Wings and things...

If you think you need a rear wing, ask yourself,:
Why?
  • How much will it cost?
  • How will you adjust it?
  • How will you test it to know how to adjust it?
  • Will you use a wind tunnel to derive the best height and attack angle, and the relative positions that yeild better drag or better downforce for the different tracks you run?
  • Do you have on board data aq to help make those track to track calls?
  • Have you developed every other aspect of your package?
  • Do you have the budget to replace the springs you'll need with the new downforce?
  • And the dampers to go with the new springs?
(Oh, and the original allowance of "air dams" was probably done so as to create a logical place for brake ducts to mount to. Air dams were common at the inception of IT)
 
OK, I'm not an aero engineer but I did play one on a regional level for 5 years on a FC team. The racer's bible on the subject is Joseph Katz' Race Car Aerodynamics : Designing for Speed. What I have read and discovered through much testing is that you can create a tremendous amount of down force with little or in some cases (the diffuser) practically no drag if designed and setup properly.

Down force, as its name implies, increases downward loading on the tires w/o increasing the cars weight at high speeds. This additional load allows more side forces to be created at lesser side slip thereby reducing the heat and subsequent wear due to frictional force. Plain and simple the car sticks better in the turns even with a smaller contact patch. Also, aero can be used to effect weight transfer during high speed braking as the aero loading can be larger than any weight transfer that is occurring. While inducing some drag at its location aero elements can and do reduce overall drag of the car at speed.

Some may have noticed the common factor is high speed. Most aerodynamic elements and especially wings require a decent amount of speed to be effective. High speed corners like 12 and 1 at Road Atlanta are good examples for those familiar with the track. The slower the speed the larger the element must become to be of any use and then you compromise any down force gained with added drag. Unless you want something the size of Texas hanging off your car think about where you race and if aero would get you anything. At some tracks we would flatten or remove elements due to the speeds involved vs. any drag that may be produced.

The vast majority of the crap I see hanging on cars of the tuner, ricer or whatever category you want to call them are all drag and little or no down force. Even if you had access to a wind tunnel for testing I would suspect the amount of down force generated as a percentage of overall weight of the car would be pretty dismal not to mention the drag induced. These "sculptured" elements are more for looks than record books and as my esteemed colleague Mr. Amy expressed they look gay.

Many aero elements can and have been fabricated for fairly cheap when compared to other go fast items. Properly designed they can be easily adjusted at the track so you can get real data to back up any ideas you want to try. Do they have a place in IT? I haven’t given it much thought as I'm more interested in getting things like jacking plates added or removing vestigial street car items in order to make my racing easier and cheaper.
 
I don't know much about REAL aero stuff but I bet you a set of tires that if this sort of thing is allowed, it will get REAL expensive. I bet you don't just bolt it on and nail the settings. Testing, testing and more testing. Then equipment changes/upgrades to compensate for the 'new' dynamics you have created. The guys with the know-how and the bucks will make these things sing and the average guy may even slow his car down. Seperation between the haves and the have-nots is what I see.
[/b]
Click to expand...

This quote is the truth.

Sure wings an aero are cool, but don't be fooled into thinking they will improve the racing any.
 
I've been looking at the aero opportunities for my SPO car - anybody coming to the Fun One at the Glen this weekend should look for Mike Cohen's GT1 stock car that developed like a hybrid Trans Am style racecar. I think Mike and the guys from Mach I Performance are onto the next generation of GT1 cars. Mike is WAY under the 2:00 mark and will run with cars that are $50K+ more than his car. Big performance gains via better aero.

The development of an aero package for my car similar to his car STARTS at around $3K. (Yes, I am trying to get the former ASA aluminum block cars into GT2 or worse case, GT1)

I like better aero and cool looks but not a good idea for IT - not when done right. A wing off eBay, well, Greg said it already. I can see those things coming loose and pounding somebody's font end.
 
"Why would [attracting more racers, spectators, and media to IT] be a good thing?"



Greg, are you kidding?

Does IT need more participation? Well, in the Midwest this year we have essentially 2 ITS cars vying for the championship and we there are only around 5 or 6 even entered. We used to have 30-car IT fields here; now we have 15. And nobody shows up to watch.



Yea, I'm talking purely aesthetic. No apologies! :rolleyes:
 
"Why would [attracting more racers, spectators, and media to IT] be a good thing?"



Greg, are you kidding?

Does IT need more participation? Well, in the Midwest this year we have essentially 2 ITS cars vying for the championship and we there are only around 5 or 6 even entered. We used to have 30-car IT fields here; now we have 15. And nobody shows up to watch.



Yea, I'm talking purely aesthetic. No apologies! :rolleyes:
[/b]
Click to expand...


Bill,

In putting together a differential diagnosis for the problem plaguing your region would you put lack of wings on the IT cars as the most likely cause for the problem?

The numbers are telling. They are a way to quantify our sucesses and failures. In other regions IT is THRIVING, using the same ruleset. I would sugest that there are other fish to fry in your region, and that those fish are the reason participation is low. If we NEED wings to attract new interest in the SCCA we as a club have some very serious problems.

R
 
The numbers are telling. They are a way to quantify our sucesses and failures. In other regions IT is THRIVING, using the same ruleset. I would sugest that there are other fish to fry in your region, and that those fish are the reason participation is low. If we NEED wings to attract new interest in the SCCA we as a club have some very serious problems.[/b]
Click to expand...

Rob, you also need to remember that the N.E. is a bit unique with IT participation numbers. How familiar are you with the participation numbers across the nation?

I personally am not a fan of having wings or several other tuner type of items becoming a part of IT. Although, it would add some strategy of having three NOS hits per race. :) I also understand where Bill is going with this as far as marketing our club and category.
 
Rob, you also need to remember that the N.E. is a bit unique with IT participation numbers. How familiar are you with the participation numbers across the nation?

I personally am not a fan of having wings or several other tuner type of items becoming a part of IT. Although, it would add some strategy of having three NOS hits per race. :) I also understand where Bill is going with this as far as marketing our club and category.
[/b]
Click to expand...


Dave we're saying the exact same thing. Wings are NOT hurting IT #'s in the NER. Changing the ruleset as an experiment to increase membership is not the answer. Creating a class for Evo Lancers and the WRX is the way to attract that demographic if that is the demographic you wish to attract. Focused marketing is the way to deliver a product to a target audience.

R
 
Regarding speed, drag and downforce:

The Skip Barber school cars (without wings) are faster (top speed) than the Skip Barber F2000 race cars!! How is that possible with the same chassis, suspension, engine and brakes? It is because the F2000 carries around wings and the associated weight and aero drag. The wings, and a 5 speed sequential gear box, are the the only differences between the cars!! However, the F2000 puts in faster lap times due to its gear box and higher CORNERING speeds (because of downforce).

And now, I wonder why a FWD car would want more rear downforce. Because it won't understeer enough? :blink:
 
And now, I wonder why a FWD car would want more rear downforce. Because it won't understeer enough? [/b]
Click to expand...
It *can* be beneficial, but it takes a puss-bucket full of development, testing, and a damn good driver.

Generally speaking, you setup the FWD car so that it oversteers at low speeds likes a golf cart going backwards, then you rely on the rear wing to keep you on the track at high speeds. - GA
 
"Why would [attracting more racers, spectators, and media to IT] be a good thing?"



Greg, are you kidding?

Does IT need more participation? Well, in the Midwest this year we have essentially 2 ITS cars vying for the championship and we there are only around 5 or 6 even entered. We used to have 30-car IT fields here; now we have 15. And nobody shows up to watch.



Yea, I'm talking purely aesthetic. No apologies! :rolleyes:
[/b]
Click to expand...


c'mon bill. i know you know the REAL reason IT numbers suck butt in MiDiv. it's all down to scheduling. how many regional weekends do we have in this division, 15? 17? the answer is way-too-effing-many. we're not growing any, yet we keep adding rediculous events (ie Nashville), and people ask why car counts are down and every region is losing tens of thousands?

in addition to that, MiDiv cars in general, are pretty significantly under-prepped. we've already heard complaints about the big bad 30k SM cars coming in and wiping up IT (which isn't true at all), and we read complaints all over the board about people wanting rules adjustments because of the unnecessary cost associated with conforming to them while reaching maximum prep (ie min weight for RX7s), just wait until we bring in wings......that will cost people 10x the cost of the wing itself to actually get the car setup for it.

i didn't like the ECU thing, but the wing idea is twice as bad imo.
 
*threadjack warning*
There was a day when I thought there was no such thing as too many events. I now realize how wrong I was. On the surface, everybody (myself included) wants an event every weekend that is in their backyard. But when you stop to think that a region has to draw drivers, pay its bills, and draw workers, you realize the need to pull back a bit. Too many events create fewer financially viable events, fewer financially viable regions, and too great a strain on the worker base. We need fewer events, of higher quality. I don't mean a drastic reduction either, but a small reduction (maybe one race per division on average) and a breather from the expansion of the schedule. Growth is critical to success, but the pace of that growth must be sustainable.
 
Travis, your point about the no. of events is valid and would explain the low count at any specific event but does not explain why there are just fewer cars period. So far this season only 4 Mid-Am ITS drivers have run more than 2 events. Indeed, the cumulative total no. of events run by all Mid-Am ITS drivers is only 21 (and 2 drivers have 13 between them). We have 6 ITA, 2 ITB, and 1 ITC who have done more than 3 events. The bigger reason is probably SM but I think that anything we can do to attract new blood should be considered.

Another reason to try to increase appeal to the younger crowd is workers. They enjoy watching cool-looking cars on the track but don't give a hoot about a bunch of crapped out oldies that appear not much more than street cars w/ DIY graphics. We can get along w/o spectators but not w/o a new crop of workers.

Someone said that wings, etc. were not compatible w/ IT. How can that be so when we can have aftermarket stand-alone computers (not to mention Motec in-a-box), and you can buy "aero" stuff at AutoZone? :wacko:
 
Another reason to try to increase appeal to the younger crowd is workers. They enjoy watching cool-looking cars on the track but don't give a hoot about a bunch of crapped out oldies that appear not much more than street cars w/ DIY graphics.[/b]
Click to expand...

Great... so if we allow wings, we end up with a bunch of crapped out oldies that appear not much more than street cars with AutoZone wings. Notice the DIY graphics are gone... couldn't afford them after the trip to AutoZone for the wing. :D
 
Travis, your point about the no. of events is valid and would explain the low count at any specific event but does not explain why there are just fewer cars period. So far this season only 4 Mid-Am ITS drivers have run more than 2 events. Indeed, the cumulative total no. of events run by all Mid-Am ITS drivers is only 21 (and 2 drivers have 13 between them). We have 6 ITA, 2 ITB, and 1 ITC who have done more than 3 events. The bigger reason is probably SM but I think that anything we can do to attract new blood should be considered.

Another reason to try to increase appeal to the younger crowd is workers. They enjoy watching cool-looking cars on the track but don't give a hoot about a bunch of crapped out oldies that appear not much more than street cars w/ DIY graphics. We can get along w/o spectators but not w/o a new crop of workers.

Someone said that wings, etc. were not compatible w/ IT. How can that be so when we can have aftermarket stand-alone computers (not to mention Motec in-a-box), and you can buy "aero" stuff at AutoZone? :wacko:
[/b]
Click to expand...

eh....adding wings to cars i don't think is going to suddenly make people say "cool, cars with wings, i didn't before, but NOW i want to race or go work races."

i don't think you can really compare the ability of IT drivers to understand ECU's to wings. ECU tuning i don't think is terribly different from car to car. there's some individual stuff like each mfgs VVT, but for the most part you're just adjusting ignition timing and the fuel curve from what i can tell.

aero is completely different from car to car, and just because one setup works on your RX-7, it will be completely different for a miata, crx, golf, bmw, etc. it would take extensive real wind tunnell testing to really optimize it, and who can afford that? whereas with the ECU any honda tuner can setup the ECU across all hondas, bmws, etc.

i think they're both bad ideas...but the aero thing is way worse imo. at least most average car people already have a decent understanding of engine tuning.
 
Downforce- Smoundforce, I'd like to have the benefit of the staunchins and end plates and the increased directional stability. Don't get me wrong, there's lots of corners around here that down force sure would help. They way it is now I feel like I should be installing roof flaps or something :blink:
 
Don't get me wrong. The question that underlies Bill's thinking is still a fair one - Is IT positioned for the future?

Someone could actually do some strategic planning (NO SH!T) and we might benefit from it. This has been a sorely lacking point of non-performance by SCCA over the course of my experience with the Club. I do this kind of program evaluation for a living, so it's obviously not rocket science. It just requires that someone have the foresight and position to ask the questions that need to be answered.

...and no, I don't think that this kind of planning is inconsistent with the organization being "member driven." It's not necessary to be reactive and disjunct in order to give member constituencies what they want.

K
 
totally agree kirk. unfortunately i don't think that will really happen in any sort of signifance.

the more i think about it, the more i think NASA is going to kick our butt over the long run. why? because they're organized as a business, and we act like a government entity that thinks it can never lose out. we simply don't have the resources to really evaluate such a large scale question with only a handful of people actually employed in topeka. furthermore, how many people are actually qualified to take on such a task? i really don't think the BOD is, and the membership has proven time and time again to be incapable of looking beyond their own nose and as a whole act only in their own immediate self interest (ie DSR/CSR, SS/Touring, etc).

imo, if the runoffs stay in topeka for another 3 years, by the end of that three years we will be measureably behind NASA. their National Championship is gaining momentum very quickly, and ours is falling off. i dunno...

to get back on topic....

as you said, bill's motivation for being in support of wings is very well founded. my perspective is that the solution to the problems in SCCA and IT go far and above just slapping on some trendy parts and stickers, and that doing so would hurt the class without helping the actual issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top