FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[IceManpjn]

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.

[Jabberwocky]

how much drag does it produce?

[IceManpjn]

how much drag does it produce?

I guess. Stuff like that. I'm just wanting to understand why some motorsports like F1 run wings if spoilers are supposedly so much better in terms of downforce. So, if for example there's a lot more drag when running a spoiler than with a wing producing similar downforce, I could see that as a reason to go with a wing instead.

[f1ea]

The F1 car produces downforce all along its surface. The rear wing is just another element to produce downforce, the angle and design is made so that it also minimises drag.

A spoiler should produce more drag as the angles and flow-cut is more dramatic (but it all depends on the inclination).

Simple example:
Assume the flow of air is completely horizontal; then the air "striking" the wing/spoiler generates a force that has a vertical and horizontal component. The vertical part would be the downforce, and the horizontal is drag (the 'value' of each depend on the angle). For example, if the spoiler or wing surface was fully vertical (90 deg), the resuting force has only a horizontal component (ie only drag), if it was horizontal (0 deg), then no drag. Break even point (drag=downforce) is 45 deg. Sort of.

HOWEVER, There is a very interesting bit on the design of a wing: there is air also passing on the under-side.

This means there will be an extra downforce because of the pressure gradient between the air passing above and the air passing below (faster = less pressure, slower = more pressure: the resulting force will be in the direction from more to less pressure). So F1 wings are designed to have faster air running underneath so that there is more downforce generated (airplanes wings are designed the opposite). Drag is also lessened because the air-mass impacting the wing producing the horizontal component is less, ie 'some' air goes up, some goes down; the only air producing drag is the part of air that travels along the top part........

Conclusion
Go tell your co-worker that a wing generates more downforce (relative to drag) than a spoiler.

[madbrad]

A spoiler spoils. What that is I don't know. It definitely causes turbulence. Just a ramp for the air, quite rudimentary.
A wing generates lift by having the top longer than the bottom, creating a suction on the top. Turn it upside down and you get downforce. What resides at the back of an F1 car looks more like a spoiler to me, albeit a very sophisticated one.

[bud]

if a spoiler on a nascar had more downforce then i think youd see F1 cars running them. Simply not the case!

[IceManpjn]

if a spoiler on a nascar had more downforce then i think youd see F1 cars running them. Simply not the case!

That was precisely part of my argument. I figured that there wasn't much point in spending a fortune on aerodynamics if all they had to do was simply bolt a flat sheet of metal at the rear. It's just that every time I turn up an article about the issue it always seems to be about the switch in NASCAR and they always seem to suggest that the spoiler produced more downforce. The articles say one thing but common sense seems to suggest the other.

[Gaz]

Depends on the wing or spoiler

An F1 cars monza spec wing might produce less downforce than a large nascar spoiler.

[bud]

if a spoiler on a nascar had more downforce then i think youd see F1 cars running them. Simply not the case!

That was precisely part of my argument. I figured that there wasn't much point in spending a fortune on aerodynamics if all they had to do was simply bolt a flat sheet of metal at the rear. It's just that every time I turn up an article about the issue it always seems to be about the switch in NASCAR and they always seem to suggest that the spoiler produced more downforce. The articles say one thing but common sense seems to suggest the other.

The articles you read are wrong, do you have a link?
As Gaz said F1 monza spec wings are as flat as you're gonna get in F1 to produce less downforce!

[scotty]

They're basically the same thing...

[Gaz]

They're basically the same thing...

Kinda i guess, i've always thought of it like this. A spoiler is generally of lower profile and more fitting with the exterior bodywork, such as a 'lip' spoiler or 'low-height' spoiler. You can also get a spoiler for the front of a car.

A wing is generally more functional and bigger, as in the picture you posted. They are often attached to a car with 'struts' as well, not an integral part of the bodywork.

[texasmr2]

You hit the nail on the head Gaz as spoilers are inherently limited as to what influence they have where as a wing is virtually unlimited up to a defined degree.

[bud]

basically a spoiler has one surface and a wing has 2.

[f1ea]

basically a spoiler has one surface and a wing has 2.

Exactly! The main difference is that the wing has airflow on both sides. So F1's have wings not spoilers. The angle simply modidifies the drag/downforce ratio, depending on what's needed, but there will be always be some extra downforce in a wing because of the air pressure difference.

NASCAR and many road cars, such as Porsche 911 have spoilers. There are also some wings (or winglets) for some cars but most road cars have spoilers...

You may wonder why use a spoiler then... the thing is, most of the road super cars (and NASCAR) have very powerful engines and dont develop the necessary downforce to have grip at all speeds or torque demands. So at some points it is better to have a simple design to send some of that power to the tires and add grip, even if it means some drag (for example at very high speeds and even at lower speeds to avoid rear tires spinning). Drag will reduce the end speed... but the extra grip makes up for it. So that's why they fit poilers in them. Wings are more complicated.

Basically, wings and spoilers convert part of the total straight power of the car (engine power) into downforce/grip. So, thats why you see everybody wanting a more powerful engine and categories using engine HP as a cap to keep the field competitive. For example, a car with 1000 HP can have a spoiler/wing send 500 HP worth of downforce, while still having 500 HP left for straightline speed....... a car with only 500 HP has less power to distribute between the two.

[darwin dali]

Who gives a rat's arse about what NASTYCAR says or does! Do they have the infrastructure such as highly sophisticated wind tunnels and computers and do they have the superior expertise that F1 personnel demonstrate on a daily basis?