[QUOTE=EternalShadowAW,Jul 10 2009, 11:56 PM] twin tiered or multiple element slat style wings are actually quite good at making a lot of lift especially at extreme angles of attack near stall.

 

y is that? </curious>

 

Because production cars aren't designed with managing airflow in mind. Dual-element wings require not only very precise positioning of the two elements relative to one another, but also very predictable and non-turbulent airflow (both in a straight line and turning) for the sped-up air from the first element to feed the second in a beneficial way.

That isn't to say there won't be some benefit from an off-the-shelf dual element one-size-fits-all wing -- but it won't provide a meaningful improvement relative to a single-element wing, especially if you consider a single-element wing with a cord length comparable to the two (dual-element) pieces combined.

A 1"x10" piece of pine lumber on a couple of uprights will provide some aero improvement. So does sticking your hand out the window. But the fine-tuned ground-sucking stuff we see on aero-engineered cars requires head-to-toe airflow management -- which is almost impossible if you're sticking with the shape of a production car.

/pretend-expertise

 

we are getting a shipment of Voltex wings in soon, the Type 2 wing is actually more affordable than you think. FRP can be special ordered and is a lot cheaper than CF.

 

Why would anyone want to create lift with a wing on a car

 

the sarcasm escapes joo

 

What "dual element" wings do is transfer energy into the boundary layer of the suction side of the following element. This is intended to reduce flow separation, but it comes with some costs.

So if you are running into problems with your airflow separating, this is one way to solve them. If you are not having those problems, there is cost in terms of lost efficiency but no benefit.

 

I read that article, and I think its a gross generalization to say that. There are a number of conclusions they came up with, none of which are ground braking. There are advantages to running 3D elements, but ultimately their efficiency is a function of placement.

 

"(T)he style that they tested..." Not a gross generalization, a specific summary of the conclusions. None of them are ground breaking, just a reminder that dropping 2x$ on a "special" wing may in fact yield worse performance than a straight design.

As with EVERY and ANY analysis of data, it is all dependent on the type of model, the initial conditions, the parameters used, etc., etc. None of these will hold constant in the real world and vectors will come in at all angles.

 

Exactly.