What happened to my original post?!

The new car needs less wing becuase the front spoiler is smaller to give the car balance under the rules. This is not optimal.

 

I have seen a S2000 wind tunnel picture. S2000 does NOT have a smooth roof line, not even close.

 

Notice 2D wings need to sit at a higher height:

 

It is already a wing that is operating in both a turbulent and separated wake condition. It isn't an unstable condition like if you were in an airplace and dropped airspeed until the plane dropped out from under you. Increasing the height toward the freestream air is not going to hurt the performance of the wing.

 

I have never seen a 2D wing except inside of an engineering book.

 

 

would a 435 mm high pedestal on a voltex style wing, be negative for our cars?

 

If one were using a Spoon or Spoon-type hardtop, I could see the logic in keeping a wing lower than what you might see otherwise. Even then, if one doesn't tape the seem of the joining pieces, I'd be willing to bet a lot of the gain in design is lost in actualization.


Note to self: Remember to tape the seam or just fiberglass the damn thing into a single piece.

 

APR has done a lot to update their CFD explanations since we started discussing them on this forum. Please read the link FINAL GEAR posted, it is a good summary of our conclusions over the past few years with practical application and will save us from retyping everything here.

 

I've read that analysis and it doesn't talk much about airfoil height. Still seems to me that it is debatable. The article merely states:


As a general guideline, vehicles with steeper-sloped rear roof/glass/trunk areas are better suited to use higher airfoil mounting heights (just below the roof line). Vehicles with gradually-sloped rear sections (i.e. fastbacks) can work well with lower airfoil mounting heights.