Wing on the front vs wing on the back

[senor honda]

Longfellow,
You have a good point. A wing on the front (like some Lamborghinis) would provide some grip on the front............when a person puts the wing on the back of a FWD, they are probably expressing their individuality,
much the same as the mods done to your car express Longfellow's individuality.-Bob

Depending on the shape, a wing on the back will also fool the airstream into believing the car is longer, and may get better gas mileage from the aerodynamics.

Creativity and functionality are two different things. If they were similar then ricers could say thier wings provide useable downforce at speed not unessesary and useless drag.

[longfellow2]

I was talking about the ''double deck metal wings'' that look like something off a race car(but are not functional). Those do nothing but cause drag. The best way to create usuable down force on a car is to lower it to within an inch or lower of the ground and make the bottom of the car completly flat,(usually using carbon fiber) which in turn creates the opposite effect of a wing and literally sucks the car to the ground because of the of a negative pressure build up under the car. But thats not something for street driving, and neither are stupendiously large wings.

you dont need a wing on the front to make down force either, their are other ways to gain 'downforce' than 'wings'

They can express their individuality all they want, It serves no purpose and I reserve the right to voice my opionion on how I think its completly stupid. Other then being a waste of money and wanting to 'look' cool there is no reason to even think about installing one on a car. Especially a street car.

Anyways the wing/rice comment was in reference to some ones comment about larger body panels and extending the fenders to make the car look lower, which is the wrong way to do it. You want a low car, lower it using the correct parts. I.E altering suspension/wheels.

I know there are laws about cars needing to adhear to a certian ride height minimum, but I never hear about it being inforced.

[OMGVTEC]

im confused?

[hombredelassrtas]

Bob, longfellow and i were joking about the wings . . . not really a new thread worthy post. It was in reply to me making a joke about the whole not lowering but making it look lowered thread giving the overly awsome ideas of lowering body pannels (also were jokes hopefully longfellow noticed that )

note: just noticed longfellow=dan. i am a dan as well so that will be easy to remember

[OMGVTEC]

/fail

[Orion ZyGarian]

/fail

Your insightful contributions (along with your huge sig) are much appreciated in this thread.

I think most front wings would look gay, but mostly because we're not used to seeing them and it would be hard to incorporate them into most modern cars, especially since you dont even see them on racing cars. What I've noticed is that most race cars prefer to get their downforce from splitters, lips, etc. in the front, and probably just as much from having a low car with a flat bottom. Also, it would be probably be especially useless on a road car.

As far as gas mileage, theres no way to tell other than half decent aerodynamic testing such as wind tunnel testing. Vortex generators a la Evo 8/9 are functional obviously, but I believe they more efficiently direct air over the large wing in the back to more effectively use it.

Getting better gas mileage from aerodynamics is also an incredibly hard thing to do when you dont have a reliable, reputable testing source. I do know that my car has a .32 coefficient, whereas without the wing its .33 and the later, different wing and front yield a .34 coefficient. I'd say in the real world, the difference would be negligible and inconsistent.

[RITZ7]

ibtl

[BOX SENTRA]

hahaa he said STUPENDOUS. i think barney said that

[RoadRacer]

Great discussion, let's keep it going.
Keep the BS out of here.

I will tell you from experience too much splitter up front and not enough spoiler out back makes braking a scary experience... even on a fwd car, on the track of course.

[97HATCHY]

wow its like pit road over here

[jlude90]

especially in hatchbacks, a void is created at the rear of car and thats just the nature of it, hatches like the civic, where its pretty much a 90 degree angle, not like 240s

but with this void it causes the back end to pick up at higher speeds, making it unstable

with a wing, it moves this void/low pressure area up and away from the car, so it won't pick the back end up

but it has to be in clean air for it to work, if its in dirty air, you get the drag, but no downforce, clean air, you get the drag, but also the downforce




you can see the front splitter on the blue civic, they go all the way to the firewall, essentially flatbottoming the largest area of the car that needs it, without full sheeting under the car

[longfellow2]

I dont know where the whole FWD wing thing came into play.

But yes, any race car needs a wing for stability in the corners.

And I agree with RoadRacer that it needs to be balanced. Too much up front and you will slide the ass around under braking and highspeed corners. To much in the rear and you'll loose the front end and understeer/ lock up alot easier.

Thats all race car stuff. For a Street Driven car, If its not a stock wing, you dont need it. You shouldnt be going fast enough for the thing to make a difference.

Those civic pictures make me want to buy a few sheets of carbon and make some for my car, then cage it and finish my suspension and take it out to the track.

[BlackWind]

ive always supported senor honda, but these stupid ass threads in gcc need to stop. At least three threads i can count now have been like this. Keep your whining and arguing to pms or suspension tech, cause all it does here is annoy and confuse people.

and just my .02, i think all wings are gay, i dont care what theyre for...