rear wing. It first says that the dimensions are limited by the overall shape of the car, that is it is not allowed to be wider than the widest part of the car nor higher than the top point of the roof.

.
.
.
Conclusion
This work has allowed us to go deeper in a few aspects. We started seeking for information about aerodynamics on rally cars, as it is usually understood, as drag and lift effects. But as we later discovered being in contact with people having experience in that domain, the biggest work load on the aerodynamics of rally cars is related to cooling systems. This is mainly due to the regulations forbidding any change on the basic road car bodywork except the addition of a rear wing. This confirms that the aerodynamic field is still a bit behind in rally cars compared to Formula 1. Moreover there is a direct implication of the commercial department regarding decision taken by researchers and engineers. In the case of Peugeot, the aerodynamic research is clearly not the first focus. The staff at Peugeot Sport could use different features in order to increase and improve the cooling system but it is the limited budget which stops them in this direction. Another example is that if engineers have to deal with the part design, they will favour the accessibility and the way to change it more than its aerodynamic design. To conclude, aerodynamics in rally cars is not easy because of the few possibilities given by the FIA regulations or other departments to the aerodynamic design. A lot of compromises between all departments have to be done to improve the aerodynamics

Click to expand...

I guess we now know why they have wings. The Marketing department knows what gets pre-pubescent boys all wound up: A backward hat and a wing, yo. Dat chit is tight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!