|
Originally Posted by Duke
(Post 6321165)
If we assume that the wing is mounted to the frame rails, what do you base your comment that no other wing will produce the same level of downforce?
And yes it's true. IMHO a more rear mounted wing would produce a higher level of downforce, also there are other wing designs that are more effective than the straight wing plane. But there are limits on where you can place a wing with respect to the front of the car, the rear of the car, and the height of the car, depending on the organization you're racing with. In most cases, you're not going to be able to move the wing base the outer plane of the car or the vertical plane of the car. .... First off, the 2nd car is a Kokeln wing with funky side plates. The Viper has it's own wing and the blue 944 has a wing connected the rear body (not structurally sound). I have no idea how effective those wings are since I'm not familiar with those wings. I would think these 2 designs produce more downforce than the regular Kokeln wing, and even more so if combined with a "banan style" wing, like the Oreca Viper. Based on what? Visual observation? TonyG |
Originally Posted by TonyG
(Post 6321185)
But there are limits on where you can place a wing with respect to the front of the car, the rear of the car, and the height of the car, depending on the organization you're racing with. In most cases, you're not going to be able to move the wing base the outer plane of the car or the vertical plane of the car.
Originally Posted by TonyG
(Post 6321185)
First off, the 2nd car is a Kokeln wing with funky side plates.
Originally Posted by TonyG
(Post 6321185)
The Viper has it's own wing and the blue 944 has a wing connected the rear body (not structurally sound).
Originally Posted by TonyG
(Post 6321185)
Based on what? Visual observation?
What do you base your statement on that there is no wing that creates more downforce than your Kokeln? |
Functional or not, those big ass wings on a 944/968 are the ugliest things you could ever put on our cars.
Ever do a big girl? They put the fun in functional. You just wouldn't want to go out in public with one. Same thing with one of those wings on our cars. Don't do it. Wait,,,not that I know or anything.... |
In the words of the late, great Frank Zappa..."The bigger the cushion, the better the pushin"
Joe, I don't want this for my day to day appearance. This is strictly for my trackdays. That's why I want something that is removable before and after the meets. |
I'm wondering how well a combination of a rear diffuser and a LeMans rear spoiler (GT racing #255) would work? The issue I see are that you cannot tune the above for different tracks like you can a wing.
The Frankencar was experiencing front end lift at high speeds (e.g. back straight at Road Atlanta) so I installed a GT racing front spoiler (242) that is 1.5" lower and have added a 4" splitter. I will be doing a test and tune next week, but am somewhat concerned that the front may now be better planted on high-speed turns than the rear. |
Originally Posted by TonyG
(Post 6321654)
OK. Then we'd have a wing several feet behind the car, much wider than the car, and up much higher than the roof of the car.
it's the same wing. The supports are a little different moving the wing past the rear edge of the car. Easy to do, but not legal in sanctioned events (that I'm aware of). Sure. It might. But I would bet money it doesn't. People do that assuming that the body is strong enough to support it. It's a fairly common mistake. Wing placement is one thing. The aerodynamics of the wing element itself is another. I'm talking about the later. It's not "my Kokeln". It's "the Kokeln". And lots of people that race 944s around the world have "the Kokeln". Here's a test. Go figure out what the wing element is actually modeled (copied) after. Then you'll know why it works so well. TonyG |
double post
|
Originally Posted by DFASTEST951
(Post 6321232)
Functional or not, those big ass wings on a 944/968 are the ugliest things you could ever put on our cars.
Ever do a big girl? They put the fun in functional. You just wouldn't want to go out in public with one. Same thing with one of those wings on our cars. Don't do it. Wait,,,not that I know or anything.... Here's a Vegas analogy: It's kinda like having a rack. You think that you're never going to get one, but you show up to work at the club, and everyone's got one. That makes real hard to compete. Eventually you see the success ($$$) the other girls are having. And you realize that in order to compete, you too need a big rack. So you go buy a big double d rack. In time, that rack becomes a normal part of you, and you don't think about it anymore. It just is... TonyG |
Originally Posted by TonyG
(Post 6321654)
OK. Then we'd have a wing several feet behind the car, much wider than the car, and up much higher than the roof of the car.
it's the same wing. The supports are a little different moving the wing past the rear edge of the car. Easy to do, but not legal in sanctioned events (that I'm aware of). Sure. It might. But I would bet money it doesn't. People do that assuming that the body is strong enough to support it. It's a fairly common mistake. Wing placement is one thing. The aerodynamics of the wing element itself is another. I'm talking about the later. It's not "my Kokeln". It's "the Kokeln". And lots of people that race 944s around the world have "the Kokeln". Here's a test. Go figure out what the wing element is actually modeled (copied) after. Then you'll know why it works so well. TonyG I haven't seen the Kokeln in person so I cannot say what element it's modeled after. Looking at pictures it looks like a 996 CUP wing. Which is interesting considering Porsche has changed the wing element design on the 997 RSR... As I said, the Kokeln seems great, but I don't know why you are so sure it's the best possible design and cannot be enhanced in any way or format. Great as it is, when talking about street legal track cars making holes in the rear screen isn't really an option. So for those of us who wants downforce without that kind of mounting we need to think of other alternatives. |
has anyone got any links on where to buy these wings
|
Originally Posted by Duke
(Post 6323096)
I'm sure the Kokeln wing is one of the best solutions out there, but your first statement is just ridicoulus because it makes you look that you don't care about placement at all.
Perhaps I was wrong, but from the pictures of the Kokeln wing it doesn't seem to sit at the very rear edge of the car. I just saying a more rearward mounted wing is likely to more effective than a more forward mounted wing. As I said, the Kokeln seems great, but I don't know why you are so sure it's the best possible design and cannot be enhanced in any way or format. I didn't make the wing and had no hand in designing it. I could care less if anybody bought one. In fact... it would actually be better for me if nobody had one :D (except me) Great as it is, when talking about street legal track cars making holes in the rear screen isn't really an option. So for those of us who wants downforce without that kind of mounting we need to think of other alternatives. The solution then would be something along the lines of a 968TRS wing with gurney flap and leave it at that. TonyG |
Originally Posted by TonyG
(Post 6323457)
That's silly. Of course wing placement is important. But hanging it of the rear of the car and supporting it between the tail lights, no matter the placement, is not the right way to do it. Nor is supporting it off the hatch frame. There's a right way and a wrong way to do things.
You're talking about Orca? That wing is clearly behind the car, and it is supported properly. And as far as it being better further away (and higher)... that's obvious. And I was never arguing otherwise. You're reading way too much into it. The deal is, for the 944, you're not going to find a better wing. From the way it mounts, to the hardware, to the wing element, ready to go. And it flat out works. I didn't make the wing and had no hand in designing it. I could care less if anybody bought one. In fact... it would actually be better for me if nobody had one :D (except me) Then what you want is something less than a great wing because you're not going to get wing, that can produce substantial downforce, to mount up anywhere to the car. The hatch won't work (probably not for long), the the sheet metal between the tail lights get tweaked dealing with the loads. You can mount it under the hatch, but again you're transferring the load to the top of the rear quarter panels. Again... not good. The only place to properly transfer the load is through the glass to the frame rails. The solution then would be something along the lines of a 968TRS wing with gurney flap and leave it at that. TonyG |
Originally Posted by Lorax
(Post 6323526)
Well, where do you think the rear 1/4's attach to?
It IS a unibody. As long as you find a way to mount them to the rear body panel and stop flexing as you mentioned that would seem fine. If there is no flexing all that load is going to go directly to the rest of the chassis, right? TonyG |
Originally Posted by TonyG
(Post 6323579)
And how much do the 1/4 panels weigh?
The fact that the car is a unibody makes no difference. You can't simply transfer big loads to any place on a car just because it's a unibody. The metal will flex, fatigue, and bend. TonyG If you don't want to put holes in the hatch you could go to the rear body panel and properly reinforce it. I do agree that mounting to any outer panel means you need to reinforce it. If you get rid of the flex, there is no problem. |
Wow, I miss alot being gone for a short time.
Patrick, I'm so glad you only want this thing for a track car. Your car looks so nice as it is, it would completely ruin the look on the street. Tony, great analogy. Get this though. It's the Damndest thing. Since everyone has a rack, and each girl pushed it to the next level of size, it got to be outrageous. It was like touching overinflated balloons. Now, the girls with their "stock" or "factory" racks are getting more attention because the over inflated racks went too far and you just couldn't get over the Michael Jackson fakeness. On another note, and you guys aren't going to believe this but since I'm in the industry, I'll share. The beaver bush is coming back in style. I'm not saying a rain forest mess but the growth is actually coming back in. I guess we all like a little change now and again and now it's going back to a more, "factory" look. Ok, back to your regular scheduled programming. |
| All times are GMT -3. The time now is 08:04 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands