Wings and things...

[Knestis]

My reasoning:

1. It's a standard "race car" part that we're not running.
2. It's cheap.
3. It makes you go faster round the track. (proven)
4. It can make the car handle better.
5. It makes the cars look better/worse/more like real race cars.
6. It can help attract a younger/tuner type to the class. ...
[/b]

Translation: "I have perceptions of what a race car is supposed to be and I want IT to align with them."

Nothing personal but there's a lot of danger in this kind of approach. Everyone's got their own "thing" on this issue - aluminum door panels, lots of gauges, missing dashboards... Heck - turbos. If that rationale makes sense for wings it makes sense for other things.

They ARE cheap, though - the carbon VWRacing rear wing for the MkIV Golf is only $1149 from Bildon.

K

[planet6racing]

If we add wings, can we add moveable aerodynamic devices? With the possible new ECU rules, it wouldn't be too hard to add variable wing angles to that...

(And, no, I'm not joking. Tracks like Road America would benefit HUGELY from something like that.)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Two thoughts (more serious than my last post);

1. If it doesn't provide downforce (or lift conversely) then it provides drag. Aero(hydro)dynamics 101. You must have enough forward speed to realize the gain and not the loss (ie drag). An aereeeoplane traveling at sixty miles per hour (on land) will take less work to propel without the wings than with.[/b]

Is this worded correctly? Downforce IS drag. High downforce = high drag = lower top speed. Low downforce = low drag = higher top speed. Am I wrong?

2. Why do we always bring up the "tuner crowd" segment? Wings are not keeping them away from sports car racing...access to it is, be it money or time or information or distance.

R [/b]

Tuner dudes have - and spend their money. People always point to them as a pocket of potential 'customers'.

[ddewhurst]

Some of these brainstorm thoughts make me wonder if I'm logged into the RX-7 club site.

[cmaclean]

Translation: "I have perceptions of what a race car is supposed to be and I want IT to align with them."
[/b]

LOL, not sure what translator you're using to come up with that corker!

[gran racing]

Honda Challenge has basically stolen a LOT of IT's thunder with the very active tuner crowd.[/b]

I have to say it is interesting to hear what the Honda Challenge folks are saying about IT. They're saying that IT is steeling a LOT of Honda Challenge's thunder due to the Toyo spec tire among other reasons. Besides, why should SCCA try to emulate what NASA is doing? I don't think it's such a bad thing to have some differences which may attract a different target market.

SCCA also needs to utilize the PDX tool now that we finally have it.

[Greg Amy]

Is this worded correctly? Downforce IS drag.[/b]

To be accurate, Andy (yes, I know it's kinda off-topic), they are not the same thing. Accurately said, devices that produce downforce (or lift) also produce drag, in two forms: parasitic drag (same as dragging anything through the air; increases as a function of such things as frontal area and skin friction) and induced drag (as a function of the lift; it increases as a function of the angle of attack). Even if you were to make a form infinitely small as to create zero parasitic drag, any lift would produce induced drag.

So, they're not the exact same thing, but they are directly related: more lift generally causes more drag. - GA

[Knestis]

LOL, not sure what translator you're using to come up with that corker!
[/b]

The one honed over 25 years of listening to cases that started out with pretty much exactly the points you've made but in the end - if/when every one had pretty much been countered - boiled down to "but it's a RACING car and RACING cars have [fill in the blank]."

Really. It's not you, it's me.

K

[captdanh]

Aren't factory rear spoilers allowed already? EX, Fiero, MR2?

[Andy Bettencourt]

To be accurate, Andy (yes, I know it's kinda off-topic), they are not the same thing. Accurately said, devices that produce downforce (or lift) also produce drag, in two forms: parasitic drag (same as dragging anything through the air; increases as a function of such things as frontal area and skin friction) and induced drag (as a function of the lift; it increases as a function of the angle of attack). Even if you were to make a form infinitely small as to create zero parasitic drag, any lift would produce induced drag.

So, they're not the exact same thing, but they are directly related: more lift generally causes more drag. - GA
[/b]

Yes, poorly worded on my part - downforce CREATES drag - is what I should have typed.

[Doc Bro]

Yes, poorly worded on my part - downforce CREATES drag - is what I should have typed.
[/b]

Yes, and is the only desirable part of drag.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes, and is the only desirable part of drag.

R [/b]

Unless you're a pilot...

[Doc Bro]

Unless you're a pilot...
[/b]

I should've known that would be coming next...

R

[shwah]

No big wings please. Not IT to me.

[bldn10]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think that allowing bigger wheels, lower ground clearance, and limited "aero," e.g. a "reasonable" wing - stuff to make our cars look more like DTM, etc. - would attract more interest (racers, spectators, media) to the class. Those things have become common bolt-ons on the street and are more consistent w/ the Class Philosophy than open computers.

[cmaclean]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think that allowing bigger wheels, lower ground clearance, and limited "aero," e.g. a "reasonable" wing - stuff to make our cars look more like DTM, etc. - would attract more interest (racers, spectators, media) to the class. Those things have become common bolt-ons on the street and are more consistent w/ the Class Philosophy than open computers.
[/b]

Werd.

[Knestis]

OR



It's out of date now and largely obsolete because we finally got the bigger issues resolved but...

EDIT - better link is http://www.it2.evaluand.com/compare.php3

Have fun!

K

EDIT EDIT - for those of you not around then, consider for a minute that in May of 2004 (not so very long ago!), it was BIG NEWS that the following cars were under consideration for a move out of ITS:

Acura Integra RS 94-97
Chrysler Neon SOHC 95-96
Chrysler Neon DOHC 95-96
Honda Civic Si 92-94
Nissan NX2000 90-92
Nissan Sentra SER 2.0 90-92
VW GTI 2.0 16v 90-92
VW Jetta GLI 2.0 16v 91
Honda Prelude 88-91

[Greg Amy]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think that allowing bigger wheels, lower ground clearance, and limited "aero," e.g. a "reasonable" wing - stuff to make our cars look more like DTM, etc. - would attract more interest (racers, spectators, media) to the class. Those things have become common bolt-ons on the street and are more consistent w/ the Class Philosophy than open computers.
[/b]

Ok, if we're going that way then let's get philosophical:

Why would that be a good thing?

[shwah]

Doesn't Prepared already offer many of these things?

Does IT have a participation problem?

I think cars with those things look cool, I just don't think that they fit the Improved Touring class.

[Doc Bro]

I guess I'm somewhat baffled by this topic. While I agree a wing MAY make a car more "racing inspired" in apppearance, are there member's out there who feel that this IS what is holding them back from being competitive? Have we digressed to the point of needing to add wings to;

1. Attract new members?
2. Feel like we drive real race cars?

It is my contention that this effort is driven purely by an esthetic need not a competitive one. I have a "race"car that would greatly benefit from additional rear downforce, however addition of a wing will only disrupt my current progress and add more time to a problem we almost have understanding of. I guess I'm not saavy enough to understand why something like this would be necessary or good, nor has any arguement to the contrary convinced me.

R