why mount a wing like this?
09-24-2009, 03:05 PM
#6
Le Mans Master
1. increased downforce by having all the mounts and fasteners in the high pressure more energetic air and not disturbing the lower pressure flow.
2. easier to mount as far aft as they are for more leverage
That is probably some of the theory, the question is does it work.
No endplates, curious.
2. easier to mount as far aft as they are for more leverage
That is probably some of the theory, the question is does it work.
No endplates, curious.
09-24-2009, 03:11 PM
#7
Le Mans Master
Edit: I was thinking of the Acura and Audi have this style. I think they did some technically pieces on it when the R15 debuted.
"Like the Acura ARX-02a the Audi features ‘swan neck' rear wing supports as a result. "They reduced the width to 1.6m from 2m so we had a big loss in rear down force and we had trouble with turbulence on the underside of the wing" explains Appel. "One of the solutions was not to support the wing from underneath but from above.
Its not easy to do, at 250km/h you have 1000kg on it, from a structures point of view it is difficult but it is more efficient."
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/a...i-r15-tdi.html
Last edited by USAsOnlyWay; 09-24-2009 at 03:20 PM.
09-24-2009, 03:59 PM
#8
Race Director
Edit: I was thinking of the Acura and Audi have this style. I think they did some technically pieces on it when the R15 debuted.
"Like the Acura ARX-02a the Audi features ‘swan neck' rear wing supports as a result. "They reduced the width to 1.6m from 2m so we had a big loss in rear down force and we had trouble with turbulence on the underside of the wing" explains Appel. "One of the solutions was not to support the wing from underneath but from above.
Its not easy to do, at 250km/h you have 1000kg on it, from a structures point of view it is difficult but it is more efficient."
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/a...i-r15-tdi.html
BET ITS BIG $$$
09-24-2009, 11:02 PM
#11
Advanced
Member Since: Jul 2009
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I designed a wing element that's fully mounted by the end plates. Wing element has an inner carbon structure that gives it enough strength (with a safety factor margin of course) that fits my application.
Several GTC cars in europe use this same design (where i originally got the idea). Maserati, Ferrari, etc. End plates are structural carbon panels that go through quarter panels and attach to the unibody.
Several GTC cars in europe use this same design (where i originally got the idea). Maserati, Ferrari, etc. End plates are structural carbon panels that go through quarter panels and attach to the unibody.
09-25-2009, 12:21 AM
#12
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Sep 2006
Location: San Mateo CA
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-25-2009, 12:45 AM
#13
Melting Slicks
You are correct, the rules state that the wing must be 5cm foreward of the rearmost part of the body, cannot exceed 91% of the car's width, and must 10cm lower than the highest part of the roof. If that's the actual configuration of the race car they must have gotten a waiver
09-25-2009, 01:19 AM
#15
Le Mans Master
You are correct, the rules state that the wing must be 5cm foreward
of the rearmost part of the body, cannot exceed 91% of the car's
width, and must 10cm lower than the highest part of the roof. If
that's the actual configuration of the race car they must have gotten
a waiver
of the rearmost part of the body, cannot exceed 91% of the car's
width, and must 10cm lower than the highest part of the roof. If
that's the actual configuration of the race car they must have gotten
a waiver
Q & A with Paul Gentilozzi
By Simon Strang
AutoSport.com 2009.09.24
Q. Has the car been homologated yet?
PG: Yes it has by the ACO.
Q. Were there any challenges with that?
PG: It was an interesting process. The first car was outside of the
intention of the ACO, so we had to build another car. We read the
rules differently than they did and in the end they were right. We
were too aggressive.
Q. Is the car significantly different from your first attempt?
PG: No just some alterations to the chassis. We read the rules one
way, and we are inexperienced at this, and after we met with the
IMSA officials and the ACO and realised we had gone in the wrong
direction. Rather than do an S-car like some manufacturers do, we
decided to build a full-blown GT2 car.
.
By Simon Strang
AutoSport.com 2009.09.24
Q. Has the car been homologated yet?
PG: Yes it has by the ACO.
Q. Were there any challenges with that?
PG: It was an interesting process. The first car was outside of the
intention of the ACO, so we had to build another car. We read the
rules differently than they did and in the end they were right. We
were too aggressive.
Q. Is the car significantly different from your first attempt?
PG: No just some alterations to the chassis. We read the rules one
way, and we are inexperienced at this, and after we met with the
IMSA officials and the ACO and realised we had gone in the wrong
direction. Rather than do an S-car like some manufacturers do, we
decided to build a full-blown GT2 car.
09-25-2009, 01:26 AM
#16
Le Mans Master
Fewer than you might think
RSR DEBUTS JAGUAR XKR GT2 RACER AT PETIT LE MANS
AmericanLemans.com 2009.09.24
The body has undergone intensive computational fluid dynamics
work - known as CFD.
Which isn't to say that some time hasn't been put into the shape.AmericanLemans.com 2009.09.24
The body has undergone intensive computational fluid dynamics
work - known as CFD.
Information from the CFD was then incorporated into the
finished body work which was made in clay at the RSR facility. More
than 1,100 man hours were spent during the clay process. The
carbon fiber composite body work was molded and produced by a
local company in Michigan and conforms to the ACO guidelines.
.
finished body work which was made in clay at the RSR facility. More
than 1,100 man hours were spent during the clay process. The
carbon fiber composite body work was molded and produced by a
local company in Michigan and conforms to the ACO guidelines.
09-25-2009, 07:42 AM
#17
Race Director
intuition would make you think that the mounts would actually disrupt the air before it hits the wing at all, regardless of whether it improves the low-pressure side or not. Would be awesome if teams were will to share some of the development info with us.
The Audi version of the mount seems smaller, less disruptive. btw, intuition is pretty much useless in Aero most of the time.
The Audi version of the mount seems smaller, less disruptive. btw, intuition is pretty much useless in Aero most of the time.
09-25-2009, 07:42 AM
#18
From Mulsanne Mike:
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/AcuraARX-02-4.html
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/AcuraARX-02-4.html
It's hard to overlook the rear wing mounts. The "swan necks" mount to the less sensitive, less important high pressure side of the wing freeing up low pressure side wing area and reducing airflow disruption.
The reduction in chord from 300 mm to 250 mm for '09 (in addition to the span reduction) has led to the use of wing profiles with increased camber. These more aggressive profiles are inherently more sensitive to wing disruptions which tend to result in very large flow separations. The Acura's rear wing mounting solution is designed to reduce these surface disruptions as much as possible.
For the record, the rear wing mounts on the Acura are actually referred to as "Quillars", which is an amalgamation of "Question Mark Pillars."
The reduction in chord from 300 mm to 250 mm for '09 (in addition to the span reduction) has led to the use of wing profiles with increased camber. These more aggressive profiles are inherently more sensitive to wing disruptions which tend to result in very large flow separations. The Acura's rear wing mounting solution is designed to reduce these surface disruptions as much as possible.
For the record, the rear wing mounts on the Acura are actually referred to as "Quillars", which is an amalgamation of "Question Mark Pillars."