RFR 3 element rear wing

[donotello10]

Looking for experiences input with this wing, would it work on earlier Van Diemens / Elans?

[ghickman]

My first reaction would be why would you want it?

[Jnovak]

My first reaction would be why would you want it?

If you want more drag this is the deal.

[donotello10]

The reason I was considering this wing was to generate more down force. When I l look at a typical sports racer the rear wing is double the width that I have on my bi-plane DP04. Why would I care is because I am a regional guy competing with these types of cars which claim over 2000 lbs. down force at their top speed. The track (Mosport) where I use my car down force is rewarded due to sweeping corners. I really love watching Brandon Dixon's record breaking video of this track.

Your question as to why I would want it is valid considering there may be enough down force already. I am able to take 3 of 4 sweepers flat out and am chipping away at the last one working towards that goal.

Guess you could say compare apples to apples since the bi-plane wing may generate more or as much down force in proportion to a wider wing. I'm trying to understand how the ubiquitous bi-plane wing found on Van Diemen cars works. The way I think it works is that the lower wing delays the onset of turbulence/separation/stall by boxing in the air on the high air speed edge of the upper wing, hence allowing steeper adjustments on the flaps up top. The end plates connecting the upper and lower wings reduce drag.

Your questions and inputs are appreciated.

[ghickman]

Len
If you are trying to compare D/F of a sports racer that has tunnels vs your FB which is flat bottom you'll never match their D/F numbers and why would you?

I believe in your original post you were referring to the Tri plane wing which I believe we saw at the 2014 Runoffs on JRO's car? If so I feel that was a "crutch" for a car that was not properly balanced and frankly watching JRO slide that thing around convinced me it wasn't helping.

Sometimes mistaking lack of D/F in the rear can be a result of too much D/F in the front changing the aero balance of the car and or moving the center of pressure around.

SHOCK POTS:
If I were you I would invest in a set of shock pots and learn to read what is actually happening to the car when you are making changes to it. This will get you further than simply tossing different wings at it not knowing what really is happening.

This past Runoffs at Daytona was pretty comical. I saw I believe 4 different wing configurations on JRO's car. Ultimately it looked like they ended back with the traditional rear wing setup just trimmed out.

I liked your perception of Brandon Dixon's driving. This is a really good example of a car that was well engineered but most importantly very well developed. I believe that over the time Brandon drove that car they were on a constant development curve which proved to be vital.

[glenn cooper]

If you want more drag this is the deal.

At 2014 RO's/Laguna, JR and I had some very respectable top speed numbers with the "Triple Stack" It "seemed" to work well!

Calling the typical VD wing a "BiPlane" is a bit of a misnomer - the Stohr WF1's w/ 2 wings about 10" apart are he definition of that term.

The typical VD/RFR setup w/ the dual upper element is a good, workable thing.

The sliding around I'm guessing was the result of running 25 compound Hoosiers on a Hella Hot day, which allowed him to pull away at the start, then manage what was left of the tires towards the end. I tried it, but should not have, starting from the 3rd row it was no bueno; really needed clear track to make that work.

[glenn cooper]

The reason I was considering this wing was to generate more down force. When I l look at a typical sports racer the rear wing is double the width that I have on my bi-plane DP04. Why would I care is because I am a regional guy competing with these types of cars which claim over 2000 lbs. down force at their top speed. The track (Mosport) where I use my car down force is rewarded due to sweeping corners. I really love watching Brandon Dixon's record breaking video of this track.

Your question as to why I would want it is valid considering there may be enough down force already. I am able to take 3 of 4 sweepers flat out and am chipping away at the last one working towards that goal.

Guess you could say compare apples to apples since the bi-plane wing may generate more or as much down force in proportion to a wider wing. I'm trying to understand how the ubiquitous bi-plane wing found on Van Diemen cars works. The way I think it works is that the lower wing delays the onset of turbulence/separation/stall by boxing in the air on the high air speed edge of the upper wing, hence allowing steeper adjustments on the flaps up top. The end plates connecting the upper and lower wings reduce drag.

Your questions and inputs are appreciated.

Pretty jealous you get to call that place your home track! It's definitely my favorite.
Corners 1, 2, 4, and 8(?) fast right at end of Andretti Straight are flat in our cars.
It's a pretty respectable deal, so take your time.
Which one are you still working on?

[donotello10]

Hey Gary, I like your though process for dealing with balance issues, thanks.

Glen, if you and Jeremy had videos of this track I would love them too. Before declaring the car has imbalances, I'd have to challenge myself to go faster through turn 8. Right now the car isn't doing anything unusual through the corner, it's a matter of taking incremental steps to go faster ie. later throttle release or trying an earlier apex with the same speed to see how it handles. I agree this car should be able to handle it considering the Photon I just sold was able to do turns 1,2,4 flat out without a rear diffuser.

Len