ReallY dont like those big wings messes up the clean look duck is most id do
09-24-2014, 07:44 PM
#16
Burning Brakes
I don't usually like wings, but when I do, it's the Techart Type I that does it for me, nice and subtle.
I prefer the basic lines of the 911 on its own, without any interruption, and don't really like the OE Aerokit on vanilla 911s - but I dig the OE bodykit and wings on the Turbo and GT cars.
I prefer the basic lines of the 911 on its own, without any interruption, and don't really like the OE Aerokit on vanilla 911s - but I dig the OE bodykit and wings on the Turbo and GT cars.
09-24-2014, 08:23 PM
#17
Poseur
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I agree that sometimes wings detract. Every model 911 to 930 to 993, etc. looks particularly good with or without, depending upon the era. Ultimately, Porsche was listening as the 964, 993, 996, 997 and 991 all have deployable tail spoilers--hiding when not truly needed.
I used to have a car that looked very balanced with the whale tail (back when they were not that common) and thought it looked very nice. I'm glad that the 997 tail hides away. I routinely drive in such a way that my tail never deploys--for a reason. I create more drag when my tail is up--which happens at about 77.5 mph indicated (75 mph actual).
I used to have a car that looked very balanced with the whale tail (back when they were not that common) and thought it looked very nice. I'm glad that the 997 tail hides away. I routinely drive in such a way that my tail never deploys--for a reason. I create more drag when my tail is up--which happens at about 77.5 mph indicated (75 mph actual).
09-25-2014, 12:55 AM
#19
Not including the Turbos, which have always had a balanced look with the wide hips and spoiler/tails - Porsche itself was never very happy with the way the tails upset the lines of the standard 911. It is the main reason they went with the retractable tail in the 964/993. The ever higher speeds dictated the need for the tail but they wanted to keep the classic profile from the roof to the rear bumper. I read that in a well regarded book about Porsche company history (and I apologize for not remembering the title).
They, of course, have offered tails and aero kits as an option because the market wants them.
They, of course, have offered tails and aero kits as an option because the market wants them.
09-25-2014, 02:12 AM
#20
Advanced
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento Area
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-25-2014, 02:48 AM
#21
Race Director
the 911 is such a clean design. Those big rear wings those racing things really just messes up the clean lines.. Ducktails would be the most i think would do. Just sharing and maybe create discussion....
For a gt3 that was intended for racing at high speeds, i guess they are a neccesity more than anything else. But i take the car on more than 200kph runs and totally stable and confident feel....without the wings!
For a gt3 that was intended for racing at high speeds, i guess they are a neccesity more than anything else. But i take the car on more than 200kph runs and totally stable and confident feel....without the wings!
09-25-2014, 04:13 AM
#22
Race Car
The only 997 that pulls off the wing is the GT3 RS/GT3 4.0. If you want a wing to look right you need a 930 Turbo or a 993 Turbo. The wing on the 997 Turbo is so bad I won't even consider buying the car.
09-25-2014, 08:05 AM
#23
Race Car
I know right? Why I like the C4S...but everytime I see one of those wings I just think...hmmm??? Oh and "SpeedyD"...nice C4S yourself 
Probably won't do it and if I do would be "way" down the road as any money I put into my C4S would be performance/handling...hope to start doing DE events soon...missing one this weekend at Sebring
Probably won't do it and if I do would be "way" down the road as any money I put into my C4S would be performance/handling...hope to start doing DE events soon...missing one this weekend at Sebring
09-25-2014, 02:31 PM
#25
09-25-2014, 02:52 PM
#26
Rennlist Member
On my RUF 997 I added active aero to their normally fixed in the up position bi-plane wing so it looks a little lower profile parked or driving around town, but then lifts at 77 when there's value in the additional downforce.
On my wife's C2S, we changed out to the active aero rear decklid and spoiler from the TT.
On my wife's C2S, we changed out to the active aero rear decklid and spoiler from the TT.
Incredibly classy looking cars Pete, I'm envious
09-25-2014, 11:00 PM
#29
Rennlist Member
I will take the wheels off the yellow Ruf.
09-25-2014, 11:23 PM
#30
Rennlist Member
I actually did some research on this. Downforce amount that really translates to measured diffs in lap times requires cup car front bumper and low splitter and cup car rear wing. Or a similar custom setup you probably saw on GTS class nasa race cars.
What you run - this stock gt3 mini wing according to data I was able to collect has 0 influence on lap times.
Stock car can slightly benefit from a front lip, and it is exactly what i did. I noticed then slight improvement of mpg numbers during highway drive, in area of 2-3 mpg. Lap times did not change and max lateral g mid corner did not change.
Despite of a comic tone of this thread, i actually agree, to drive around town with a half of a grand piano behind is stupid.
What you run - this stock gt3 mini wing according to data I was able to collect has 0 influence on lap times.
Stock car can slightly benefit from a front lip, and it is exactly what i did. I noticed then slight improvement of mpg numbers during highway drive, in area of 2-3 mpg. Lap times did not change and max lateral g mid corner did not change.
Despite of a comic tone of this thread, i actually agree, to drive around town with a half of a grand piano behind is stupid.