Rear wing options???
 

There has been a bit of discussion on some threads of late about wings.
As there are a few more aftermarket products becoming available we are getting some more options.
However I am thinking about something larger for creating some serious downforce on the track.
Ideally I really would like to create a lexan hatch that I could mount a decent wing on that could be removed,
with the wing for day to day road use.
I think this would require drilling through the Lexan and having the mounts go through there and be bolted into some
part of the subframe. I was sort of hoping to get around this by using the side supports from an 968rs wing and
attaching the struts or upright supports for the wing to these. Does anyone think this could be an option?
I've done a crap drawing of what I mean from a 968 turbo but you get the idea.
Or is this not going to support the downforce generated and we have to go for the traditional wing like the
other photos?

Then we get down to the wings themselves. What is good, what is bad? Is there a huge difference?
I mean, sure for the proper race teams every bit counts but for us it would come down to cost / function.
In other words will a $400 job be half as good as the $2000 ones? How much part does materials / weight play?
Would one of these big ones produce too much downforce?
I've got one of the CPR front race splitters on order so hopefully this will help balance that situation.
What do we think about all this?

I have put up quite a few pics with various options from mild to wild.
Please discuss.

Oh, the 2 black unmounted wings are locally made and cheap. Do we think these are at all worth thinking about?

Oh, and I'm not entirely discounting the more stock type like in this picture. It would mean being able to have it on the car all the time too. Notice the extra lip extension.

We would expect that porsche did some testing for the 968trs rear wing, so I think it is the better starting point, and it is consistent with modern practices.

yes, and note the wicker bill on the back edge of the horizontal surface. I bet that car sticks really well, but I wonder about it's understeer.

Look closer it has an extra splitter

yeah, I saw that. I was just wondering. It would be fun to find out for myself! :D

While I would agree that Porsche would have done some testing back then, I also might assume that the choice / design of wings back then weren't as broad as they are now. Plus there may have been something in the rules with homologation or the fact that they couldn't run a big wing on a road car?
What wing are you intending to run Rod?

What do you mean about an 'extra' splitter?

That 968 has a carbon splitter underneath the standard splitter.
I think there would have been homologation constraints, but it is also a matter of balance front/rear, but I think if you have the horsepower you should use as big a wing as you can use in a balanced set up.
Say like this

Here's a pic of the kind of setup you're talking about Patrick:
http://www.puppan.se/Histroria%20sid...m%20stor_3.JPG

Ah, Exactly Duke!! Thanks for that. I always had a hard time explaining that over the phone or with written word. That's what my crappy drawing is meant to illustrate.
So the advantage of that setup is that you can fit it all to the rear hatch and not have to drill, make sub mounts, and hopefully the 968 side supports take all the load and not the lexan itself? Do you know this car and/or it's history? Does it continue to run with this setup? You could mount any wing there I'm thinking. The one that Rod shows is nice, but some of these specialised products are very expensive. I really wonder how 'bad' the cheap one I show is?

That's a nice looking wing Rod. I still can't see any evidence of the 2nd splitter unless you know this car already has it?

Here's a pic from another angle, looks like a piece of carbon from what I can tell.

Ok I didn't think you were referring to that as the 2nd splitter so I was looking for something else?
That's a very nice example of a front engined Porsche. Can't wait to see yours.
It'll be funny for you when you finally do climb back into your car after driving the Evo for so long now.
Are you going for a big rear wing or keeping in the red car's theme?

That is Puppans previous car, the turbo cup. I think I have some other shots of the same wing setup on other cars. I'll take a look!

The 968 turbo s side supports are only mounted with 2 screws each so don't think it would hold up very well with a huge wing.

I think the cheap wing you posted would work very well! I have been looking at the same kind of wing designs, too bad it looks so rice...because the design do work..

Yea it is a simple device, but very effective.
Yes nice rs, I think that'd be 968trs #1.
I'm intending to drive my 951 for a while before the 968 is done, but it will be a gradual process, the evo is quick but that isn't everything.
I will probably start with a stockish wing initially.

Found another car, take a look at photo 34 here:
http://www.pcsracing.se/fotoalbum/2008-04-18%20Mantorp/

Very good comparison with the regular 968 turbo s wing at photo 35.
I would want a wing like photo 35 (996 cup) but that would take a lot of effort to make a solution that looks factory.

Here's another variant:
http://www.pcsracing.se/fotoalbum/20...al/b_0191.html

Doesn't have the looks, but should be very effective.

Hi Patrick thanks for the message and I’ll update for you here as requested :)

I understand your desired requirement for a wing that mounts to the rear extruded aluminum frame with Lexan so you can easily swap out for road or track use but in reality it’s not a good idea.

I never knew you had artistic drawing skills in you – Nice artist’s impression of a modified TRS wing BUT whilst looking functional this is not recommended for the reasons I will detail below:

The TRS wing is mounted with 4 very small 4mm M8 bolts (about 60mm long) which screw through the very thin hatch frame up into each side of the FRP which use “RIV Nuts” to secure. While these are fine for the standard TRS adjustable wing, with the additional downforce/drag a larger and higher positioned wing will act as a lever which very likely will rip clean off. Remember the rear hatch is not a solid mounting point which succumbs to vibration also again very very marginally reducing efficiency but more important the additional lever force will help separation of the lexan from the frame through a combination of continuous vibration and flexing forces. For our new TRS Version 2 wing we are increasing the 4 bolt system to 6 which provide a better secure mounting but again this wing is nowhere near as highly mounted from the screen frame as you are looking at hence the lever effect will be dramatically reduced – I have seen this done before though and as other have posted pics of - It's just not ideal.

The Riviera Blue 944 you have attached pics of does look very interesting and I’d love to see how the wings mounts through the lexan to the trunk floor/chassis rails – A very nicely designed unit which looks very sturdy.

The locally sourced CF wing you can get locally look odd in my opinion (very jap) and you going to spend a lot of money fabricating mounting brackets so best going for a solution which is available and others are using with good proven results.

The pic of the red 968 TRS I sent to Patrick to show exactly what Rod and Eliot have pointed out. This car features the Version 2 TRS wing plus the addition of a “in the great words of Elliot – Wicker Bill” (not heard that on before but like it :) ).

Here is a better pic of what Elliot refers to:

http://www.deutschnine.com/rennlist/...2-trs-wing.jpg

For anybody who has not seen the TRS Version 2 we are recreating at the moment then there is a full thread about this over on the 968 board:

https://rennlist.com/forums/968-foru...velopment.html

I think it was more a homologation thing but don’t quote me on that.

Duke that picture you have posted is the same as Beni developed about 3 years ago:

http://www.deutschnine.com/rennlist/...irts-after.jpg

This is now in full production:

http://www.deutschnine.com/rennlist/...plitter-01.jpg

Cheers,
Mark

Sorry Mark, the picture I posted is 6 years old :bigbye:

I agree what you're saying about the mount not being stiff/secure and I too would like another option. But the solution proposed by Patrick has been used by club racers in Sweden for many years and in many configurations.
I've never heard of a broken mount. Doesn't mean it's the best alternative, but it works.

Yes mate as I clearly stated I also have not heard of a broken mount - It just isn't the best solution as you appear to agree!

Does Pupan still have his 951? Last I saw was when he mounted the Rial rims which looks fantastic :)

Duke - No it is actually not exactly the same as Beni's which is boxed in.

Beni made his from a basic front wing (not sure where from) and the side bits he purchased from a universal automotive store here in the UK and then modified the whole unit to fit and work correctly. I do not know how Pupan made his and not seen that pic before of his car in its early developments -Great car all the same mate :)

These wings and modifications do/will work, they just need not rely solely on the OEM moutning points hardware....IMO.

Quick detach style support rods seem as if they would supplement appropriately. And would allow for stress/load transference to the more stable portions of the body. Given their nature (quick release/detach) they could also be removed rapidly for street/normal driving and/or actuatio of the hatch mechanisms.

Hence why I suggested that the Riviera Blue 944 Patrick Garvan posted a picture of looks like the best compromise :)

You have just gone over everything I have previously stated.

If you feel there is a good market for another high level product like this then why not develop one for sale instead of trying to recreate a TRS wing which is readily available both in Europe and the US with or without a carbon section - At least we are doing something different.

Furthermore and to the point these high level wings are available from several sources - Patrick G is simply asking the question because he has a TRS wing from http://www.v-zweeden.com/ already which he would like to use if possible which is just as baddly fitted as the one you have just posted in another thread - I'm just stating the obvious and if the solution is a half arse job then I wouldn't recommend it which I am sure you will appreciate!

I simply offered insight as to how I would mount a modified wing.

Not sure what your problem is with that.

No problem at all mate you just covered what I had already stated :p :D

Do not think so. The same with the picture Patrick drew. Not stable enough. IMO a wing should be mounted straight to the chassis beams


Yes.

That is like the wing I have: really effective.

http://www.951net.nl/RennImages/DSC_1703%5B1%5D.jpg

The wing itself is a copy from the GT3 Cup wing, mounted through the lexan. I recently posted some pictures the way it was mounted to the chassis

Not cheap, but certainly not USD 2000

As previously stated, it certainly is important for all downforce creating features (splitter, wing) to be tied to the chassis to directly transmit the force to the car.

http://ll.speedhunters.com/u/f/eagam...S/DSCF6279.jpg

A few more pics of that Blue cars wing mounting setup. Not going to be concerned with the wing ripping off with this.

While I agree that my initial proposition doesn't look very stable, perhaps there's a way of increasing this?
I can see that you could do something more akin to Hans' and just detach that between meetings. This is possibly what I'll have to do. As for the cheap wing, well I still think so long as the aero part of it works, then to shift the struts or change them won't be as expensive as importing one of those beautiful CWEST types. Btw Mark do you have a link to their catalogue?
Then again the ease of using on of the TRS types with the extended 'Wicker' is appealing to for it's looks and simplicity.
Sheesh....

That is ceratainly a stable setup, but not something you could put on street car.
I'm thinking about a setup like the car below, with internal bracing similar to the blue car above to take care of the load.

For a street car I have 3 requirements, 1 that I can actually open the rear hatch to load tools and stuff for track meeting, 2) no holes in the rear hatch 3) a mounting of the wing that feels safe to leave unattended on the street occasionally.

are those holes drilled for weight? lol

My 3" hole saw is my best friend.

Oh and regarding rice-wings, you do know that the new 997 RSR has a "rice"-style wing :)
http://www.pricy-spicy.com/wp-conten...r2008_copy.jpg

yes ive seen your bumper :( shoulda just sent it to me and then youd save even more weight!!! :thumbsup:
LOVE those fender flares..jesus look at the rubber in the back

Those rice-wings are quite effective as well...

Amen...and as stated above, the new 997 racers now have them, while other manufacturers have been using them for a while. Makes you wonder for a minute just who is actually on top of the technology.

BTW...ritz your avatar is making me blind :)

Nah! It's probably all of the masturbation that's making you blind.:cool: :D:bigbye:

So that's what caused it.....had I known earlier, I would have stayed on track with Evil, the hookers and the beer and still had my vision today.

There should a PSA about this.....

Yeah you might wanna lay off punching the clown for today... I think it's time for a new avatar soon too, ive had her for a while :)

make the next one in braile please....

Whats braile? :biggulp:

LOL Ryan - Ray Bans at the ready :cool:

Future is obviously upset. He has been given a three day "cooling off" period for unsavory language and insults. I hope he will come back in better humor.

[QUOTE=CPR;6319740]So that's what caused it.....had I known earlier, I would have stayed on track with Evil, the hookers and the beer and still had my vision today.QUOTE]

Did someone mention Hookers and Beer??? You forgot one word, cheap!!

you know what they say, "You can lead a horse to water...." :rtfm:

You caught those inflammatory remarks before they turned into a real FOREST FIRE :)

Hans's wing looks like my wing, which is the Kokeln wing (same wing, same mounting hardware).

And... this is the wing to have....

No 944 or 968 anything wing will produce the level of downforce that this wing produces.

In a 944, any wing that produces significant downoforce should transfer its downforce to the frame rails.


TonyG

I'm only pissed that I didn't get to see them. I'm a bit confused how I got tossed into his diatribe. We've always been friends. Apparently I'm stealing or conspiring or God knows what. If so, then somebody had better send me my cut of the action!
I'll have to change my avatar.

Someone fill me in...? What happened?

+1

"wickerbill" or better known as a "Gurney Flap". It is named after its designer, racing icon Dan Gurney, who invented it in 1971.

Lorax started a forest fire while wearing Ray Bans....or someting like that.

Well, having seen some of that post now, I have only this to add...

best evar

What happened here?? all of a sudden there's 1½ page of OT. Where's future's comments than caused the ban? Are they deleted because I cannot see any comments causing a ban.
This is an interesting topic so let's stay on point :to_order:

I'm kinda hoping that if my diffuser works well enough it will reduce my need for a large wing ( I wouldn't use one anyway since it's a street car).

Probably wishful thinking though. Does anyone know what the net downforce of a 951 is in stock trim? I'm thinking it's a negative number.

I'm no authority... but I seem to recall that it was a zero lift, zero downforce goal. And from memory, I seem to think that the number was just that.


TonyG

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?

IMHO a more rearmounted wing would produce a higher level of downforce, also there are other wing designs that are more effective than the straight wing plane.

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.

http://accel21.mettre-put-idata.over...eca92viper.jpg

My comments are based on the wings that are commercially available for purchase, that are designed to fit and work on a 944.

And yes it's true.


Sure.... I wish we could do just that....

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.


Based on what? Visual observation?



TonyG

True but I thought we were talking about maximum downforce, not maximum downforce within rule regulations that we haven't even talked about or specified.

Yes but as far as I can see it is mounted more rearward and a tad higher up than the regular kokeln wing.

For all we know that car might as well have internal bracing that connects the wing mounting to the frame. And if we assume that I my personal belief is that it would be more effective than the Kokeln wing due to the fact that it sits higher and more rearward.


I haven't tested all the wings shown here in a wind tunnel or back to back on a track so yes, it's all educated guesses and personal beliefs.
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.

aaaaaaa

double post

Yeah... but they sure do work.

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

Unless you reinforce said panel.

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.

THE BUSH?!?!....NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Maybe a little hitler.....

What, the combover???? :p

I figured I had to explain it in terms you guys in Vegas could identify with... :roflmao:

Makes sense to me.

I'll make sure to tell my wife. It's always great to know someone who's up on the current trends in style.


TonyG

:roflmao::roflmao:

sorry your thread has degraded to this point Patrick!

You guys ain't right...

Isn't this a car forum??

I come here to ESCAPE these feminin concerns...........

Sure.

So A) exactly how do you plan to properly reinforce it? and B) How do you plan to do it without adding 10lbs?


I'd be interested to see exactly how the the load is transferred off the top of the rear quarter panel, at an angle, to anything really structurally strong.

TonyG

Huh?

Wha?

We're just trying to speak the language.


TonyG

To the board,

I have read and re-read the postings from last night in an attempt to understand the implosion. As I cannot find any such reason for the unfortunate event, I will assume it was my comment (shown above) from earlier in the post. If it was indeed this comment it was sorely misinterpreted.

By manufacturers I meant Auto manufacturers (factory racers) and which auto manufacturers are/have been on top of the technology (e.g. Dodge-Viper, Mustang-Saleen, Aston, etc...) by implementing the "ricer" wing years ago.

Not manufacturers/vendors here.

Well what if you did a design similar to the kokeln, only through the rear body instead of the hatch for people who want to remove the wing for street driving.



An anchor piece connected to the frame rails that then leads up to a flange that is on the rear body panel. You have several small bolt holes in the rear body panel where a similar flange attached to the wing bolts onto the outside.

The overall weight wouldn't be that much more than the kokeln design and it would retain all the functionality of the hatch.

Back to the hairy taco making a comeback.....just kidding...on with this thread. lol.

The problem is the angle that the load is transferred to the load bearing structure. If the brace was going through the quarter panel straight down vertically to something that could support the load it would be a no brainer (which is the case of the Kokeln wing through the rear glass).

But that's not the case here. If you went down through the top of the quarter panel, under the hatch seal, which has nothing below it, you don't have a vertical shot to a load bearing member. You'd have to angle your support inbound towards the frame rail (not really a frame rail, but we call it that because that's what it looks like) like 30 degrees. And that's where the problem lies. There's no real clean way to do it without adding a good deal of weight. And even then, it just doesn't really make sense after you build the structure to support transferring the load at that angle.



TonyG

Oh I'm not talking about coming in through the 1/4 panels. That would be quite unwieldy.

I'm talking about mounting to (through) the rear body panel. similar to how 95ONE did it, only using the design I described above.

https://rennlist.com/forums/attachme...ictures041.jpg

I'll also say that even that design looks like it would do quite well. Seems like it might not have as much of an issue with flex.

Maybe we could have a structural engineer step in here.


TonyG

Surely we have one hanging around somewhere.

Do you see what I'm saying about going through the rear body panel, the same way you go through the hatch? It would allow the wing to be similarly mounted to the chassis and retain hatch functionality, you would be able to mount the wing further back, and you would easily be able to remove it for street driving.

Thinking about it, it might be quite possible to do what I'm saying but there could be significant problems with the design in practice. It would be a PITA to do that just for the sake of not having some holes in the hatch. Sometimes in my head I get carried away with what could be done instead of what should be done.

I suppose the easiest way... look at the wing above... imagine that behind each of the two top mounting points, there is a brace that is welded or somehow attaches that spot on the rear body to the "rails".

The problem isn't all that complicated when you think about it.

The problem is that it's mounted to a non-structural portion of the unibody.

Therein lies the issue.


TonyG

It's all structural, that's why it's called a unibody. For every action there is a reaction and so on and so on. Even the hatch is structural, as are the inner and outer panels over the whole car. The problem is how much force it exerts flexing and how much it transfers to the rest of the chassis. If you strengthen the piece against flexing, all that force must go somewhere. The air pulls on the wing, the wing pulls on it's supports, the supports pull on the rear body, the rear body pulls on the rest of the chassis as a whole, that in turn pulls the shock mounts which applies pressure to the springs and voila, donwforce.

Lets say that we have 100% of the force the wing creates being applied to the rear body panel. For the sake of debate, lets say that in stock form, 70% of that energy is dispersed through the chassis and 30% is lost via flexing of the panel.

We can then assume that the panel needs to be more resistant to flexing. Thus reinforcement is needed. When reinforced, 100% of the energy is now being dispersed through the chassis with minimal flex.

Another way to think of it. you have using the same 70/30 figure, you have 100lb of force. According to our model the rear panel can withstand 70lb's of force before it flexes. That's not a perfect model because it isn't linear, it would have different % of flex at different amounts of pressure (there is always going to be some flex in every design, however minute it may be) but it works for us. You would then reinforce the panel to the point where it could stand 100lb of force with negligible flex, and the problem is solved.

Beside that, you could easily create a design that attaches to the rear body panel yet exerts little or zero force on it, all of it being transferred directly to a more suitable spot.

I will also say this, having personally seen dozens of rear body panels pulled and replaced, I know the forces it takes to flex them, and the design of the 944's rear body panel is a particularly robust one in comparison to many, due to both the construction and it's design in conjunction with the rest of the body. In the design of a 944, it is a significant structural member. It is necessary that is be so when using the hatchback design. It would take a VERY significant amount of force to create even 15% flex. 100's of lb's. I would be willing to bet money on that.

This is getting into a very hairy discussion.

Let me try to put a bit of practical science into it.

When we designed our wing (TonyG likes to call it the Kokeln wing, but actually we designed it ourselves) we took a pragmatic approach: We copied a 996 Cup aerofoil, and a friend of mine which is a phd in math actually did some modeling and simulations on it.

The size and position of the wing are regulated : Not wider, higher and behind the body of the car.

Two variables remained:

1. what is the optimal height, and that came out at about the position it is in the picture some 2 pages back, and in my avatar.

2. What is the downforce, the load the support structure needs to carry.
By recollection this was about 500N at 45 m/s. (112 lbs at 100 mph). 45m/s is the speed that we carry in most of the high speed corners. Since the force of the wing increases with v^2, load at higher speeds can be easily calculated.
Top speeds on corners at Francorchamps are a bit higher, like 55 m/s (120+ mph) and then you can calculate the wing to produce 750N downforce (170 lbs)
Of course we wanted the wing not to break at top speeds, which are a bit above 65 m/s. (145mph) the downforce then is a hefty 1075N (240 lbs)

So any structure that you use to carry the wing should be able to carry quite a bit over what I guess to be the average Rennlisters weight.

So it becomes rather easy to get a seat-of-pants feel for all the structures that are presented: Do I dare to sit on it? Over and over again? And does it bend then?

That is how we came to the layout and dimensioning of the mounting HW.

Another SOP observation: I went from a bridge (968 style) wing to this (let us call it Kokeln style) wing, and it was a very noticeable difference.

Nice to have some real numbers. Can someone tell me, when figuring net down force, you would be measuring the amount of force exerted at the mounting point, so would you then subtract parasite drag from that to get net down force? Gross force exerted is great for figuring mounting points, but for actually selecting the best height, width and placement you would need to be working with net down force.

The angle at which the force is presented to the structure is also important to determining it's strength. A rear body panel being pulled directly backwards is not as strong as if it were applied at a 45deg angle.

Not arguing with your points which are all correct, just though I'd add that.

The drag is, if IIRC from the calculation, about 10% at 100mph. Probably a bit more at higher speeds.

Thanks guys for continuing with this. If nothing else, most of us learn something from these discussions. (Even if it's about clamshell fashion). However can we go a step backwards for a minute. I was ok to have some drilling done through the hatch as this was a spare frame with lexan installed. If we made some solid, yet not too overbearing, internal supports, we could attach the hatch and wing into place for the trackdays and remove and replace the stock glass hatch for ddriving. It may even be possible to make the internal supports modular?
Feel free to discuss other options anyway as I find it all interesting, but I just wanted to clarify my potential options.

My car has the wing in the picture with the blue 968 race car (#55) shown in post 60.

This wing is made by Crawford Composites, originally for Worldwide Motorsports. It is mounted to the rear frame and cage elements: both wing support arms (available from Scott Gomes) penetrate openings in the body below the hatch and above the rear bumper cover.

The car's not available for pictures right now, but I'll post some when it is.

Then you should go with my solution, will work great for you.

https://rennlist.com/forums/6269353-post26.html

Thanks Hans. This looks the best option I believe.

Using this logic I really think I could put my full weight on the rear body at the position where the 968 hoop spoiler is mounted, and it should be plenty strong enough for a wing if mounted properly.

Nice

Hans has some good data.

But it's not just the downforce weight. It's the continual movement of the wing relative to the car that will fatigue the relative portion of the body.


And Hans... why would you proceed to create your own wing from scratch that is a replica of the Kokeln wing? (same support design, same adjustment mechanism, same through-the-glass mounting, and the same air foil). Not that you did a bad job... the opposite. It's just that you recreated the wheel.


TonyG

Tony, as always a pleasure to see you post. The blue car has the Under Pressure Performance (Scott Gomes) wing setup that is mounted to the frame rails via cuts in the body that channel it to the furthest point rearward in the car for maximum downforce placement. It was built at a near $200k price tag with a sister car and they both ruled Club Racing in their areas, changed hands not too long ago - very nice car. Crawford Composites had a hand in the bodywork etc.

As we all know the best place for a wing to create high downforce at high speed is as far back as it can be placed (see 9FF 996 250mph car), but most Racing Bodies state the wing must stay within 6" or so of the bodywork.

This is not about wing placement with respect to downforce. It's about wing placement with respect to structurally acceptable mounting solutions.

The $ someone throws at a car doesn't mean its done right. I've seen many high dollar cars with stupid things done to them.

I'd like to see the pictures of inside the hatch area to see how they transferred the load. Interesting.

I have Scotts number. If I have time I'll shoot him a call.


TonyG

Umm, no. The blue 55 car is/was built for Woodie of World Wide Wines, Jason and Jim Lockton built it.

I have a set of uprights from the car. They went through the rear fiberglass body and attached to the cars rear subframe. Since the back half of this car was tube framed, its not a big deal. On a streetcar, you would have to be creative but it can be done.

here is a pic of the non-drilled bracket.

I'm in the process of finishing up a one-off wing for my own personal project right now myself.

Mine will be mounted to the rear body panel as described by Ryan.

I haven't decided yet whether any additional bracing will be necessary but the rear panel with it's inner structure still intact seems easily up to the task as a mounting point.

I'm pretty certain that the entire rear of a 944 could be lifted off the ground by using this panel as a lift point without distortion to the panel.

I'll post some pics of my uprights and mount design later and can easily pick up the rear of a 944 from the rear panel with a fork lift if anyone really wants to see it....:D

T

Now it makes sense.

It was supported not off the unibody, but off of the tube frame.

Thanks for the clarification. Goes to show how pictures can be deceiving.


TonyG

:thumbup:

Here you go Tony, this is for you! Its not very clear but you can see it..

sorry to quote a pic, but is that a custom one off diffuser???? please say no

So what was incorrect about my statement? That Crawford Composites made the bodywork? I talked to Lockton when I was considering buying it when it was up for sale, was also interested in his centerlock setup. He even stated it in the advertisement.

And just an FYI, Scott Gomes sells a kit exactly like that for the wing setup.

IIRC it's built for a jap car.

$$

I think he misread what you wrote and thought you were saying that Gomes built the car perhaps?
You got any internal shots of those Gomes cars Gabriel? That's some serious wing on there!

I read it as it as "the blue car has a UPP SG wing setup" when in fact it was someone elses design that he now makes and sells.

The blue car and the 968's has the UPP wing plates.

Info I got from Scott about 1 ½ year ago:
-------
We fabricate/manufacture the wing uprights and internal mounting plates. The whole setup is pretty trick. The mounting plates allow the uprights to be adjusted fore and aft about an inch an a half. Of course the wing height and overhang are PCA legal.

The kit price is $xxx and comes with with all hardware for installation. The installation is VERY straightforward. The internal mounting plates are setup for the GT Racing wing spacing, but can be adapted to just about anything.

--------

I will say this and then I will let this go.. The Blue 55 car had a sister car, the yellow 66 car in Guns last pic. Both the 55 and the 66 car had the uprights before anyone else. I know and ST can vouch for it as we both lived in CT when they raced at Lime Rock Park. The 66 car was sold to a UPP customer and now ever car has these uprights. These cars were built by a good friend of mine, that is why I have a set. The wing uprights were designed by them and to fit a Crawford wing.

ok, I'm done.

I like Hooters wings.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

I think the setup could work for a street driven track car with a smaller wing element and uprights with half the height. It could end up as a more extreme variant than the 968 ts wing but still not "all out race".

Sorry, I'm pretty sensitive about giving credit where its do, to the point were I look like an Arse but, oh well..


Yes, these can be remade. These can be lower and swoop foward and making a lower slung wing similar to a newer car that wrpas around the rear of the car..

If CPR can make the wing, I can help him with the brackets.

Can do.....design-mold-produce. 6 weeks start to finish......

Let me know.

No, you let me know. I can have my end done in less than a week.

Thanks for putting the pressure on.....

Listen Philps, Put the beer bong down and get to work. Perhaps we start a thread/poll for idea's of a wing design?? or that will be a can of worms.

lolol

I can't put it down....I riveted to my head years ago to free up both hands.

PM some details, I'll have it in 3D CAD by next friday.

Yeah, I remember your baby pics you shared.. Anyhow, lets get some idea's from others as I don't want to waste a bunch of time to have 35 people tell my they hate it..

jeeeeeezzzzuuuussss!

I was one fat bastard! WTF? It looks like I'm hiding twikies in my neck..:roflmao:

I love where these threads just wander off to. lol

Well if I could get the ebay nutter to stop sending me the same reply to a question I asked about that cheaper wing, I would go ahead with it. I think we will try this cheaper wing and do it like Hans' fittings.

Now a related question would naturally be, what do you do about the suspension? Does the wing and front splitter significantly affect the current setup in a bad way?

Oh, I meant to post this car again just for reference in the thread. I'd like to see more pics of the wing setup
but from what I understand the owner is a bit shady so I doubt this is going to happen anytime soon.



Might not be to everybody's tastes but geez the work in this car is amazing.

Sorry man, it must have come out wrong on my part :cheers: I meant that Scott sells the setup now, so if people wanted to get one they'd need to fab it themselves or go through him to get a setup.

The Lockton cars are totally sick and tons can be learned from them - wasn't trying to deprive them of the credit for their awesome work. Everything on the cars built (to include the sick carbon brake scoops) was either custom or top shelf.

Obligatory pic of said badassness:

Wish there were some video of that car and some of the others like it. It's wrong that the world is deprived of these slices of badass history.

I'll email Woodie and Jim. They have a ton of in car video.


Guns, thanks.:thumbup: Now I can sleep at night.

http://www.rennspd.com/P_Detail.asp?PID=680&Task=STD

anyone seen/used on of these Rannspeed units?

http://www.rennspd.com/PImages/RS-944-01_pic2.jpg

Ok we've decided to give one of these a go as they're so much cheaper than some of the uber ones available from Overseas.

So there are 3 to choose from. One is 138cm/54" wide, the next 142cm/55", and the next is big at 173cm/68" wide. The large one is about a $1000 locally and the others are $450 -$500Au. They're 100% c/f and the finish looks pretty good in the pics. Obviously we'll have to make up the mounts and struts but which one do we go for?

Is bigger always better? How wide are our cars btw? I would think the larger the wing the more solid the supports need to be.

They look good.
The car is 173.5 cm wide so the 173cm/68" is a pretty perfect match. Might scare fellow trafficants on the road though :p

Definitely get the big one. Decent prices on those pieces too. Hopefully they arent junk. Theres a reason the jdm ones are expensive.

A lot of talk on the wing, what do you use to secure the glass (or lexan) when the factory rear spoiler is gone?

Traffic Ants....I like it.
That's a bit of a coincidence re the widths, maybe too much to ignore, but is there a downside to going that wide...apart from reverse parking :evilgrin:

Screws or rivets.

Do they specify a wing profile?

Rivets are very likely to cause cracks in lexan. The holes should be bigger than the fasteners. Some of the really nice cars in this thread look like the hatch is glued. What is the glue of choice? I've made an aluminum cover that overlaps the rear end of the hatch glass and is screwed to the frame, glued to the glass.

No mention of wing profiles. What do you mean Rod, the angles available or something else?

I think you're correct. I haven't looked at the lexan hatch for so long that I can't remember how they're connected. Could easily have glue as well but I'd like to do something more secure because getting one of these lexan rear windows in Australia is basically impossible and there are obvious potential shipping issues.

Well it is a wing, it needs to be aerodynamic.

I think when Rod says wing profile he means the shape of the cross section.

My guess it's a Chinese copy so they probably haven't done any design work so to speak, just copied someone else's design. I would bet that it's never been anywhere near a windtunnel. Though it looks pretty similar to some other designs.

Yea you don't want a plank, it needs some shape to it,hard to tell from the pics.

Well heres a good picture to compare yours to:

https://images.google.com/url?source...6nD8xOhoH26CBg

That wing has been in the windtunnel. It obviously has the upper element but the base element works by itself(at a higher angle of attack), so you can look at that one for comparison.

Another example (drool on the seat!)
http://maxrev.net/Icons/AJR/Timeatta...s/DSCF0228.jpg
https://www.aj-racing.com/shop/files/d_1538.jpg
https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2022...7d698e23dd.jpg
More of a traditional airfoil:
https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124...001fa29cb3.jpg

Nice pics! Well from what I can see, these cheap ones do mimic the expensive ones to some degree so I'll give it a go.
Yup, nice seat too.

I think your major decision from there is which wing to go with- conventional airfoil style or the newer 3D style.

Most GT cars other than Super GT/GT300 (JGTC) use a large airfoil with multiple elements. I would imagine a lot of it has to do with the overall aerodynamics of the car.

You would think our cars are probably pretty close aerodynamically to an rx7. The re amemiya gt300 car uses somewhat of a mix between a 3D wing and an airfoil. Heres a picture:
https://images.google.com/url?source...trA-o772cmAXNQ

This is OT, but I just found this picture of a 350Z with an interesting hood that looks similar to what some of the 951 guys here do. Kinda like a vented header panel without a vent. I bet a vent makes it worse.

http://www.bespokeventures.com/blog/...5432602_rs.jpg

Check out the effect! Major delamination. Hard to say whether or not it's even relevant to a 951, but you have to wonder.

on the Z the bulge is in the forward part of the hood to make room for something else, generally ive seen it hiding the vortech supercharger kits that are available for those cars.

on a 951 the bulge you are probably referring to is on the lindsey stage v header panel which is much lower and further forward on the car but overall doesnt stick up that much, in addition it is not a closed bulge like the Z's rather it is an intake for the big intercooler that air flows through. if anything it might be a liability for causing lift but a good lower splitter/spoiler should take care of that

The header panel will still cause delamination.

Well on another matter I am looking at a vent for my c/f hood. It is an outlet vent rather than scoop. This is so that it can work in with the 931 nose vents to create a flow through effect. With the large front mount i/c in front of the a/c condenser and radiator, we want to get as much flow through as possible. Ultimately we might duct it directly to dedicate it entirely for this purpose. It won't have a big bulge like the Z in the pic, but I'm still looking for the appropriate option.
Any ideas on this? I would need something that I could have cut into the current c/f hood and melded in.

NACA ducts are where it's at from an intake standpoint. From an outlet standpoint, a hood vent similar to the one on an F40 LM looks like it would be very efficient.

Tony do you remember approx how much the Kokeln one cost?

Here's a pretty fast car...
http://www.juergen-alzen-motorsport....ia/39_9563.jpg

Now that does put the 'Black' into 'Decker' lol
Perhaps a little large for my application Duke :)
I've decided upon the medium size cheap one. I was going to do the large but thought for now it was too big plus it's twice the price and if it's crap I didn't want to have $1000 into it. $500 is fine for now. It should look a little like this car.

I am struggling to find a decent hood vent though. The best I can come up with are these. They're overpriced but having the 2 might work in better with this hood as it has the stock center support underneath.
At $400 for the pair they're not cheap but as I said, coming up with something hasn't been as easy as I thought.
I am also keen on the Aerocatch hood latches for security/safety as well with the c/f hood.

Hoping both can be retro fitted to an existing hood?

$400? Yikes man. I'd just use the uglier one for 1/4 of the price...

Yeah I know but damn it is ugly. Have you ever checked out these things on the internet? It is depressing how many parts there are for so many other cars except ours. C/F up the wazoo flying around the neighborhood, just not on our cars.

This sounds like a good project for the guys making the new V1 & V3 splitters!!!


TonyG

Actually not a bad idea Tony. These could be inserted into steel, f/g, or c/f hoods. The concept will work for anyone's car. Getting rid of underhood heat will help virtually any car and especially modified cars and even moreso ones with larger front mount i/c. It's a win for all.

I thought I've seen some wings attached to the license plate area.

Yes Marc you have but I want something that is modular. I have a spare lexan hatch and want to be able to mount this wing through the lexan and into the hatch area onto something very sturdy. Then take it all off and put my normal hatch (which will have a 968 trs wing) on for day to day use. By doing it the other way I would have to modify or cut into the rear bodywork which I am hoping to avoid.

why not make provisions in a lexan hatch for a spoiler to mount through and secure to the rear deck floor?

Well that's not the main issue as we will just drill the necessary holes through the lexan anyway.

i meant that there seems to be a discussion about mounting to the hatch vs the frame of the car..

Right. This has been discussed already in this thread. Tony G and Hans both have wings attached in this manner. This is what I will do also.

I'd like to see more of that body kit. Any info you could provide on where to get it would be appreciated.


TonyG

Hans...

What you said has stuck in my mind. And honestly, when you dictated these numbers I was a little taken back as they were much lower than what I would have guessed.

And on the track, once I cross certain threshold speeds, the difference in rear end grip is night-and-day. In fact, I've had to increase my rear spring rates & slightly raise my rear ride height as a result of the wing in the high speed corners to prevent bottoming out.

After reading a few articles (and I'm by no means an expert), it seems that cars using similar wings are quoting much higher downforce numbers.

Take for example the Dodge Viper ACR. With the rear wing, the front splitter, and the nose mounted dive plane, Dodge quotes a "cumulative 1,000 pounds of downforce".

So how much of that is attributed to the rear wing? And at what speed?

I just can't see how the wing "only" is producing in the range of 170 lbs of down force at 120mph.

Some clarification would be appreciated.

TonyG

I downloaded a PDF recently someone linked to. A study of wings on a 944 by a Justin Smith. For a racing wing with 4.69 sq ft at 100 mph it showed around 120 pound downforce with 0 deg angle, and around 300 pound at 12.5 deg angle @ 100 mph.
150 mph gave 678 pound downforce from the 12.5 angle.

There are two problems here: Claims (Dodge) and memory (mine)
Both can be considerably vague or off.

My friend did the modeling in a aerodynamics package, and I lost that results.
This was done in the time before I put all those on a RAID disc, which I do now.

I did look into it myself again ( I am an engineer, but not in this area) , and I found an on line simulator from NASA

If I assume our wings have an area of 5 square feet, some playing around with this simulator generates in optimal conditions (laminar flow = no turbulence, optimal shape and angle)downforce of 375 lbs (Area=5 ft, angle=-12 degrees) at 100 mph. So, you are right, it is 3 times more then the numbers I originally presented

So when we are saying X pounds downforce, is this literally like placing that amount of dry weight on the wing itself and the resultant effects? Does this also reflect in the spring rates? What does eg 500lb/in mean? Surely not something as simple as it take 500lb to compress it an inch? If my basic logic is correct then wouldn't adding wing have a possible strong effect on spring rate? Hence Tony's assertion that he had to upsize to avoid bottoming out?
In fact I asked this question just the other day to my mechanic. Will I need to get stiffer springs? How will I know if I do? Is this merely determined by bottoming out or not? I have fairly stiff spring rates but I'd be interested to know what rates other be-winged cars have and if they had to be increased due to downforce. Also what about bump and rebound, did the wings require an alteration to these settings?

remember to check out the APR wings, they have actual datasheets on the wings... apr gtc 300 is the one I want. just need some $$$, patric, if I can scrape enough $$ together Im going 996TT (same tranny as you got) got a good deal on one now, but low on cash after buying the 7 series + misc ****.

Anders, we got the wing for now. It looks very good but it's a copy so no hard data. See other thread with test pics. https://rennlist.com/forums/944-turb...ng-teaser.html
You will do the tranny conversion before me possibly. Depends if the new motor destroys my current one. We have an idea how to fit it, but in this car it might be harder than a dedicated track car. We'll look into it in more detail over the coming months. Mine's had the 'operation' done to it already for working in the 'flipped' position too. Just sitting in a crate now...waiting. :(

Yes


Yes

Yes

Yes

That was easy.

That is harder. Increasing wing has only an effect on higher speeds, and all the other parameters work over the entire speed range. So this would be trial and error to find the optimal rates. But then, bump and rebound rates are trial and error anyway.

Heheh, thanks Hans, that was easy for you. :) What rates are you running? I assume you've removed Torsion bars?

Tony I believe that is not a bodykit but some one off stuff. It looks like a LOT of time and money has gone into that car. It's in Sweden I think and allegedly owned by someone with a 'colourful' character.....

So what if the angle was at say 15 degrees at 135mph?


How many lbs of downforce would that equal?

And do you mind point us to the same spreadsheet so that we could do the calcs on our own?

TonyG

@TonyG: Better then a spreadsheet. Just play with it.

I'm interested in what to expect also. See the new wing into position and also with the small rear lip spoiler. Looks much better like this. This takes some time in setting up from scratch. Sean spent many hours getting this far. Still a little bit more to do yet but looking good so far.
I wonder with the non linear front part of this wing, just how much angle is going to be needed? Seems like this style of wing is becoming more popular that the straight or flat ones.

I've got another paper on this 'stuff' that I've sent to Tony. I can't upload it here as it's too big (3 pages??) however it seems to suggest that more downforce measured in psi is exerted than perhaps we've covered here, but also list what sort of hp loss over drag that is incurred. Interesting stuff.

Another thing I've noticed is that in both Hans' link to the NASA program and this paper I'm alluding to, they're both dealing with a cross section of a foil in 2D. So this is only scratching the surface. Well beyond my tiny mind but I like it nonetheless.

Lot of useful info at the apr site here

That is good info, reasonably consistent with the NASA model

@Patrick: The stuff is complicated enough in 2D, we might want to leave the third dimension in peace.

I am planning to put some linear transducers on my shocks to do some real measurements and analysis, hopefully this summer

Great site but how would you mount these to our cars?

they make custom spaceing on the mounts, then a long upright directly into the "frame rails" was my plan.

I wondered how hard it would be to make moveable struts or uprights so that down the straight the wing either lowered or changed angles and visa versa on the corners? You could even hook this up to your GPS racetrack box thing that has the circuit in it's memory and therefore knows when you're coming up to a corner.
Just trying to think outside the square....

Well from what I can glean with a quick scan of that site (thanks Rod) is that these wings are designed to incorporate positive downforce with the least amount of drag. As opposed to a single plane flat wing. This doesn't look completely different from the one I've got so I guess we can set it up with the raised centre section on Zero degrees pitch and yet create downforce with the lip and the side sections. Does this seem about right?

I have a contact at EXA (http://www.exa.com/) if anyone is interested in the 3D analysis end of this... Just bear in mind, just the wing analysis would probably cost more than some of the cars that might be interested in installing this wing....

The last sim they ran for us took three weeks, and cost just north of 50K, but WOW are the tools they have powerful...And solutions they provide are dead on acurate...

Ahh what the heck John, just book us in :)

I was just trying to put into perspective the difference between a 2D sim on the web and a 3D CFD sim being used by US DOD, Auto OEMs, and high end professional race teams (the guys running multi million dollar cars)... Their suite time shares on supercomputer base frames and can take days to compile, but gives actual visual feedback, and they can run sims based on any parameters given (IE drag, downforce, AND thermal impact of wing X at angle Y on vehicle Z at speed A,B,C,D,E)...

I have used their POWER SIM, and all I can say is WOW, it allows you to change geometry of a given system and watch the impact of the changes in real time...

No doubt that would be just slightly higher tech than we are doing lol. Looks very interesting and wouldn't it be nice to get one of our cars in there and let some guys have a play around?

I'm wondering how much drag vs downforce is important? At what stage does the angle of attack become counterproductive?

Might be a little overkill, but their client list speaks for itself... I am a consultant to some very powerful entities, and their analysis was very important to our work... They also have Porsche (think design changes between GT-3 and GT-2), Chrysler, Navistar... Basically if it goes fast, is top in fuel efficiency, or is sold world wide they have analyzed it at one time or another, but they are expensive...

Real world trial and error can get the same effect, but at the end of the day depending on expense of real testing they are cost effective...

Drag and downforce are the main things to pay attention to, least drag most downforce, broadly speaking as you increase the angle downforce and drag increase but at a certain point drag starts increasing more than downforce, so the efficiency of the wing lessens.How much drag you can tolerate is determined by your horsepower and the speeds you intend to run.

eh who cares about drag...

Thats what big turbos are for right?

Actually it's interesting to note just how raked the wing is on your yellow Ferrari???

Whats next, neon lights, lol.. It actually looks pretty good.

****... that was our surprise for you. not only neons but they flash when th 15inch subs in the boot hit a beat!

I will still be excited. You guys are what we call Getto, lol.. Hey, Patrick said you guys are always saying us Americans are overweight, bigger, better , etc... Well, I just watched a commercial about 1 out of 2 Aussie's are over weight and its not because of eating but excessive drinking too, lol! thats Great!! Ok, Patrick, discuss... I'm off to drink beer, cheers...

...burp...hic...

Well of course that's the age old compromise and why I suspect that the shape of wings has changed from the single line aerofoil to all these newer ones with curves, lips, bi-wings etc. I'm actually thinking about having one that is adjustable while you drive...self adjusting that is. Bit of work, but achievable. Not for now though.

Well adjustable would be useful, but you have to keep in mind f/r balance

True...hmm? Probably if you set up your balance for some wing, and then had it go to zero lift down the straights, you would be OK I suspect.

After reading this (great) thread, I've noticed Porsche Super Cup cars, VLN cars and (some ?) Le Mans cars have 2D wings while the 997GT3RSR has a 3D wing. Is this down to rules and regulations or what?

inspirational!

Having a wing rake upto almost vertical under brakes is some thing think about now and then so it would obviously be activated by the brake pedal.
I guess the other way to do it would be with some kind off accumulator and activate with a sensor as soon as there is a little steering lock on.

Can am McLarens had the wing pushing down on the rear control arms not on the body ...

its illegal in most race classes, not mine though :)

im working on putting a mkIII supra spoiler on mine

any pictures?

hi everyone.
new here as i just picked up a 1987 944 turbo and was wondering if anyone knew where i could find this wing.

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2221491

thanks in advance.

The owner was selling it a while back...see if it is still available...

Finally finished my rear aluminum bumper / spoiler support.. I Guess it's like the "Light blue" porsche in the beginning, and much like Hans' support.. Except of course.. Mines off an all aluminum subframe.. man I got lucky and it fits right up to the lexan as planned.. It never turns out that way.. It just did this time though! Here are a couple of pics.. Not exactly a stock thing, but very possible for many.

http://i508.photobucket.com/albums/s...44stuff045.jpg
http://i508.photobucket.com/albums/s...44stuff046.jpg

Nice progress Bruce.

Hey Nyssr ...... that is a 928 S4 wing and I've always wondered how it would look it probably has a custom mount ....
I'd love to see some more pics of it please naylor.adam@gmail.com

yea so would i but i havent come across any more of them.
i tryed PMing the owner but got no responce :(.
are you sure its a 928 S4 ?

Looks like a Strosek sort of bodykit/wing to me?

Bruce, that's looking great. My only question is, will that affect your diffuser?

Very cool.

Actually, it will help it.. IF you look, the bottom is actually flat.. which I will be putting a panel there. The diffuser sits a lot lower than this.. So it will not interfere.

Thanks! Millions more hours to go!

bumpage

Seriously looks like a Fiero GT wing adapted to one of the typical side mounts for the adjustable wings.

...and it looks like crap :)

wasnt asking your OP,if you have no info y post?

Because I can. That's the glorious thing about the internet, I can voice my opinion. If you don't want it, then don't read what I write.

I just did a comparison between the fiero wing and the one in the picture.. Isn't the same one. Pretty close though.

yea your right your just another internet asss and an :atwhore:.

thanks for the info 95ONE, i tried pming the guy but no luck.

Well for what it's worth I spent about 20 minutes trying to find more information for you but had no luck. Guess I won't look any more for you.

You could try this one though, would look about the same: http://www.jcwhitney.com/BAT_SCORCHE...;0;0;2001931;0

if you are seriously trying to help then i thankyou for your time.
i tried clicking on the link but it doesnt work.
but again thanks for your time.

As the OP on this thread, lets get it back on track a little.

As far as the wing I have goes, it's still on the car. It is solid. I have no data whatsoever if it actually does anything but my times at the track have improved over the last few outings. Unfortunately I can't tell what these improvements have come from. New tyres, new turbo, new suspension setup, rear wing?? Who knows. That is the biggest problem with being impatient. You slap too many things on at the same time and can't give quantifiable data on any of it. Well you can but you'd have to run some very specific tests all of which take time and money.

ps good news is the other motor is re awakening. Saw 13psi at 2500rpm on the big turbo which is very exciting!

Patrick, be more patient!
It's also possible that you are becoming a better drover...and none of the other crap helped at all.

Patrick, I want to get a custom wing for my car once I do the turbo conversion (968). I want to try something different from the factory turbo RS look. I like the one in your avatar, and the like. Is a lexan hatch required for this? I have a glass 924 hatch I was hoping to use. I know lexan is lighter, and for all intents and purposes it's da shet, but mine will be a road car / DD once in a while. The lexan will either turn yellow, or get scratched, etc.

I didn't throw that into the mix but I'm sure I've improved too. Having spent a bit more time on the track than the last few years recently has certainly helped. On another note, I've actually just done a track day in the US outside of Chicago in a track prepped BMW M3. Lots of fun and it's made me more determined to build up a lighter, stronger, more responsive track car. At this stage it will be out of my street car. Combined with the 3L motor, this will certainly be a LOT quicker than my current car.

Yes Arash, you do need a Lexan rear hatch. Well if you want to do it the same way as most have. You could possibly do it in the way that some others have by using those supports that attach to the rear of the car but I'm not sure of their legality on the street, nor do I particularly like the look. You'll see some of these examples in this thread actually. The downside of doing it like on my car is that it renders access to the rear hatch area via the hatch itself obsolete as you have to fasten it down. You can still put things in there via the cabin but not conveniently. This is really for a race application and we swap mine over to a glass hatch and 968rs spoiler for the street. It also saves the Lexan from prematurely aging. Lexan is pretty hard to get down here so I have to try and keep mine in good condition for as long as I can.

How much of a PITA is it to swap hatches? Does it get easier/faster? I've only done it once (to reseal it) and I took my time, and I wouldn't look forward to swapping one for a track event. But you're right, you need to preserve the lexan.

I wish one of those strosek hatches was pretty, then I could just buy one of those and stick a fat wing on it. I also wish the hatch wasn't so large... like, D pillars would have been nice...

You need 2 people. I'm lucky and have a great friend/mechanic who does the bulk of my work, this included. The wing also provides a nice table to put things on between runs. :D

WERE DID YOU BLACK OUT YOUR REAR TAIL LIGHT THATS SWEET

? me, or someone else?
Just went through the whole thread.. mine are the only one's blacked out..
Hours of spraying spray on tint. Actually a $10 can of VHT blackout paint to be specific. Went very slow. 7-10 light coats. Screwed up a lot and cleaned off and started over many times at first though. It's decent, but not truly professional.

Actually, 95ONE, if I may chime in and answer with a better solution. You go to a body shop. Get them to prep your tail lights, and clear coat them with black toner added to it. It goes on as paint. Polishes as paint. And it doesn't get any more professional that that. I took top three best paint finishes at the Scottsdale auctions a few years back. It's even darker than in the pics as the flash was catching the tail lights. At night, the lights shine through perfectly and I've never got a mention from it with all my traffic stops. Except how awesome my car is. I kept it a secret long enough. Not too many people know about it. Way better than the cheap can spray. It flakes off, never lasts, and even when it first goes on, it looks like ****. I did all my lenses except my fogs of course. Hope it helps. Sorry about the hijack.

Can't believe this thread has gone on so long. I can't stand these wings on our cars. Looks worse than the spray on tint. The solution would be to get the 968 Turbo S replica wing. That's just my .02 and getting back on track.

^^^^^ THE way to do it.. We have a painter that has done many Cherry red clears over rx7 tail lenses.. keeps them all one color.. Looks perfect. So certainly, same goes for a clear with a dark toner.

yeah well i scraped this idea after trying to mount the huge bases it didnt work out well it did but it looked like crap so now im working on mounting an adj. aluminum one

Yeah but remember Joe, I'm swapping out this wing/lexan rear window combo to my glass with 968 rs rear wing for the road so hopefully that meets your eye a little better. I've not actually taken any pics of the 968 one yet. I bought it from a Dutch vendor and it has a quite nice c/f centre piece but on close inspection it wasn't worth all the hassle and cost to do it. I'd wait for the one from D9 if I was to do this again.

This one seems to work well enough ...

https://lh3.ggpht.com/_NCTKUEHu-jQ/R...he+924+GTR.jpg

Makes sense. They wouldn't have thrown it on for no good reason. Nice pic Luis.

What are you bumping for though Mike?

seems to be a pattern with the fastest and most successful racers of the series to have the duck tail. Raetech, which has done tunnel testing and is the most successful racing 944 chassis ever - which still dominates - runs the duck tail.

Gabe, I assume these are either old pics or cars in period costume (so to speak). Do
you have any reason to think that these Ducktails are superior to a more modern rear wing?

For the intented use yes, the duck tail is designed to reduce lift not create downforce, the large wing setups in a clean airstream like your setup is designed to apply downforce, not reduce lift. So with any wing setup, as we all know it must be balanced with the front splitter to manage added downforce front and rear, but one needs to figure out if they intent to reduce lift or add downforce, or both.

Each has its own unique drag penalties but it depends on what is being asked of the car to do.

The GT2 - S car in the top pic is one of the faster PCA racers out there - Mr. Wong owns it, and it is managed by a top notch shop with tons of racing under its belt so it knows what's going on - however I feel that it largely has to do with the speeds the cars will be seeing on different tracks etc.

I for one don't know which is better for which environment, simply stating the obvious here, however - it does bring a valid argument as to why they ran only the duck tails and not large spoilers, whereas modern running and modified 951's like the KMR V8 ($350k) runs a large wing on uprights that are up to the roof, or the class spanking car that has the Scott Gomes setup (Lockton brother's car). So it could be a class/rules thing, a speed setup for certain track thing or just because it wasn't a well loved project thing.

Looking back, I look to the 911 GT1, and just about all features it offers, are what is needed for super high speed stability and air management. Then look at the 911 RSR's from the 1970's where they sported large tails, but not high at all, mainly just extra body to hold the air and manipulate it longer as the 911 is a study in tail lift at speed...so naturally to me I would say a large aerofoil is for cars able to attain speeds worth of it, in an airstream smooth and fast enough to make it work for an extended period of time, whereas if its a low speed setup, something that reduces lift will work just fine without the added aero drag penalty.

Hope this kinda sums up what i'm thinking.

For what its worth the GTR is going to run a body width size wing 16" in depth and roughly 80" wide.

Most wings seen on race cars are designed after the rule book, and not designed as the best possible wing.
A duck tail type wing like the above would act like a huge air brake with lots of drag.
A proper wing profile in line with the roof would most likely create much more positive downforce along with less drag.

bump

Double bump for more pics. All 944 wing pics accepted. Pics of wing Mountings would also be appreciated. :corn:

Cheapo wing mounted on my trackcar. Metal backing plates are used to increase support strength. Wing works very well in conjunction with my front splitter.

nice

Im interested in the 968 rs adjustable wing.
Anyone know where can I find one?

deutsch nine is making them

deutsch nine - I was talking to them in the last week about adding one to my race car but unfortunately class rules prohibit it. Mark is a great guy to deal with, VERY helpful and there products look first class

Dan, what class are you in?

I mainly run PCA so run G class. Spoilers are free (within certain size restrictions) but wings are a prepared mod and therefore a class bump. A wing is deffined as anything with a leading edge that air can pass under. All is not lost though as a creative site sponser may be working on options for us ;)

Reviving this thread for more pictures and feedback.
Question: If mounting the wing to the back of the hatch and top of bumper...wouldn't that be tied into the chassis?

Few different ways of doing it, but tying it into the chassis is a good idea if you can do it. On my original setup it was tied into a constructed frame that then bolted to the floor of the rear hatch along the frame rails. The wing attached through the lexan.

On the incoming larger wing it's tied into some extra tubing attached to the frame rails. This will need to be much stronger than the previous setup as the wing will generate a lot more downforce. The uprights will be coming through beside the number plate.Don't have many pics yet.

See my wing mount thread for yet another way of doing it.
https://rennlist.com/forums/944-turb...ing-mount.html

https://media9.dropshots.com/photos/...622/020547.jpg

That looks a good way of mounting it Steve and something we considered, but we went with what we did to get them higher and more rearward. Probably come back to bite me with too much understeer. Guess we'll have to find out.

With that wing mazda miatas will be passing you down the long straights... :-)

Why so much wing?

Even with a simple single element 996 Cup Wing (which is almost trivial in comparison), the back end of my car is stuck down and impossible to slide at speeds over 125mph... even with a corded rear tire.

There is so much down force that its not only the issue of understeer... but it really affects top end acceleration and top end speed as well. I'm almost running my wing flat and it still has almost too much rear grip and a ton of drag.

On my new car I'm moving toward the 997 cup style wing which has even less down force.

Just saying...

TonyG

Well you maybe right. Will need to be tested, but here are bullet points;

-Wing designed by Simon McBeath with the knowledge of what car it's going on.
-Can be run as twin and single element at various a.o.a.
-Our tracks are smaller/tighter than the ones you run on.
-Might be overcautious but don't want repeat of rear end stepping out to cause big crash.
-New car will be quite different from old one with a bunch more aero and a lot more power.
-Fastest cars at our local track are Time Attack cars with a lot more aero than a Cup Car.
These cars are 5+ seconds quicker than a Cup car and they're on R spec rubber!!
This car was did a 1:25 flat on it's first real outing and on Hankook Z221s. The fastest Aussie V8s did a high 1:27 in qualifying on full slicks.

Yeah but those time attack cars are making huge power and only run a couple of laps at a time. The Aussie V8 Supercars are running at WOT for hours on end. Big difference. And they are power limited. And they are probably heavier as well. And... they are not running on a super soft tire to qualify because they have to run the same tire during the race whereas the time attack car is running the softest tire they can get. Apples to Oranges.

Take a time attack car in the trim you see them competing in and see how many laps they would make it on a 100F day ..... :-) Not many.

And the thing about cup cars is that just because someone beats one doesn't mean a thing. I beat them all day long in my street legal V8 944. But that's because they can't drive. You put a fast pro in on new slicks and they would destroy the V8 944 by a large margin (which is exactly why I'm building the car I'm building now).

Anyway... I can tell you that a few degrees in AOA on my single element 996 cup wing and it can make as much as a 7mph difference down the straights at WSIR which means the difference between say, 140mph and 147mph over a 1/2 mile straight entered into at about 100mph. And that's a TON.

What I do know is that with the cup car wing elements, even at a very mild AOA, it's almost impossible to get the back end to come around at anything over 120mph (even with bad rear tires).

I'd be curious about how much stiffer you have to spring the car running aero like that (assuming you could get enough aero on the front to balance it out) and the affect that would have on the low/med speed handling.

As far as your crash goes... I looked at the video over and over. There was clearly something very wrong with the car setup for it to do what it did. And I hope after that you get a real seat with a halo and a Hans. You body should have never flopped over like it did when you hit the tires. You're lucky you didn't get seriously hurt.

TonyG

Patrick, you will need to add one hellova front splitter to balance that out. Should be good for the few laps in time trials on the shorter/tighter courses that you run.

To all, make sure that the wing is mounted solidly, I had mine nearly come off at 140 mph (T9 at Road Atlanta).

Sure, understood about the differences between the T/A cars and other 'real racecars' but essentially this is the type of event I will be running next season..or attempt to be running budget allowing.

While the V8s are limited by wheel sizes and tyre compounds, they're also bloody fast and still would have a pretty decent power to weight ratio plus very stiff chassis. I'm using pro drivers in both the V8s and Cups when comparing times.

I hear you on the speed/drag/downforce issues. My belief is that this wing will be designed better than any aftermarket one out there. I'm not comparing to the factory but perhaps the Cup Cars run with a limitation on aero too and would want to run a dual element too if they were allowed?

Yes, the spring rate will need to be upped. Not sure quite by how much and only testing will prove it.

As for the crash, I don't blame the lack of downforce for it, although having more than just a hoop spoiler would have been a lot better. The crash happened due to the rear inside wheel lifting off the deck with a bit of downforce and possibly fluids from the car in front contributing. Agreed on all safety aspects. Have Hans and Cobra halo at the ready.

Hey btw, did you ever wind up using slicks on your old car? I am interested in how much difference there is suspension wise between using R specs and slicks. I assume having to change springs at least but some people have said they didn't.

There are pros... and there are pros. Go look at any AMLS race. Most are pros that are paying to drive. The top 1/4 - 1/3 are being paid to drive. And the differences is night and day. I race with several of the paid pros. And they definitely earn their money.

The some of the top time attack cars are running like 1000RWHP (which is WAY more than the V8 cars are allowed to run). So yeah... they can drag a wing like that around. Not me. At 460RWHP... a factory cup car single element can really slow down my car with just few excess degrees of angle. I can only imagine what a that huge (looks almost like an F1 wing) wing will do to your top end.

I studied your crash. And you barely turned in and he car was starting to swap ends. All I can say is that you should be able to get the car very neutral even with out a big wing. A ton of 944 spec racers run without big wings and they are very neutral at the limit.

As far as cup car aero limits go.... I have no idea. But I think that the real benefit of the huge aero would be at lower speeds as the smaller wings stick the car amazingly well (over 120mph). So I can see where the advantage would lie at speeds from 75mph-110mph range... but the top end penalty would be huge (unless you were running 1000RWHP....).

TonyG

No I didn't. Because I didn't feel that I was close enough in lap times to the leaders to justify the added cost. At $1800/set with 4 competitive heat cycles per set, you need to be able to be in a position to win. I was close.. but not close enough.

I am however, going to set the new car up on 18" 315 NT01 tires. This because they are relatively cheap to use to setup purposes. Plus since they are a R compound tire, at my HP, I can run 460lbs less than I can if I run slicks. So since the car is going to be so much lighter with far better brakes and suspension, I'm going to see if I can lap with NT01's fast enough to win. If not, then I'll have to detune/add weight and go to slicks (330's on all 4 corners).

TonyG

I can't imagine needing anything bigger than the wing I am running now on a circuit car. Without the wing my car was always nicely balanced with just a subtle tendency to oversteer the way I used to set it up.

Even with the new wing at 8 degrees the rear end is so much more planted and balance has moved to understeer. I have dropped the front end slightly to bring the balance back to where I like it. I can go to 14 degrees so there is more downforce than I will ever need without going to a bigger wing, even if I push the power levels up a fair bit higher.

Wings are no different than springs or tires or anything else. You need the right amount to balance the weight and power level of the car, no more.

Sure, it will be a learning process and one we can work backwards on if necessary. At least we have that option. The main element can be run at 0 degrees if we so deem and the flap can be removed altogether. Plenty of options.

Here's a Lotus that runs a similar wing to mine. Not that this is a great comparison but at least it's a successful car with a big dual element wing.

The car has about 75x more rear down force than that front splitter could ever generate.

So much for a car that is perfectly balanced in stock form.

He's probably not going fast enough to really get the rear wing working.... because if he did, the car probably wouldn't turn.

BTW> What's up with the weird front wheels? It's like the re-barreled 15" wheels into 18" wheels. Very strange.

TonyG

Not sure on the wheel choice. Also that's an Autocross car. As for not being able to turn, I am told that this is a 3 or 4 times National championship winning car...so you may say that it's not getting up to enough speed to initiate downforce but I suspect that it's a winning combination nonetheless.

A bit more info on Simon McBeath:
http://www.tunersgroup.com/Products/wings.html

Good Aero has a nice set up as well. They have a Wing and Splitter Combo that a bunch of NASA guys run.... Pictures on there site

http://www.goodaero.com/JSG/GOODAero.nsf/Products?Open

Autocross = not getting out of 3rd gear.


TonyG

I am looking for a wing this year as well. After developing the car as far as I could without one. I know the only way I can get rid of my high speed over steer issues at track out will be a wing. Same concerns as everyone else. I want as small and flat a wing as possible and still achieve the down force I need. I do like the Good Aero but its pricey and would like some other options.
keep me posted

Without trying to sound stupid, wouldn't the 968 Turbo RS Wing be sufficient? I figure if they use it on their factory race car, it's probably the best bet. No? Would it give enough down force? Would it slow you at top speed?

Well, the TRS wing was developed a while ago. I'm not sure how much work they put into developing it either. But I would side with you, that Porsche knows best (within reason).

968 Turbo RS Wing be sufficient?

From what I have read the downforce it made with that wing was not very much. It's more then a reg 968 wing which is almost nothing.It was a wing that again was designed based on a spec and not based on a clean slate.

Yep, understood. That's why I wrote that but look at the link. This guy doesn't just build wings for Autocross cars.

Here are some pictures of my new wing. I used this thread for reference quite a few times, so I thought I should make a contribution. The wing is an APR GTC-200 universal fit. I need to keep the wing under the roof line and within the footprint of the car. Here's the APR wing description with CFD etc.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-e...3+17.48.05.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-i...3+17.47.29.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-v...8+21.03.20.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Y...8+21.03.08.jpg

The wing has to weigh what? A buck fifty? That should give some extra downforce at any speed. ;)

Do they make them for men? :p

I see at the track you go to automatically puts a plastic sheet under the car to catch all the leaks

You have to have those due to environmental regulations at the tracks in Sweden these days.

Do you have any underbody pics to share Duke? I see hints of something special under there.

Damn... That looks sweet! Are there any vids from your car driving?

Duke

What diameter rear sway bar are you using?

I think we all need some more pics of your car.

TonyG