Beneficial Aerodynamic Modifications for your 8
whines all the way home
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,402
Likes: 2
From: Towson/Baltimore, MD
It might clear, http://www.kognitiondesign.com/mazda.html
#50
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 7,521
Likes: 11
From: Caput Mundi
It might clear, http://www.kognitiondesign.com/mazda.html
Edit: not completely, lol.
Last edited by bse50; Apr 30, 2012 at 10:12 AM.
It might clear, http://www.kognitiondesign.com/mazda.html
$1399 is not a bad price at all, considering they are better and cheaper than APR.
i value youre insight bse, do you think making new stands for the g-stream will ruin its ability to make as much downforce as with the stands it comes with?
Im thinking that they designed the stands for a reason and that switching them for something like a RE-A type stand might ruin some of its abilities. The stands that hold the wing up is the only turnoff for me for the g-stream.
The G-Stream wings are $1399 and are vacuumed cf weighing at 11lbs, it is my optimal choice for a functional wing though like i said, the bases are god ugly to me.
EDIT: sorry for the massive picture.
#50
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 7,521
Likes: 11
From: Caput Mundi
That thing sports design overkill yet it still isn't chassis mounted.
Truth is.. if you need THAT kind of wing cutting some body panels shouldn't be an issue or something you aren't willing to do. If it's for the looks... just save 1500$
Truth is.. if you need THAT kind of wing cutting some body panels shouldn't be an issue or something you aren't willing to do. If it's for the looks... just save 1500$
i dont mind cutting panels, i plan on attaching it beneath where the hatch goes on the fd, and i am going to have 2 trunk hatches, 1 with a cutout for the stand and 1 with a r1 spoiler.
heres a pic of what im talking about
http://www.rx7club.com/showpost.php?...4&postcount=16
I just hate the shape of the stand, if possible id like to fabricate a stand like this one.
If im going to buy a wing, id rather it be the best i can buy, if i have to leave the standard g-stream stands so be it, but ideally id like to swap them for something alittle more sleek.
heres a pic of what im talking about
http://www.rx7club.com/showpost.php?...4&postcount=16
I just hate the shape of the stand, if possible id like to fabricate a stand like this one.
If im going to buy a wing, id rather it be the best i can buy, if i have to leave the standard g-stream stands so be it, but ideally id like to swap them for something alittle more sleek.
The real question is, who needs that much rear downforce on the RX8? If you add rear downforce without front downforce your going to increase understeer, plus it is the front end that gets lift at high speeds, not the rear. If is low speed oversteer your trying to fix, thats a driver or alignment/suspension problem no wing will fix.
For the money and function, you cant beet the APR GTC-200 wing. If you really think the trunk mount is a problem, design a chassis mount. I think you can do something functional and simple for very little time and money if you think out side the box.
Honestly I think people like spending a lot of money to slap fancy looking parts on their car that will only slow them down.
For the money and function, you cant beet the APR GTC-200 wing. If you really think the trunk mount is a problem, design a chassis mount. I think you can do something functional and simple for very little time and money if you think out side the box.
Honestly I think people like spending a lot of money to slap fancy looking parts on their car that will only slow them down.
What APR wing cost more then $1399? You can by a GTC-200 for about $700 and or a GTC-300 for $1300. I wont argue that the Kognition wing is a better wing, I am just not sure it is a better wing for the RX8, unless your running 400 RWHP and a lot of front downforce to match.
while i agree this is overkill for a rx8, im just consulting bse for its application on my future rx7 fd.
according to the information gathered here:
http://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=988346
i can come to the conclusion that the g-stream is "better", but without testing from all the wings then its not for sure, but the evidence g-stream provides makes it a better option than kognition and APR.
EDIT: yes i know this is rx8club and not rx7club, but my original question was not related to either car, but if creating my own stands would hinder the wings performance, or was it negligible.
according to the information gathered here:
http://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=988346
i can come to the conclusion that the g-stream is "better", but without testing from all the wings then its not for sure, but the evidence g-stream provides makes it a better option than kognition and APR.
EDIT: yes i know this is rx8club and not rx7club, but my original question was not related to either car, but if creating my own stands would hinder the wings performance, or was it negligible.
Last edited by EricB; May 1, 2012 at 01:51 PM.
Reduced yes and you can even generate a good amount of front downforce for a small amount of money and time. My point is that an airdam, front splitter and even some canyards all together wont generate as much downforce as a big rear wing. Its all about balance.
Last edited by Highway8; May 1, 2012 at 02:05 PM.
#50
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 7,521
Likes: 11
From: Caput Mundi
Where's their evidence? I couldn't find it.
Anyway i'm not an aero engineer so I can only speak from experience and empirical tests.
I can tell you that there are at least 6 turns I constantly enter at 120ish mph and without a wing it's scary.
@Highway: You're right. However there's much much much more to that that can be done to reduce front lift, still for dirt cheap as I stated. Adding front downforce gets tricky instead after the canards and front dam\splitter are already there.
Anyway i'm not an aero engineer so I can only speak from experience and empirical tests.
I can tell you that there are at least 6 turns I constantly enter at 120ish mph and without a wing it's scary.
@Highway: You're right. However there's much much much more to that that can be done to reduce front lift, still for dirt cheap as I stated. Adding front downforce gets tricky instead after the canards and front dam\splitter are already there.
Last edited by bse50; May 1, 2012 at 02:02 PM.
Where's their evidence? I couldn't find it.
Anyway i'm not an aero engineer so I can only speak from experience and empirical tests.
I can tell you that there are at least 6 turns I constantly enter at 120ish mph and without a wing it's scary.
@Highway: You're right. However there's much much much more to that that can be done to reduce front lift, still for dirt cheap as I stated. Adding front downforce gets tricky instead after the canards and front dam\splitter are already there.
Anyway i'm not an aero engineer so I can only speak from experience and empirical tests.
I can tell you that there are at least 6 turns I constantly enter at 120ish mph and without a wing it's scary.
@Highway: You're right. However there's much much much more to that that can be done to reduce front lift, still for dirt cheap as I stated. Adding front downforce gets tricky instead after the canards and front dam\splitter are already there.
i was confusing gstream and kognition, kognition provides cfd data here: http://www.kognitiondesign.com/cfd.html
but according to the thread in rx7club….
up to 600lb at 120mph (in free stream)
http://g-stream.com/C800.html
yes APR's "work". a barn door works. APR is probably better than a barn door lol. its just a question of how well do they work. i've been collecting wing profiles for a while now and comparing them in a 2D panel solver (XFOIL) to estimate lift and drag.
the trend i'm noticing is that most companies use a NACA foil (ancient technology, low lift), or just copy something that was actually developed for a car, which pretty uch means F1/CART/IRL since they're the only ones with big aero budget.
the problems with that are:
a) low aspect ratio wings behave very differently from higher aspect ratio. open wheel cars have very small wing spans and rely on endplate vortices to keep flow attached.
b) every F1 "inspired" wing i've seen is just a copy of the lower element, with no flap. you cant simply remove a flap and expect a wing to work well. it might, but thats a shot in the dark. multi elemtn wings are really one big wing with 1 or more slots in the middle, so you're basically chopping off the back half.
APR's GTC200 and their cheap aluminum dual element wings are copies of Pennon main elements, the GTC300 and 500 are thir own design (I believe).
Kognition copied a Williams F1 main element from several years ago.
Mallen Alley looks a lot like a formula main element, but not as extreme.
NASCAR COT is an LNV109A. High lift for planes, but doesn't work at lower speeds (major drag due to laminar seperation bubble). Good for a 180mph oval.
Fulcrum has a good profile. Not quite as high lift as a G-Stream, but not a copy from another application.
as far as I can tell, G-Stream uses a S1223 profile, possibly modified. I havn't seen a proper cross section yet, but it looks an aweful lot like it. the S1223 is the best published single element wing profile out there, FX-74-CL5-140 is a close 2nd. Anything better is not public information, or at least I havnt been able to dig it up.
http://g-stream.com/C800.html
yes APR's "work". a barn door works. APR is probably better than a barn door lol. its just a question of how well do they work. i've been collecting wing profiles for a while now and comparing them in a 2D panel solver (XFOIL) to estimate lift and drag.
the trend i'm noticing is that most companies use a NACA foil (ancient technology, low lift), or just copy something that was actually developed for a car, which pretty uch means F1/CART/IRL since they're the only ones with big aero budget.
the problems with that are:
a) low aspect ratio wings behave very differently from higher aspect ratio. open wheel cars have very small wing spans and rely on endplate vortices to keep flow attached.
b) every F1 "inspired" wing i've seen is just a copy of the lower element, with no flap. you cant simply remove a flap and expect a wing to work well. it might, but thats a shot in the dark. multi elemtn wings are really one big wing with 1 or more slots in the middle, so you're basically chopping off the back half.
APR's GTC200 and their cheap aluminum dual element wings are copies of Pennon main elements, the GTC300 and 500 are thir own design (I believe).
Kognition copied a Williams F1 main element from several years ago.
Mallen Alley looks a lot like a formula main element, but not as extreme.
NASCAR COT is an LNV109A. High lift for planes, but doesn't work at lower speeds (major drag due to laminar seperation bubble). Good for a 180mph oval.
Fulcrum has a good profile. Not quite as high lift as a G-Stream, but not a copy from another application.
as far as I can tell, G-Stream uses a S1223 profile, possibly modified. I havn't seen a proper cross section yet, but it looks an aweful lot like it. the S1223 is the best published single element wing profile out there, FX-74-CL5-140 is a close 2nd. Anything better is not public information, or at least I havnt been able to dig it up.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rx8wannahave
Series I Exterior Appearance and Body Kits
29
May 2, 2005 09:28 AM
2004, aerodynamic, air, automotive, car, foils, increase, material, mazda, modifications, mods, mpg, mpgplus, rx8, wrap
