- 20 May 10, 22:16#200227
A co-worker and I have debated wings versus spoilers. He enjoys NASCAR and was talking a while back about them going back from the rear wing to the spoiler and how the spoiler provides so much more downforce than the wing. Now, I was under the impression that wings, like those on Formula 1 cars, provide a lot more downforce than a broad, flat plate running across the rear of a car, but I keep encountering articles saying that the spoiler provides more downforce than the wing. Now, this didn't seem to make sense to me because it seemed that, if this was the case, that there wouldn't be much point in spending so much time, effort, and financial resources in fooling with the aerodynamics of wings if simply bolting a broad sheet of metal to the bottom of the car would get better results.
Can anybody provide any meaningful data here? If a spoiler can provide more downforce than a wing, what's the point of even bothering with wings at all? Is it just that the wing used in NASCAR wasn't much of a wing or is there perhaps some sort of negative consequence to the spoiler that makes wings more appealing to some other motorsports like F1? I guess I'm looking at comparative downforce figures and pros and cons to spoilers and wings. My Google results haven't helped me much.
Can anybody provide any meaningful data here? If a spoiler can provide more downforce than a wing, what's the point of even bothering with wings at all? Is it just that the wing used in NASCAR wasn't much of a wing or is there perhaps some sort of negative consequence to the spoiler that makes wings more appealing to some other motorsports like F1? I guess I'm looking at comparative downforce figures and pros and cons to spoilers and wings. My Google results haven't helped me much.
