Wing Downforce Specs?
Jan 22, 2004, 11:52 PM
#31
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: So Cal
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by trev0006
can someone please explain why the RS model coming out has no wing? I thought the RS was made for racing.
can someone please explain why the RS model coming out has no wing? I thought the RS was made for racing.
Jan 23, 2004, 12:02 AM
#32
Originally posted by trev0006
can someone please explain why the RS model coming out has no wing? I thought the RS was made for racing.
can someone please explain why the RS model coming out has no wing? I thought the RS was made for racing.
They didn't come with a wing only to save weight. I'm assuming they expect someone that buys it to put a light weight wing on there
They did it to keep the cost down.
Jan 23, 2004, 12:12 AM
#33
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: California
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but to keep cost low they risked a performance lose? after all the RS is their car that will be modded by buyers, At least I would like to think the buyer would buy a lighter weight wing for his RS but the stock carbon fiber wing is pretty light, trust me I know 
Last edited by trev0006; Jan 23, 2004 at 12:15 AM.
Jan 23, 2004, 07:09 AM
#34
Newbie
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: East Lansing, MI
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be light, but some of those full carbon fiber ones are just as light, but also being higher, can produce more downforce. Plus lots of people would pull that off and put something on that may match their bodykit better.
Jan 23, 2004, 07:17 AM
#35
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Orlando/Ponce
Posts: 1,461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by vamz
It may be light, but some of those full carbon fiber ones are just as light,
It may be light, but some of those full carbon fiber ones are just as light,
old topic
Just FYI, ours are full carbon, sides and everything
Jan 23, 2004, 07:30 AM
#36
Evolved Member
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NorCal
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RS has no wing, as the RS is expected to sell mostly to race teams and the hardcore weekend racers. Those people will no doubt want to add their own wing, whether the stock one will do or an aftermarket one. Coming without the wing just gives them the aftermarket option.
Jan 23, 2004, 07:43 AM
#37
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as stated earlier, in AutoX the wing is not that useful... I think the EvoRS is also designed to be an AutoX killer, especially with that Front LSD which would make a bigger difference on a tight course than on a longer road course.
Jan 23, 2004, 10:52 AM
#39
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
by what this sheet says 2004 evo will offer leather recaros, ah ****!!!! f@#$@$ mits and all the car companies that screw the firts year buyers.
anyway sorry to get off the subject
anyway sorry to get off the subject
Jan 23, 2004, 11:01 AM
#40
Newbie
Thread Starter
Originally posted by djsbadger
If the wing is generating 70 lbs of downforce at 60 mph, that equates to :
194 lbs at 100 mph
280 lbs at 120 mph
437 lbs at 150 mph
As far as the wings effectiveness, one of the magazines (Autoweek?) noted the RS felt less stable than the standard
EVO on the fast corners and attributed it to the wing.
If the wing is generating 70 lbs of downforce at 60 mph, that equates to :
194 lbs at 100 mph
280 lbs at 120 mph
437 lbs at 150 mph
As far as the wings effectiveness, one of the magazines (Autoweek?) noted the RS felt less stable than the standard
EVO on the fast corners and attributed it to the wing.
Is this the theoritical performance of the wing, or the wing as it performs when mounted on the vehicle? If the latter, where did you get that data?
Sean
Jan 23, 2004, 12:03 PM
#41
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by djsbadger
If the wing is generating 70 lbs of downforce at 60 mph, that equates to :
194 lbs at 100 mph
280 lbs at 120 mph
437 lbs at 150 mph
As far as the wings effectiveness, one of the magazines (Autoweek?) noted the RS felt less stable than the standard
EVO on the fast corners and attributed it to the wing.
If the wing is generating 70 lbs of downforce at 60 mph, that equates to :
194 lbs at 100 mph
280 lbs at 120 mph
437 lbs at 150 mph
As far as the wings effectiveness, one of the magazines (Autoweek?) noted the RS felt less stable than the standard
EVO on the fast corners and attributed it to the wing.
Before this i had noticed a lil squirlyness at 90mph on some twistys on pavement, but stupidly ignored it thinking it was wet roads
in retrospect the signs where there and i shouldnt have made such a drastic change to the cars performance then drivin it on the edge like i did
anyway i got a totaled evo out of it,,
moral of the story, im not getting another one with out a big wing
Jan 23, 2004, 01:42 PM
#42
Evolving Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: DC area
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow.. maybe the moral of the story should be to not hit 120 on back roads with jumps in them...
the RS has no wing for weight and cost savings, as it is expected to be added aftermarket by most buyers.
as for whoever said that the airstream under a car would cause suction due to the bernoulli effect, you're simply taking a very simplified premise and theorizing with it. while a faster moving airstream does cause lower pressure hence suction, what makes you think the the air under a car moves faster than the air above it. If you look at the profile of most cars it kinda resembles an airfoil, flat bottom, protruding top. Air has to move faster to get around the protruding top than the flat bottom, plus separation of flow issues which get complex and were not getting into. Also, the underside of the car is close to the ground which can cause air to move slower also.
limiting the amount of air going under the car will decrease lift, but tends to make tha car have a bit more drag due to a larger area for air to hit and go around. the underbody panels we have are there to decrease the drag of whatever air makes it under tha car, and to cause the cool air entering through FMIC and radiator to flow out the top. Lowering the car or having a larger front dam shouldnt really affect the brake cooling guides b/c they move such little air in comparison to whats sneaking under the car that you'll never be able to limit enough air under the car to make them useless... not that i think theyre really that usefull in the 1st place, but thats another argument...
whew.. sorry for the long winded post.
the RS has no wing for weight and cost savings, as it is expected to be added aftermarket by most buyers.
as for whoever said that the airstream under a car would cause suction due to the bernoulli effect, you're simply taking a very simplified premise and theorizing with it. while a faster moving airstream does cause lower pressure hence suction, what makes you think the the air under a car moves faster than the air above it. If you look at the profile of most cars it kinda resembles an airfoil, flat bottom, protruding top. Air has to move faster to get around the protruding top than the flat bottom, plus separation of flow issues which get complex and were not getting into. Also, the underside of the car is close to the ground which can cause air to move slower also.
limiting the amount of air going under the car will decrease lift, but tends to make tha car have a bit more drag due to a larger area for air to hit and go around. the underbody panels we have are there to decrease the drag of whatever air makes it under tha car, and to cause the cool air entering through FMIC and radiator to flow out the top. Lowering the car or having a larger front dam shouldnt really affect the brake cooling guides b/c they move such little air in comparison to whats sneaking under the car that you'll never be able to limit enough air under the car to make them useless... not that i think theyre really that usefull in the 1st place, but thats another argument...
whew.. sorry for the long winded post.
Jan 23, 2004, 01:53 PM
#43
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Orlando/Ponce
Posts: 1,461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by zTargeTz
I can vouch for the wings usfulness, my dumbass thought it was just for show, i removed it and went on a backroad run that i had done many times before (with the wing) at 120, coming over a minor lift i caught wayyyy more air than i normaly did and when i landed i had no rear end , it was swinging all over finaly ending up in a hard side ways slide, fronttire caught in a ditch, i went end over end at prolly 90 mph (my skid marks where aprox 300 feet long so im asuming i slowed a bit) and landed back on my wheels in the ditch
Before this i had noticed a lil squirlyness at 90mph on some twistys on pavement, but stupidly ignored it thinking it was wet roads
in retrospect the signs where there and i shouldnt have made such a drastic change to the cars performance then drivin it on the edge like i did
anyway i got a totaled evo out of it,,
moral of the story, im not getting another one with out a big wing
I can vouch for the wings usfulness, my dumbass thought it was just for show, i removed it and went on a backroad run that i had done many times before (with the wing) at 120, coming over a minor lift i caught wayyyy more air than i normaly did and when i landed i had no rear end , it was swinging all over finaly ending up in a hard side ways slide, fronttire caught in a ditch, i went end over end at prolly 90 mph (my skid marks where aprox 300 feet long so im asuming i slowed a bit) and landed back on my wheels in the ditch
Before this i had noticed a lil squirlyness at 90mph on some twistys on pavement, but stupidly ignored it thinking it was wet roads
in retrospect the signs where there and i shouldnt have made such a drastic change to the cars performance then drivin it on the edge like i did
anyway i got a totaled evo out of it,,
moral of the story, im not getting another one with out a big wing
wow that fast! thanks God you still here with us telling the story
Jan 23, 2004, 11:13 PM
#44
Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by djsbadger
If the wing is generating 70 lbs of downforce at 60 mph, that equates to :
194 lbs at 100 mph
280 lbs at 120 mph
437 lbs at 150 mph
As far as the wings effectiveness, one of the magazines (Autoweek?) noted the RS felt less stable than the standard
EVO on the fast corners and attributed it to the wing.
If the wing is generating 70 lbs of downforce at 60 mph, that equates to :
194 lbs at 100 mph
280 lbs at 120 mph
437 lbs at 150 mph
As far as the wings effectiveness, one of the magazines (Autoweek?) noted the RS felt less stable than the standard
EVO on the fast corners and attributed it to the wing.
