rear spoiler.........is it functional?
#41
Unregistered Member
Originally posted by tmk70
I don't know you at all Tom2, but I have to say that a high percentage of your posts make you come off as an annoying know-it-all...this last post is one of those. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and I think the CL WITHOUT a spoiler looks "retarded".
I think it's about time someone said something about your tone...personally, it really gets on my nerves.
I don't know you at all Tom2, but I have to say that a high percentage of your posts make you come off as an annoying know-it-all...this last post is one of those. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and I think the CL WITHOUT a spoiler looks "retarded".
I think it's about time someone said something about your tone...personally, it really gets on my nerves.
If you don't like it, tough shit.
:sqntfawk:
#42
Masshole
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MA
Age: 53
Posts: 12,755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Tom2
Obviously, you don't know me very well at all. I do know it all.
If you don't like it, tough shit.
:sqntfawk:
Obviously, you don't know me very well at all. I do know it all.
If you don't like it, tough shit.
:sqntfawk:
#44
Masshole
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MA
Age: 53
Posts: 12,755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Tom2
I have a better idea, dickboy....
Instead of telling me what NOT to say, how about YOU just don't read it, tough guy.....
I have a better idea, dickboy....
Instead of telling me what NOT to say, how about YOU just don't read it, tough guy.....
#46
Senior Moderator
hahahhahahah LOL LOL
(sorry tmk, I do agree with you, but that was just too funny)
(sorry tmk, I do agree with you, but that was just too funny)
Originally posted by Tom2
Obviously, you don't know me very well at all. I do know it all.
If you don't like it, tough shit.
:sqntfawk:
Obviously, you don't know me very well at all. I do know it all.
If you don't like it, tough shit.
:sqntfawk:
#47
I LOVE MY CAR
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago, IL (South Burbs)
Age: 45
Posts: 3,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Re: ever notice...
Originally posted by synth19
I didnt...I was being sarcastic.
I didnt...I was being sarcastic.
#48
6 speed...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: houston
Age: 53
Posts: 1,386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Tom2
You are contradicting yourself with that statement alone. If I recall correctly (and I do), the Porsche 911 rear wing is attached to the trunklid, not an integral part of the frame or suspension.
Didn't you say that it must be, "...mounted via structural members directly to (ideally) the rear suspension or (less ideally) to the rear frame of the car...."?
Hmmmm.... seems to me that it is a proven fact that it does create downforce, even though it is not part of the frame/suspension.
You also said that, "spoilers generate drag, not downforce", then followed up with, "downforce can be generated via a 'wing'...." It would seem pretty clear to me that you believe ONLY wings can create downforce, and spoilers generate drag only. This is the area that you are confused.
Of course it is significant. Any downforce at high speed will help the rear end stay planted, which is especially beneficial to a rear drive car
Are you kidding me? Downforce is measured on top of the weight of the wing itself. In other words, it created an ADDITIONAL 20 lbs of downforce. Adding additional weight to a car will not increase the downforce at any speed.
Fine. But let's be reaistic here-- the discussion started over the Acura CL, which is a vehicle that does not have high speed lift issues, so a rear decklid spoiler does nothing (except create a little drag, therefore lowering the top speed of the vehicle).
This entire argument was over the fact that you said that a rear spoiler can not create downforce. But it obviously can.
Like I said before, downforce on the rear=less weight over the front (which is NEVER good on a front drive car)
I know the difference between downforce and lift reduction. You seem to have a problem understanding downforce, though...
I stand by my original statement that it is retarded to have a rear spoiler on a front drive car.
You are contradicting yourself with that statement alone. If I recall correctly (and I do), the Porsche 911 rear wing is attached to the trunklid, not an integral part of the frame or suspension.
Didn't you say that it must be, "...mounted via structural members directly to (ideally) the rear suspension or (less ideally) to the rear frame of the car...."?
Hmmmm.... seems to me that it is a proven fact that it does create downforce, even though it is not part of the frame/suspension.
You also said that, "spoilers generate drag, not downforce", then followed up with, "downforce can be generated via a 'wing'...." It would seem pretty clear to me that you believe ONLY wings can create downforce, and spoilers generate drag only. This is the area that you are confused.
Of course it is significant. Any downforce at high speed will help the rear end stay planted, which is especially beneficial to a rear drive car
Are you kidding me? Downforce is measured on top of the weight of the wing itself. In other words, it created an ADDITIONAL 20 lbs of downforce. Adding additional weight to a car will not increase the downforce at any speed.
Fine. But let's be reaistic here-- the discussion started over the Acura CL, which is a vehicle that does not have high speed lift issues, so a rear decklid spoiler does nothing (except create a little drag, therefore lowering the top speed of the vehicle).
This entire argument was over the fact that you said that a rear spoiler can not create downforce. But it obviously can.
Like I said before, downforce on the rear=less weight over the front (which is NEVER good on a front drive car)
I know the difference between downforce and lift reduction. You seem to have a problem understanding downforce, though...
I stand by my original statement that it is retarded to have a rear spoiler on a front drive car.
(tankmonkey): properly designed wings require structural support to transmit the downforce to the chassis.
(tom2): but the 911 doesn't have these structural supports, so you must be wrong.
(tankmonkey): no, the 911 has a spoiler, not a wing, and therefore wouldn't need such bracing.
2. the spoiler on the 911 may indeed be creating a small amount of downforce (20 lbs represents 1/2 of 1 percent of the curb weight of a 911 turbo - hardly significant) but that is merely a fortuitous extension of the spoiler's real benefit: reduction of lift.
think about it: why would anyone brag about making an insignificant amount of downforce? because it is an indication of the effectiveness of the spoiler (i.e., it's so effective at eradicating lift that it actually produces a small amount of "negative lift" in the process).
I think the term for bragging about things like this is "marketing."
3. I've never implied that spoilers and wings are mutually exclusive. one design is inherent in the other (a wing will still create drag even if its angle of attack is set to zero), but the functions they perform are distinct.
4. as noted above, the current model 911 turbo weighs 3395 lbs. the downforce generated by the spoiler is (according to your sources) 20 lbs. this represents 1/2 of 1 percent (.5%) of the car's curb weight. insignificant.
but for the lift reduction charateristics of the spoiler, you'd almost be just as well off by removing the appendage entirely and replacing it with a 20 lb bag of dog food on the parcel shelf behind the driver. (disclaimer for tom2: I'm being facetious, of course, knowing that the extra weight would have to be carried around all the time, the extra weight would affect braking and handling at all speeds, and the weight of the spoiler itself would need to be factored in. )
5. this thread started over the cl's spoiler, our debate started as a result of your blanket statement "A rear spoiler on a front wheel drive car is just retarded." strictly speaking, that statement was false, because even front drive cars can benefit from a reduction in lift at speed.
6. like I said: body lift at the rear = less weight over the rear (which is NEVER good at high speeds on any drive configuration car)
7. I stand by my position that your original statement regarding spoilers on fwd cars is retarded.
#49
7th Gear
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Haven, CT, USA
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have the factory spoiler. My way of thinking is that if you have
a RWD car, then the spolier will help hold down the rear.
Our cars are FWD......... it would make more sense to have a front
air dam then a rear spoiler.
any one agree?????
a RWD car, then the spolier will help hold down the rear.
Our cars are FWD......... it would make more sense to have a front
air dam then a rear spoiler.
any one agree?????
#52
Unregistered Member
tankmonkey,
I'm done debating this issue with you.....
1. You ARE contradicting your own statements. If you read this thread again, you just might realize it.
2. For you to claim that ANY amount of downforce is insignificant is just silly. To compare the amount of downforce with the curb weight of the entire car is even more ridiculous. If you were travelling in a 3400 lb car at 190 mph and the rear began to get loose due to lifting, wouldn't that 20 lbs of downforce be significant? It just might be enough to save your life.
3. Our debate may have started over my original statement (in your mind, not mine), but there really wasn't a debate until I read your thread which stated, "spoilers generate drag, not downforce". That was the statement that sparked this debate (in my mind). Why can't you admit you were wrong for saying that?
4. A rear spoiler on a front wheel drive vehicle is retarded
I'm done debating this issue with you.....
1. You ARE contradicting your own statements. If you read this thread again, you just might realize it.
2. For you to claim that ANY amount of downforce is insignificant is just silly. To compare the amount of downforce with the curb weight of the entire car is even more ridiculous. If you were travelling in a 3400 lb car at 190 mph and the rear began to get loose due to lifting, wouldn't that 20 lbs of downforce be significant? It just might be enough to save your life.
3. Our debate may have started over my original statement (in your mind, not mine), but there really wasn't a debate until I read your thread which stated, "spoilers generate drag, not downforce". That was the statement that sparked this debate (in my mind). Why can't you admit you were wrong for saying that?
4. A rear spoiler on a front wheel drive vehicle is retarded
#53
6 speed...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: houston
Age: 53
Posts: 1,386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Tom2
I'm done debating this issue with you.....
I'm done debating this issue with you.....
(seriously, though, I think we've managed to beat this one to death...)
Originally posted by Tom2
You ARE contradicting your own statements. If you read this thread again, you just might realize it.
You ARE contradicting your own statements. If you read this thread again, you just might realize it.
Originally posted by Tom2
If you were travelling in a 3400 lb car at 190 mph and the rear began to get loose due to lifting, wouldn't that 20 lbs of downforce be significant? It just might be enough to save your life.
If you were travelling in a 3400 lb car at 190 mph and the rear began to get loose due to lifting, wouldn't that 20 lbs of downforce be significant? It just might be enough to save your life.
so if a 3400 lb car traveling at 190 mph makes a net 20 lbs of downforce, how much lift is it experiencing? (hint - you're looking for a negative number here...)
anyway, I guess if I *did* think that a 20 lb difference was going to be critical at 190mph, I'd make sure I topped my gas tank off beforehand...
Originally posted by Tom2
there really wasn't a debate until I read your thread which stated, "spoilers generate drag, not downforce". That was the statement that sparked this debate (in my mind). Why can't you admit you were wrong for saying that?
there really wasn't a debate until I read your thread which stated, "spoilers generate drag, not downforce". That was the statement that sparked this debate (in my mind). Why can't you admit you were wrong for saying that?
spoiler (noun) -[list=a][*]a long, narrow hinged plate on the upper surface of an airplane wing that reduces lift and increases drag when raised. [*]an air deflector usually mounted at the rear of an automobile to reduce lift at high speeds. [/list=a]
source: the american heritage dictionary of the english language, 4th ed.
d'oh! :P
Originally posted by Tom2
4. A rear spoiler on a front wheel drive vehicle is retarded
4. A rear spoiler on a front wheel drive vehicle is retarded
#54
Unregistered Member
Originally posted by tankmonkey
nice nonsequitur, btw...
nonsequitur? Don't you mean "non sequitur"? Anyway, that paragraph is definitely not a non sequitur because it logically follows the premise of the entire debate.[b]
nice nonsequitur, btw...
nonsequitur? Don't you mean "non sequitur"? Anyway, that paragraph is definitely not a non sequitur because it logically follows the premise of the entire debate.[b]
#55
6 speed...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: houston
Age: 53
Posts: 1,386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Tom2
nonsequitur? Don't you mean "non sequitur"?
nonsequitur? Don't you mean "non sequitur"?
feel better now?
btw, you omitted the 'r' in 'your' while typing this sentence in an earlier post:
Originally posted by Tom2
You rear spoiler is for looks, and I think it looks better without the spoiler anyway, so I guess the rear spoiler is for NOTHING!
You rear spoiler is for looks, and I think it looks better without the spoiler anyway, so I guess the rear spoiler is for NOTHING!
#57
Unregistered Member
Originally posted by tankmonkey
nice catch.
feel better now?
btw, you omitted the 'r' in 'your' while typing this sentence in an earlier post:
nice catch.
feel better now?
btw, you omitted the 'r' in 'your' while typing this sentence in an earlier post:
Funny that you should compare an ovbious typo to an even more obvious mistake
Anyway, wing or spoiler? You be the judge:
#59
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Coppell, Texas, USA
Posts: 1,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good photo of the f16. I am a engineer for new components on the new strike fighter; we also make the f16 in my factory. This guy must work here somewhere.
#60
6 speed...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: houston
Age: 53
Posts: 1,386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Tom2
Feel better? LOL, I felt fine all along. I told you that I wasn't going to debate the spoiler/wing thing anymore, that's all.
Funny that you should compare an ovbious typo to an even more obvious mistake
Feel better? LOL, I felt fine all along. I told you that I wasn't going to debate the spoiler/wing thing anymore, that's all.
Funny that you should compare an ovbious typo to an even more obvious mistake
Originally posted by Tom2
Anyway, wing or spoiler? You be the judge:
Anyway, wing or spoiler? You be the judge:
<hr></hr>
I'm particularly fond of this biplane jobber with the side extensions... :sqnteek:
<hr></hr>
the suspension is sagging from all the extra "downforce" provided by this one...
(5 bonus points if you can find the st. louis arch in this picture...)
#61
Instructor
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: salt lake city, utah
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
old timer with sarcasm...
Originally posted by IWannanS
While it is theoretically impossible, I believe there is a documented case of over 27 sarcastic replies to a single post back in the late eighties. Of course, this was on a BBS accessed at 300 baud so it took A LOT of work back then.
While it is theoretically impossible, I believe there is a documented case of over 27 sarcastic replies to a single post back in the late eighties. Of course, this was on a BBS accessed at 300 baud so it took A LOT of work back then.
#62
Instructor
Originally posted by JRock
So that would mean adding a little surface area in one place reduces a LOT of surface area in another - so it still goes in line with what I said - you can't improve drag by ADDING surface area.
In your example you end up with NEGATIVE surface area, so of COURSE it's going to be better drag.
A wing stuck on the trunk of the car isn't removing all that underbody drag.
So that would mean adding a little surface area in one place reduces a LOT of surface area in another - so it still goes in line with what I said - you can't improve drag by ADDING surface area.
In your example you end up with NEGATIVE surface area, so of COURSE it's going to be better drag.
A wing stuck on the trunk of the car isn't removing all that underbody drag.
Hey, surface area is surface area. You can't get negative surface area. Mold a lump of clay into a different shape with the same surface area, and you get different drag, potentially.
Anyway, don't bug me about the wing. Go nag Infiniti about why they say drag is 0.01 less with the wing. I could point to some references on the web to back up what I said about turbulence and all. The point was that adding surface area can (not does) reduce drag. Just a point of physics. I don't have a wing, and don't suspect that it doesn't impact a CL-S in any positive way other than aesthetically, if you like 'em.
#63
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by codehead
Doh! jrock, now yer pissing me off!
Hey, surface area is surface area. You can't get negative surface area. Mold a lump of clay into a different shape with the same surface area, and you get different drag, potentially.
Anyway, don't bug me about the wing. Go nag Infiniti about why they say drag is 0.01 less with the wing. I could point to some references on the web to back up what I said about turbulence and all. The point was that adding surface area can (not does) reduce drag. Just a point of physics. I don't have a wing, and don't suspect that it doesn't impact a CL-S in any positive way other than aesthetically, if you like 'em.
Doh! jrock, now yer pissing me off!
Hey, surface area is surface area. You can't get negative surface area. Mold a lump of clay into a different shape with the same surface area, and you get different drag, potentially.
Anyway, don't bug me about the wing. Go nag Infiniti about why they say drag is 0.01 less with the wing. I could point to some references on the web to back up what I said about turbulence and all. The point was that adding surface area can (not does) reduce drag. Just a point of physics. I don't have a wing, and don't suspect that it doesn't impact a CL-S in any positive way other than aesthetically, if you like 'em.
The whole issue of adding or removing area oversimplifies fluid-dynamics. It is certainly possible to add area to reduce turbulent flow, and decrease the induced drag that can result from certain types of rear-end designs. Normally, the drag on a wing is related to its lift (in the case of an aircraft), or its downforce (in the case of most car's aero devices). However, there are occasions, where a wing or "more area" is placed next to wheels, the back of the car, and so on, and the drag is reduced.
There really is no "simple" answer -- it is a matter of going to a wind-tunnel and actualy measuring the drag on the car.
So, maybe yes, maybe no -- it depends...
Finally, if someone wants to "visit" this subject, there are probably some diagrams that will clear up some confusion about frontal area vs. streamlining that happens in back of a shape:
Links and excerpts
http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Sports/...acecar-01.html
"The rear spoiler can reduce flow separation at the rear window, which reduces drag. It also increases air flow under the body, which promotes downforce at the rear of the car..."
(The if it helps depends on the how much flow divergence/flow separation there is and that is influenced by a number of factors including how steep the rear window is. For example, it would be "lousy" in a "hatchback"...)
AND
"In the early 60's, Ferrari's engineers discovered that by adding an air foil ( we simply call "Wing" ) to the rear end, lift can be dramatically reduce or even generates net downforce. At the same time, drag is only slightly increased...."
(They are talking about a Ferrari, and that is a nice blended shape [towards the rear]...)
http://home.planet.nl/~imps/tech/aero/tech_aero.htm
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
1fatcrxnem1
3G TL Tires, Wheels & Suspension
22
06-01-2018 01:23 AM
audi, beneficial, cars, cones, deck, drag, end, functional, laminar, measurements, rear, speed, spoiler, spoilers, tt