| ndw1138 | 02-14-2005 03:05 PM |
Why fastest STi doesnt have normal wing - if it's so functional?
�
�
First off I apologize because I can't figure out which forum this question should be in. Certainly not an engine question, however I've seen at least 2 wing questions in this forum.
It's been stated the STi wing creates quite a bit of downforce at faster speeds. Why is it then the C-specSTi the fastest producion version comes with the smaller normally wrx style wing? The standard wing is in a horrible postion for seeing rearward.. I'd like to get rid of it, but my car will see the track at least a few times a year, and I am concerned about high speed stablity..
Can anyone point me to Subaru's statement about it's functionality? Doesnt make sense the C=spec would have the smaller wing.
nathan
It's been stated the STi wing creates quite a bit of downforce at faster speeds. Why is it then the C-specSTi the fastest producion version comes with the smaller normally wrx style wing? The standard wing is in a horrible postion for seeing rearward.. I'd like to get rid of it, but my car will see the track at least a few times a year, and I am concerned about high speed stablity..
Can anyone point me to Subaru's statement about it's functionality? Doesnt make sense the C=spec would have the smaller wing.
nathan
| kool168 | 02-14-2005 03:11 PM |
[QUOTE=ndw1138]First off I apologize because I can't figure out which forum this question should be in. Certainly not an engine question, however I've seen at least 2 wing questions in this forum.
It's been stated the STi wing creates quite a bit of downforce at faster speeds. Why is it then the C-specSTi the fastest producion version comes with the smaller normally wrx style wing? The standard wing is in a horrible postion for seeing rearward.. I'd like to get rid of it, but my car will see the track at least a few times a year, and I am concerned about high speed stablity..
Can anyone point me to Subaru's statement about it's functionality? Doesnt make sense the C=spec would have the smaller wing.
nathan[/QUOTE]
due to the lighter weight?
It's been stated the STi wing creates quite a bit of downforce at faster speeds. Why is it then the C-specSTi the fastest producion version comes with the smaller normally wrx style wing? The standard wing is in a horrible postion for seeing rearward.. I'd like to get rid of it, but my car will see the track at least a few times a year, and I am concerned about high speed stablity..
Can anyone point me to Subaru's statement about it's functionality? Doesnt make sense the C=spec would have the smaller wing.
nathan[/QUOTE]
due to the lighter weight?
| senortighto | 02-14-2005 03:46 PM |
the v.8 sti wing doesn't provide any downforce at all, it flexes too much to do that, only thing it could conceivably do is help with straightline stability at speed. but that's just my observations
| ranger5oh | 02-14-2005 03:54 PM |
It provides 60lbs of downforce at 100mph.... hardly "functional"
The flexiness isnt a huge issue, ever seen an aiplane wing bend? You can evenly apply quite a bit of pressure to that wing, not to mention the bottom of the wing also has a lip that provides some of the aerodynamic forces. Anyway... either way, it is basically non functional.
The flexiness isnt a huge issue, ever seen an aiplane wing bend? You can evenly apply quite a bit of pressure to that wing, not to mention the bottom of the wing also has a lip that provides some of the aerodynamic forces. Anyway... either way, it is basically non functional.
| -OneWay- | 02-14-2005 03:59 PM |
[QUOTE=senortighto]the v.8 sti wing doesn't provide any downforce at all, it flexes too much to do that, only thing it could conceivably do is help with straightline stability at speed. but that's just my observations[/QUOTE]
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8783411#post8783411[/url]
pretty sure this guy has the correct idea behind The rear wing choice on an STI.
[QUOTE=nate49509]The STi wing isn't all about downforce. Air coming off the top of the roof will spiral as it comes over the trunk creating a vortex which causes a vacuum, in effect causing more drag on the car. Basicly the STi aero package does reduce drag.[/QUOTE]
It would also I believe in theory help with downforce by not allowing as much lift in the rear, altho it wouldnt actually be producing downforce, the STI rear wing is FUNCTIONAL.
That said,
I don't have the time to track a link down to the japanese site that i read about it but.
The carbon fiber STi GT spoiler was designed with down force in mind.
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8783411#post8783411[/url]
pretty sure this guy has the correct idea behind The rear wing choice on an STI.
[QUOTE=nate49509]The STi wing isn't all about downforce. Air coming off the top of the roof will spiral as it comes over the trunk creating a vortex which causes a vacuum, in effect causing more drag on the car. Basicly the STi aero package does reduce drag.[/QUOTE]
It would also I believe in theory help with downforce by not allowing as much lift in the rear, altho it wouldnt actually be producing downforce, the STI rear wing is FUNCTIONAL.
That said,
I don't have the time to track a link down to the japanese site that i read about it but.
The carbon fiber STi GT spoiler was designed with down force in mind.
| fragment | 02-14-2005 05:23 PM |
[QUOTE=ndw1138]Why is it then the C-specSTi the fastest producion version comes with the smaller normally wrx style wing? [/QUOTE]
Sorry, the specC isn't the fastest production STi out there. Its speed limited; less than 120mph if memory serves. I just found this out becuase when I sent in my specC for a reflash, I was asked if I wanted the limiter removed.
Steve
Sorry, the specC isn't the fastest production STi out there. Its speed limited; less than 120mph if memory serves. I just found this out becuase when I sent in my specC for a reflash, I was asked if I wanted the limiter removed.
Steve
| offset | 02-14-2005 05:23 PM |
Yep, I also would tend to agree after reading quite a bit that the STi wing is more about lowering the drag coefficient than just adding downforce.
offset
offset
| ADR 04STi | 02-14-2005 05:29 PM |
The way I look at it is. . .if the Spec-C wing was better. . it would be on the WRC car.The STi's wing is a duel plane design (greater D/F). . the Spec-C isnt. Both have their purposes.
| Nupe | 02-14-2005 07:05 PM |
[QUOTE=ndw1138]First off I apologize because I can't figure out which forum this question should be in. Certainly not an engine question, however I've seen at least 2 wing questions in this forum.
It's been stated the STi wing creates quite a bit of downforce at faster speeds. Why is it then the C-specSTi the fastest producion version comes with the smaller normally wrx style wing? The standard wing is in a horrible postion for seeing rearward.. I'd like to get rid of it, but my car will see the track at least a few times a year, and I am concerned about high speed stablity..
Can anyone point me to Subaru's statement about it's functionality? Doesnt make sense the C=spec would have the smaller wing.
nathan[/QUOTE]
Why dont you email Petter Solberg and ask his crew that same question. For that matter, why don't ask all of the drivers in WRC Rally about the huge wing on all the cars. Granted i will not be driving my STI under the same conditions as they do in WRC, but that wing is a part of the cars function, look, you name it! If you don't like the wing remove it or get another car. I wonder if owners of 911 Turbos, and other super cars make a big deal about their wings! IMO, the wing makes the car an STI!
It's been stated the STi wing creates quite a bit of downforce at faster speeds. Why is it then the C-specSTi the fastest producion version comes with the smaller normally wrx style wing? The standard wing is in a horrible postion for seeing rearward.. I'd like to get rid of it, but my car will see the track at least a few times a year, and I am concerned about high speed stablity..
Can anyone point me to Subaru's statement about it's functionality? Doesnt make sense the C=spec would have the smaller wing.
nathan[/QUOTE]
Why dont you email Petter Solberg and ask his crew that same question. For that matter, why don't ask all of the drivers in WRC Rally about the huge wing on all the cars. Granted i will not be driving my STI under the same conditions as they do in WRC, but that wing is a part of the cars function, look, you name it! If you don't like the wing remove it or get another car. I wonder if owners of 911 Turbos, and other super cars make a big deal about their wings! IMO, the wing makes the car an STI!
| BLACK02WAGON | 02-14-2005 07:22 PM |
:huh: Why are you guys talking about top speed and rally together? While rally is relatively fast, it doesn't compare in the slightest to JGTC or time attack. :eek: The rally wings are designed to give lateral "push" in high speed corners(the small vertical fins on the lower plane). Stock wing probably induces much more drag than it offers downforce. :(
| robmarch | 02-14-2005 07:24 PM |
many people who buy the specC race them, and put their own giant "spec" racing wing on it.
| Godmal | 02-14-2005 07:31 PM |
[QUOTE] IMO, the wing makes the car an STI![/QUOTE]
Hell yeah man!
I personally don't think that Subaru would put on such a garish wing on if it served no functional purpose. I debated removing mine and putting the regular WRX wing on, but f*** that, I like it and I no longer care what other people think if it.
Hell yeah man!
I personally don't think that Subaru would put on such a garish wing on if it served no functional purpose. I debated removing mine and putting the regular WRX wing on, but f*** that, I like it and I no longer care what other people think if it.
| WRXplatinum | 02-14-2005 08:25 PM |
I want a STI wing for my truck. I need all the down force i can get over thos rear tires. Just kidding but they do make a "STI an STI"
| twizzstyle | 02-14-2005 08:32 PM |
60 lbs isn't phenomenal. Think about putting a 60lb weight on your trunk in place of the spoiler, it serves the same function. (i.e. not much downforce)
Now I haven't seen a cross section of the spoiler, but it looks pretty thin to me, and not very raked, so the "downforce" you will get will not be much. The rear window isn't the most gradually sloping area either, so chances are quite likely you could be getting a lot of flow separation at the rear window - just a guess anyways. This signifigantly decreases the amount of non-turbulent air getting to the spoiler.
That isn't to say it does nothing however. Anything you stick out in the breeze will alter the flow, and as such experience some forcing. But again, I don't think the shape of the wing, nor the speeds at which the car is driven, really produces much of force.
(in school for aeronautics right now, so i can back up some of this :lol: )
Now I haven't seen a cross section of the spoiler, but it looks pretty thin to me, and not very raked, so the "downforce" you will get will not be much. The rear window isn't the most gradually sloping area either, so chances are quite likely you could be getting a lot of flow separation at the rear window - just a guess anyways. This signifigantly decreases the amount of non-turbulent air getting to the spoiler.
That isn't to say it does nothing however. Anything you stick out in the breeze will alter the flow, and as such experience some forcing. But again, I don't think the shape of the wing, nor the speeds at which the car is driven, really produces much of force.
(in school for aeronautics right now, so i can back up some of this :lol: )
| 48mpg | 02-14-2005 09:03 PM |
not really the downforce, its the reduciton of lift and the vacuum at the rear of the car, the vacuum is a huge source of drag
| darknightohio | 02-14-2005 09:08 PM |
+ it looks good on the STi.
| the_owl | 02-14-2005 09:17 PM |
if 40lbs of plastic "makes" the STi then why is $6000+ more than a regular WRX ?
I think its more than the "wing" that makes it.
I think its more than the "wing" that makes it.
| cabe | 02-14-2005 09:25 PM |
Is the spec C really limited below 120? Wow, that sucks.
| Uncle Scotty | 02-14-2005 09:31 PM |
Cars sold in japland are speed limited by law.....that is where the 120(124 actually, IIRC) comes from....NOT the top speed of the car :rolleyes:
...oh yeah...this thread is as pointless as all the rest that debate the STi wing....
...oh yeah...this thread is as pointless as all the rest that debate the STi wing....
| twizzstyle | 02-14-2005 09:41 PM |
[QUOTE=48mpg]not really the downforce, its the reduciton of lift and the vacuum at the rear of the car, the vacuum is a huge source of drag[/QUOTE]
Vacuum? :huh: What do you mean by vacuum? The only thing I can think of, is the decrease in pressure underneath a car because of the acceleration of the air under there, but this really only plays a major role in like formula and indy cars.
Most of the drag on a car comes from flow separation. The trailing edge is most important, not the leading edge! ;)
Vacuum? :huh: What do you mean by vacuum? The only thing I can think of, is the decrease in pressure underneath a car because of the acceleration of the air under there, but this really only plays a major role in like formula and indy cars.
Most of the drag on a car comes from flow separation. The trailing edge is most important, not the leading edge! ;)
| supermarkus | 02-14-2005 09:44 PM |
come take a look at my wing and take some measurements so you can actually back up what you're saying. You know how these guys love their numbers.
| gypsymoth | 02-14-2005 10:01 PM |
Did you see this thread?
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=714562[/url]
Chieh
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=714562[/url]
Chieh
| cboggess | 02-14-2005 10:10 PM |
[QUOTE=twizzstyle]60 lbs isn't phenomenal. Think about putting a 60lb weight on your trunk in place of the spoiler, it serves the same function. (i.e. not much downforce)
(in school for aeronautics right now, so i can back up some of this :lol: )[/QUOTE]
And if you did this you'd be hauling an additional 60lbs from 0-100... or you could just leave the wing on.
Someone over on STi-buki modeled the wing and was able to prove that the 60lbs was pretty accurate.
(in school for aeronautics right now, so i can back up some of this :lol: )[/QUOTE]
And if you did this you'd be hauling an additional 60lbs from 0-100... or you could just leave the wing on.
Someone over on STi-buki modeled the wing and was able to prove that the 60lbs was pretty accurate.
| emnm79 | 02-14-2005 10:50 PM |
[QUOTE=the_owl]if 40lbs of plastic "makes" the STi then why is $6000+ more than a regular WRX ?
I think its more than the "wing" that makes it.[/QUOTE]
it makes the look of the sti, goon.
I think its more than the "wing" that makes it.[/QUOTE]
it makes the look of the sti, goon.
| STi-BOD- | 02-14-2005 11:12 PM |
the wing is almost useless. the evos wing dose alot better job of working and it has no deck spoiler + its lighter and stronger than the plastic sti's
| twizzstyle | 02-14-2005 11:50 PM |
[QUOTE=cboggess]And if you did this you'd be hauling an additional 60lbs from 0-100... or you could just leave the wing on.[/QUOTE]
hahahaha :lol: I was just making the comparison that 60lbs of downforce really isn't noticable as far as traction gain.
hahahaha :lol: I was just making the comparison that 60lbs of downforce really isn't noticable as far as traction gain.
| mrl859 | 02-15-2005 01:29 AM |
The downforce, however much there is, is created by the "negative lift" created by the upper wing. If you look at it, it is flat on the top and a "teardrop" shape on the bottom, the inverse of an airplane wing. The flat surface is a high pressure area and the curved underside low pressure, creating the negative lift, or downforce. It may be a nominal amount, but that's the idea. That's why it is parallel to the ground, not angled like a lip spoiler. Same basic principle as how airplanes fly.
| CBRDSpeedfactory | 02-15-2005 01:46 AM |
....
�
�
well..
most downforce is created on the underside of the car... look at f1, champ cars, alms...etc...... rear undertrays and from chin splitters create the most downforce. I have tested cars with and without undertrays etc...had them break..etc.... and it makes a bigger difference than a wing coming off....
wings do add downforce, and therefor on a street/production car they are the best option.
the wrc sti wing added the vertical slats to aid in high speed stability.
chad b
chadblock.com
most downforce is created on the underside of the car... look at f1, champ cars, alms...etc...... rear undertrays and from chin splitters create the most downforce. I have tested cars with and without undertrays etc...had them break..etc.... and it makes a bigger difference than a wing coming off....
wings do add downforce, and therefor on a street/production car they are the best option.
the wrc sti wing added the vertical slats to aid in high speed stability.
chad b
chadblock.com
| quentinberg007 | 02-15-2005 01:56 AM |
The dead horse's ghost is going to start haunting these new thread starters. I'm not even going to respond with my typical reply because if people would start using the search button, they could actually see what has been said on this topic the 100's of times it has been discussed.
~~Quentin
~~Quentin
| the_owl | 02-15-2005 02:22 AM |
[QUOTE=emnm79]it makes the look of the sti, goon.[/QUOTE]
I guess you bought the slow Z06 for the red brakey thingys huh? Doorbell
Ding dong
I guess you bought the slow Z06 for the red brakey thingys huh? Doorbell
Ding dong
| afpdl | 02-15-2005 02:32 AM |
[QUOTE=twizzstyle]hahahaha :lol: I was just making the comparison that 60lbs of downforce really isn't noticable as far as traction gain.[/QUOTE]
The point of downforce is to add downward force(hence the name) without adding mass. Throwing a weight in the car adds mass which completely defeats the purpose. I dont get why people always throw in the "just add weight if you want more downforce" comment in everyone of these threads.
The point of downforce is to add downward force(hence the name) without adding mass. Throwing a weight in the car adds mass which completely defeats the purpose. I dont get why people always throw in the "just add weight if you want more downforce" comment in everyone of these threads.
| twizzstyle | 02-15-2005 03:31 PM |
By adding downforce, you are simply loading the car. The only difference is that by adding mass, you decrease the amount of acceleration you can achieve for a given force (newtons 2nd law here).
| twizzstyle | 02-15-2005 03:32 PM |
[QUOTE=mrl859]Same basic principle as how airplanes fly.[/QUOTE]
There's nothing basic about that! ;)
There's nothing basic about that! ;)
| MidnightSti05 | 02-15-2005 03:46 PM |
Looking at this thead I had to skip like 60% of it because most of the people are posting like asshats, anyway I have heard first hand accounts of people feeling the different when using and not using their Sti (v8 wings) if someone can feel the differences I think that is pretty significant.
| White 2.5rs | 02-15-2005 03:53 PM |
E = mc2/sqrt(1 - v2/c2)
| YourMother'sLover | 02-15-2005 04:21 PM |
And it's threads like this that are making me put an adjustable 22B wing on :rolleyes:
Anyway, the STi wing DOES serve a purpose...just like anything. 60lbs of downforce is still 60lbs more than you get without it. If everyone is concerned with downforce....go get a mines lip spoiler. The height of the STi (and EVO) wings are more oriented for helping through turns. Lateral control.
+$0.02 :banana:
Anyway, the STi wing DOES serve a purpose...just like anything. 60lbs of downforce is still 60lbs more than you get without it. If everyone is concerned with downforce....go get a mines lip spoiler. The height of the STi (and EVO) wings are more oriented for helping through turns. Lateral control.
+$0.02 :banana:
| afpdl | 02-15-2005 04:42 PM |
[QUOTE=twizzstyle]By adding downforce, you are simply loading the car. The only difference is that by adding mass, you decrease the amount of acceleration you can achieve for a given force (newtons 2nd law here).[/QUOTE]
Cars turn. mass=bad force=good. A 3000lb car with 200lbs of downforce can take a turn faster than a 3200lb car with no downforce given same tires suspension etc... Mass putls lateral load on the tires which is bad for traction.
Cars turn. mass=bad force=good. A 3000lb car with 200lbs of downforce can take a turn faster than a 3200lb car with no downforce given same tires suspension etc... Mass putls lateral load on the tires which is bad for traction.
| twizzstyle | 02-15-2005 05:17 PM |
i'm waiting for a ricey spoiler to show up on ebay with ailerons to help with cornering :lol:
(once I saw an ebay ad for one of those ugly mufflers with the tips angled up, it said the exhaust going out upwards produced extra downforce!!! :lol: no joke!)
(once I saw an ebay ad for one of those ugly mufflers with the tips angled up, it said the exhaust going out upwards produced extra downforce!!! :lol: no joke!)
| Uncle Scotty | 02-15-2005 08:43 PM |
[QUOTE=twizzstyle](once I saw an ebay ad for one of those ugly mufflers with the tips angled up, it said the exhaust going out upwards produced extra downforce!!! :lol: no joke!)[/QUOTE]
:confused: ya mean....I bought.....It don't... :confused: :huh: :confused: :furious:
:confused: ya mean....I bought.....It don't... :confused: :huh: :confused: :furious:
| parker/slc/gc8fan | 02-15-2005 11:53 PM |
mechanical grip is a very big issue.
| Carbon888 | 02-16-2005 12:30 AM |
[QUOTE=afpdl]Cars turn. mass=bad force=good. A 3000lb car with 200lbs of downforce can take a turn faster than a 3200lb car with no downforce given same tires suspension etc... Mass putls lateral load on the tires which is bad for traction.[/QUOTE]
um..u said the 3000lb car with wing can turn faster then a 3200lb wingless ...but then..why did you say..mass puts lateral load on the tires which is bad for traction..doesn't that mean..the 3000lb car will turn slower then the 3200lb car since it has bad tractions?
um..u said the 3000lb car with wing can turn faster then a 3200lb wingless ...but then..why did you say..mass puts lateral load on the tires which is bad for traction..doesn't that mean..the 3000lb car will turn slower then the 3200lb car since it has bad tractions?
| afpdl | 02-16-2005 12:38 AM |
What? You contradicted yourself.
Why would you think the car with more mass would have more traction in a turn?
Downward force on a tire increases grip, lateral force on a tire decreases grip. There is a reason why f1 teams dont just throw some sand bags in the car if they need more grip.
Why would you think the car with more mass would have more traction in a turn?
Downward force on a tire increases grip, lateral force on a tire decreases grip. There is a reason why f1 teams dont just throw some sand bags in the car if they need more grip.
| Carbon888 | 02-16-2005 12:48 AM |
[QUOTE=afpdl]The point of downforce is to add downward force(hence the name) without adding mass. Throwing a weight in the car adds mass which completely defeats the purpose. I dont get why people always throw in the "just add weight if you want more downforce" comment in everyone of these threads.[/QUOTE]
that's right
THe second Newton's law of motion stated that acceleration depends on two variables "the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object." The propulsion force acting on the object is directly related to the acceleration and the mass on the object is inversely related to the acceleration. This means as the mass of the car increases, the acceleration decreases.
that's right
THe second Newton's law of motion stated that acceleration depends on two variables "the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object." The propulsion force acting on the object is directly related to the acceleration and the mass on the object is inversely related to the acceleration. This means as the mass of the car increases, the acceleration decreases.
| afpdl | 02-16-2005 12:50 AM |
Yes thats how acceleration works, which has little to do with the point of downforce.
| Carbon888 | 02-16-2005 12:50 AM |
o lol nvm afpd1, i misunderstood it thanks
| David Medina | 02-16-2005 01:22 AM |
[QUOTE=afpdl]Cars turn. mass=bad force=good. A 3000lb car with 200lbs of downforce can take a turn faster than a 3200lb car with no downforce given same tires suspension etc... Mass putls lateral load on the tires which is bad for traction.[/QUOTE]
i think thats what i beleive.
can someone make a picture??? im better understanding pictures...
i think thats what i beleive.
can someone make a picture??? im better understanding pictures...
| afpdl | 02-16-2005 01:31 AM |
Since no thread is complete without some mspaint work
[img]http://www.we-todd-did-racing.com/wetoddimage.wtdr/wNzg2ODQyNnM0MTNkZmQzMXk1NDE%3D.jpg[/img]
That is of course in a turn, as mass doesnt make any lateral force in a straight line.
[img]http://www.we-todd-did-racing.com/wetoddimage.wtdr/wNzg2ODQyNnM0MTNkZmQzMXk1NDE%3D.jpg[/img]
That is of course in a turn, as mass doesnt make any lateral force in a straight line.
| mrl859 | 02-16-2005 01:48 AM |
Wasn't the original question whether or not the rear spoiler actually worked???
| Carbon888 | 02-16-2005 02:28 AM |
[QUOTE=mrl859]Wasn't the original question whether or not the rear spoiler actually worked???[/QUOTE]
lol yeah
lol yeah
| Carbon888 | 02-16-2005 02:28 AM |
why does mass makes lateral forces?
| thecarguy | 02-16-2005 02:49 AM |
[QUOTE]E = mc2/sqrt(1 - v2/c2)[/QUOTE]
Relativity formula divided by part of a time dialation formula?
:D
Relativity formula divided by part of a time dialation formula?
:D
| twizzstyle | 02-16-2005 08:15 PM |
mass doesn't technically "make" lateral force. More mass means more momentum (which is mass times velocity). Conservation of momentum says that if the car is turned, the car doesn't want to turn it wants to stay in a straight line.
in other words, more mass means the car will tend to stay in a straight line more than a lighter car, which means there is a bigger load put laterally on the tires to keep the car in the turn.
in other words, more mass means the car will tend to stay in a straight line more than a lighter car, which means there is a bigger load put laterally on the tires to keep the car in the turn.
| twizzstyle | 02-16-2005 08:16 PM |
if someone could get a nice cross section shape of the STi wing, I can throw it in a CFD program and get some nice pretty pictures and coefficient of lift calculations. I think it'd be pretty interesting!
| David Medina | 02-16-2005 11:24 PM |
[QUOTE=twizzstyle]if someone could get a nice cross section shape of the STi wing, I can throw it in a CFD program and get some nice pretty pictures and coefficient of lift calculations. I think it'd be pretty interesting![/QUOTE]
id like that.
id like that.
| twizzstyle | 02-17-2005 12:15 AM |
if someone took like maybe a thin strip of sheet metal, like aluminum, and wrapped it around the spoiler (on the top section) and then took it off, they could trace it on some paper and scan it in.
| bobby d | 02-17-2005 08:43 AM |
I didn't read all of this so this might of been said but I think the wing is more to control the car in airborne situations, like rally. I thought I saw a video explaining it not too long ago.
| supermarkus | 02-17-2005 11:07 AM |
[QUOTE=twizzstyle]if someone could get a nice cross section shape of the STi wing, I can throw it in a CFD program and get some nice pretty pictures and coefficient of lift calculations. I think it'd be pretty interesting![/QUOTE]
You've got an open invite to take measurements from my car.
You've got an open invite to take measurements from my car.
| 03twrx | 02-17-2005 02:54 PM |
every one shut up, just... just.... shut up
| White 2.5rs | 02-17-2005 07:36 PM |
he might need to borrow ur hacksaw supermarkus :)
| twizzstyle | 02-17-2005 08:14 PM |
:lol: naw, a sawz-all will do just fine.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét