FWD Wings Have Purpose...

"Moose Kitty" (moosekitty) 05/12/2014 at 13:56 • Filed to: FWD, Wings, purposeful, race car

5

28

Wings on FWD cars actually have a purpose. You might completely disagree with me, but there is a path to my crooked logic and lack of companionship with commonsense. It's all about weight distribution...

50/50 weight distribution has always been a big fuss when designing a performance car, high end or not. With a FWD car most of the weight is at the front of the car. Even though it's not common the rear end can step out with a lighter rear. That is normally remedied with fatter tires, but still causes handling issues especially with torque steer already being an issue. The torque steer can be remedied with by other methods, but lets focus on wings.

So as everyone one who'll read this knows (hopefully) what a wing does. A spoiler doesn't do anything but spoil a car. With a wing, the downforce created pushes on the rear of the car no matter which wheels are being driven. Because a FWD car is so front heavy, the weight of the wing (depending on material) by itself aids in weight distribution thus increase in handling, and while the car is driving the downforce pushes the car's weight distribution more towards the 50/50 range the faster the car is traveling. It also increases the stability, safety, and easy of control with the car. With less understeer, there's less of a need to get new underpants when going from a straight to a hairpin. There's also less close calls with the walls.

With this whole pushing against the masses, I will redeem myself by saying a wing on a non-racing FWD car is just stupid. All it is is a fashion statement that pisses car enthusiasts off that know better. I tend to rage on people with pseudo "wings" on their civics. Road cars have no need for one unless it's keeping the rear of the car clean.

So yeah what do you think about that...

* I'm seriously serious about this, and I'm open to what you have to say. Just please read the whole thing before grabbing pitchforks and torches. I have a method to my madness. Plus this is something i've had experience with in a racing setting. *

Reigntastic > Moose Kitty 05/12/2014 at 14:02

3

Definitely improves stability on the edge of traction. Will absolutely agree that wings on commuter cars is stupid.

cabarne4 > Moose Kitty 05/12/2014 at 14:04

5

Fair point, and yeah — only really useful on racecars.

In order for the wing to generate enough downforce to make a difference, you have to be going FAST. So, a wing isn't going to make your FiST any faster around an AutoX course, but it might make it a bit quicker around a proper road course, where corners generally have a much faster entry speed.

OPPOsaurus WRX > Moose Kitty 05/12/2014 at 14:04

8

Jephy > Moose Kitty 05/12/2014 at 14:16

1

I agree with you but I think the explanation is a little off. It's not about 50/50 weight distribution IMO.

In FWD cars loose is fast for the most part. However loose is also terrifying at high speeds. Throwing a wing on a FWD race car allows you to set the suspension up so as to make the car very tail happy and easy to turn (see remove low speed understeer) while giving you the rear grip needed no not induce pants shitting at every high speed sweeper.

Moose Kitty > Jephy 05/12/2014 at 14:19

1

Thanks for clearing that up. I was (and still am) a bit time constrained and couldn't proof read. I'll edit it in a bit.

tromoly > Moose Kitty 05/12/2014 at 14:21

2

A spoiler is effectively a big Gurney flap, just as the entire car is effectively a big wing. A spoiler is an effective tuning aid when used properly, in some cases it can be more effective than a wing.

But yes, it's all about aerodynamic balance. Same reason why an undertray/diffuser is still effective on any car.

Jayhawk Jake > Moose Kitty 05/12/2014 at 14:21

3

I don't understand why the line of logic is 'wing on a FWD car? WHAT A STUPID POSER IDIOT', but a wing on a RWD or AWD car is okay.

Why is this okay:

But this isn't:

Note: Both of these are hideous and dumb, but I guarantee the Civic one will get hated on much, much more than the GT-86 one simply because an Si is FWD

Bob Loblaw Made Me Make a Phoney Phone Call to Edward Rooney > Jayhawk Jake 05/12/2014 at 14:24

2

It's not like a FWD car doesn't need grip in the rear, too.

Moose Kitty > Jayhawk Jake 05/12/2014 at 14:25

1

The wing was originally built to make downforce at the rear of the car and create extra grip on the rear of the car. Those are just ascetically horrid. Plus there are those that hate wings in general.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > Moose Kitty 05/12/2014 at 14:30

2

IMHO the only time a rear wing provides any benifit to any sort of car - be it RWD or FWD - is if it's accompanied by a front air dam and or front splitter. Putting just one or the other is a waste of time.

I do agree on the point that if you're putting a wing on your car for anything other than improved track times, you're an idiot.

Jayhawk Jake > Bob Loblaw Made Me Make a Phoney Phone Call to Edward Rooney 05/12/2014 at 14:37

3

That's my point. People will bitch and moan about a wing on a FWD car, but a similarly powered RWD car they don't care. Neither of these cars need one, but the Civic especially doesn't need one in some people's opinion simply because it's FWD

PS9 > Moose Kitty 05/12/2014 at 14:44

1

Nope.

On a 60/40 split with even the lithe-est of lightweight FWD cars, the front end tires will be carrying north of 1000lb. Unless Your wing is made of solid (and hopefully depleted) uranium, you aren't going to counterbalance that by adding a wing in the back. It's not happeneing. The only way to properly compensate with 60/40 split with a front end bias is to trade in your car for one with a 50/50 weight balance. Alternatively, you could just stop giving all your consideration to stats such as these, since a million other variables that don't look so good on paper contribute to the construction of a proper chassis, which is why we have a generation of FWD cars that feature excellent handling, without leaving the factory with an ostentatious wing tacked on.

Bonus round: wings can only make a difference on a track, and need things like...you know... speed to do their job. Unless that red civic is hiding something, the only way the owner is going to get the full value out of that 787-class wing he's tacked on to the back is by going to a racetrack with a 75° downward incline straight during a windstorm, because a stock 90s era civic is not in anyway able to move at speeds that justify that wing.

cluelessk > Moose Kitty 05/12/2014 at 14:53

3

Most production wings on fwd do nothing.

From what I've read the ugly wing on my Cobalt only makes a little downforce over 100mph but mostly creates enough drag to drop top speed by 10mph.

cluelessk > Moose Kitty 05/12/2014 at 14:54

1

Most production wings on fwd do nothing.

From what I've read the ugly wing on my Cobalt only makes a little downforce over 100mph but mostly creates enough drag to drop top speed by 10mph.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Sn210 > Moose Kitty 05/12/2014 at 15:03

2

What now?!?!

Moose Kitty > PS9 05/12/2014 at 15:04

0

I understand what your getting at but with some one serious about racing there are going to be other mods to help get a car to 50/50 not just the wing. Plus I was focusing more on aerodynamic weight from the down force created. That civic was my example of what makes people think wings are stupid on FWD cars and why its ricey when not used on the track seriously. I wasn't undermining the handing of most newer fwd cars since they are getting better, but as i've said a lot know this is for track use not DD. As i said in my little note in the end i asked for the reader to actually read through before rampaging. Thank you for your time.

Moose Kitty > cluelessk 05/12/2014 at 15:12

0

True and I see your point most factory wings have now purpose but to look sporty. Adjustable racing wings are more what I was focusing on.

Moose Kitty > Sn210 05/12/2014 at 15:14

3

Time attack...

MonkeePuzzle > Moose Kitty 05/12/2014 at 15:35

1

commuter car here, chose mine entirely based on looks :D but your logic on them being functional is sound

cls12vg30 > Moose Kitty 05/12/2014 at 15:40

1

The old wedge-style spoilers that were on many cars in the '80s and early '90s (see Dodge Daytona, Turismo/Charger/Duster, Nissan 200SX, etc. Actually do serve the purpose of keeping the back of the car cleaner, by relocating the swirling low pressure zone immediately behind the car backwards by 1-3 feet. The same effect may have a tiny affect on drag as well, since that low pressure zone behind the car does exert a force opposite of the direction of travel.

RazoE > Jayhawk Jake 05/12/2014 at 16:07

0

Residual. They don't do much on either on the above cases, but they CAN on the RWD car. That's why a staggered set-up on a FWD car is stupid. Same reason people hate dual exhausts on cars with a single bank, even though most factory exhausts have an x-pipe that'll cross over anyway and essentially make it a single exhaust. Power bulges on non-4G63 DSMs is another.

Jayhawk Jake > RazoE 05/12/2014 at 16:08

0

Wait, what? How CAN they do something on the RWD car and not on the FWD car? Both cars need grip. It may do MORE for the RWD but both are entirely pointless.

Jayhawk Jake > cluelessk 05/12/2014 at 16:10

0

Most production wings on anything do nothing. Doesn't matter if it's RWD, FWD, AWD, or pedal powered.

RazoE > Jayhawk Jake 05/12/2014 at 16:10

0

Like I said, residual. It's like the hood scoop on a Camaro and a Mustang. It's only functional on 1, but it gets a pass on a Mustang because it "could" work. The Mach 1 makes use of it, and the Terminator gets rid of it all together, but if you saw one (even a functional one) on a Civic, wouldn't you think "overkill?" Just saying.

Jayhawk Jake > RazoE 05/12/2014 at 16:45

0

I still don't get how that applies to the FR-S/Si example.

The FRS and Si have similar performance, and yet a wing on an FR-S isn't a big deal, but on an Si it is. Both could work. You could argue that a wing is more functional on a RWD, but it's equally useless in both applications.

wtrmlnjuc > Jayhawk Jake 05/12/2014 at 18:19

0

Well common logic is that more downforce on rear = more grip on rear which means that a RWD vehicle will be able to produce more power.

Not that you're wrong, just how it seems.

Dsscats > Moose Kitty 05/12/2014 at 20:39

1

D'Awwwww it's got a widdle mustache!

Z_Stig > Moose Kitty 05/13/2014 at 12:14

0

Adding downforce at the rear of a car while doing nothing to balance the front end will just result in more understeer.