http://automobiles.honda.com/s2000/s2000-cr.aspx


S2000 CR Race Track Ready
Introducing the next roadster to epitomize the pure thoroughbred racer lineage of Honda motorsports: The 2008 S2000 CR

 

I'm with Nick on this one (I'm pretty sure thats FormRedlines name)


Its blatantly obvious that he is an engineer. And a damn good one judging by his posts. He is being extremely objective and wanting proof/tangible numbers before jumping to a conclusion (like 99% of forum users do). The problem is that the rest of you don't see this and see it as a personal attack for some reason. Sounds like Nick is fed up with people's tendencies to believe everything they see on TV/the internet.




Nick - you gonna make it out to any autox's this year? I got a new toy to play in AS with.



<-- former red STS Civic Si



yeah I'm that guy

 

Are you serious?

Maybe you can call Honda and get those numbers. Still haven't heard whether or not this has been done. What did Honda say or do you expect them to call you? I think anyone who wants to call BS on Honda in regards to this subject is ignorant. While we are at it, lets go ahead and ask Honda for some blueprints of the motor to make sure it's balanced correctly and can really take 8200rpm and after that we can get some official signed and notarized statements from all the executives stating the strength of the bolts and rivets that hold the car together to make sure it qualifies for track duty.

Seriously, can't you take Honda's word for it. Its not like they are hiding anything...

 

I'm Nick, he's Dave, just to clear things up and yes Dave (FormulaRedline) is a damn good engineer, in fact he is an aeronautical engineer.

I think this is getting out of hand now too. I hate conflict on the boards but it would seem to me in this case that Honda has implemented aero on the car but there is no actual data that would tell us to what extent the CR aero packeage is "helping" the rear lift-prone S2000. Reminds me of the NA2 NSXR with aero goodies to reduce lift and create some downforce at speed - just how much is a mystery but if you are getting serious about tracking the car, your probably going to go with a bigger, higher mounted rear wing right?

The bigger GT wings mounted up high are the choice of most on here when it comes to a wing for the track but it would be nice to see data pertaining to downforce, which is something Dave has been trying to get done on his APR GT300.

FWIW I say save your money and buy the GT300 (at least thats my plan). All things being equal, something mounted up high with a larger wing element would in theory generate more downforce than a lower, smaller wing. Dave, when you gonna hook up those strain guages to your wing?

 

there's a miscommunication and hence, differing expectations of statement accuracy.

but it appears everyone is on the same page now.

 

though there might not be "tested" data is a 3 second faster laptop not "tested" data
after all one can agree the difference between the two cars are suspension and aerodynamics so therefore...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=u3aEpmBnur0

 

...and tires. And seats for that matter. Without data, for all you know the CR's yellow seats are the reason why it's faster around a track.

I read a term years ago which has stuck with me ever since: "proof by vigorous assertion". See a lot of that being attempted in this thread.

 

I think FormulaRedline's point is that the only person to say it was "wind tunnel tested" was jyeung528. Honda hasn't said it was wind tunnel tested. None of the magazines said it was wind tunnel tested. They both only said that it DOES provide more downforce - but we don't actually know if that's simulated data or tested data (regardless of what the actual numbers are).

 

That's pretty much it. Some of the magazines do throw the word "wind tunnel" in, but not in any context that suggests Honda told them it was. I think they just threw it in there because they were writing about aero, saw the Cl estimates from Honda's press release, and jumped to conclusions.

I agree with jyeung528, I think we are all the same page, just with different standards. Even though I'm sure the wing has some benefit, I just don't feel comfortable going around recommending it for race applications without knowing some more specifics. As PedalFaster suggests, we really just don't know how effective the wing is as an individual element in any certain terms. I'm not saying that it doesn't work or that someone shouldn't get it, I just can't put my personal seal of approval on a product based on magazine conjecture or butt dyno results.

 

you basically want to know how it stacks up with other wings...

i suppose the higher the wing the better...otherwise i'd probably assume honda made a good wing for the given wing height.