FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Dedicated to technical discussion...
User avatar
By f1ea
#200328
Who gives a rat's arse about what NASTYCAR says or does! :banghead: 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? :rolleyes::bs:


hehe
its probably a bet. If IceMan loses and NASCAR spoilers do have more downforce than F1 wings... he'll have to wear NASCAR stuff on his avatar and sig :yikes: that's worse off than Bud's!!
User avatar
By scotty
#200559
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.


I know what you mean cause i usually use the terms in the same way to distinguish between the two. Argh, i could expain why i think there's not any real difference but it'd be long winded and boring.
n.b. 'front spoilers' = splitters...? :P

Either way, this argument is simple - F1 wings are much, much more effective than the spoilers on NASCARS... they have to be. The key word is effective though.

You could make a spoiler/wing that creates loads of downforce, yeah, but is it effective? When i saw some nascars up close they seemed to run angles of ~60 degrees! Also they are travelling constantly at up to 210mph and cars automatically generate more downforce at higher speeds so i guess you could make that claim if you ignore a lot of important (and obvious) variables.
User avatar
By Fred_C_Dobbs
#200826
1. What car, introduced into NASCAR in 1970, was so fast, it was banned?

2. Did that car have a spoiler or a wing?
User avatar
By bud
#200829
1. What car, introduced into NASCAR in 1970, was so fast, it was banned?

2. Did that car have a spoiler or a wing?

Image
User avatar
By texasmr2
#200832
1. What car, introduced into NASCAR in 1970, was so fast, it was banned?

The Dodge 'Superbird'.
1970superbird.jpg


2. Did that car have a spoiler or a wing?

A wing because birds are meant to have wings not spoilers :hehe: .
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
By myownalias
#200839
The Plymouth Superbird; didn't have a wing or spoiler; they were bridge supports; designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel...
User avatar
By f1ea
#200853
That's a wing. An "early" design aka primitive wing. But it looks and works like a wing. And they named the car a bird... so, gotta be a wing.
User avatar
By texasmr2
#200854
That's a wing. An "early" design aka primitive wing. But it looks and works like a wing. And they named the car a bird... so, gotta be a wing.

:yes:
User avatar
By madbrad
#200900
A roadrunner is a bird, a Superbird is a bird, but a Charger Daytona is not a bird. So the statement that it must be a wing because it's a bird is only half right.
User avatar
By f1ea
#200929
A roadrunner is a bird, a Superbird is a bird, but a Charger Daytona is not a bird. So the statement that it must be a wing because it's a bird is only half right.


or a joke :)
User avatar
By madbrad
#200940
isnt the road runner a flightless bird? :wink::rofl:

Flight doesn't come into the equation. It does have wings.
User avatar
By madbrad
#200941
A roadrunner is a bird, a Superbird is a bird, but a Charger Daytona is not a bird. So the statement that it must be a wing because it's a bird is only half right.


or a joke :)

Do you seriously think that I thought Chrysler used a wing instead of a spoiler because it's a bird name?
If I made a car that went around giving away the endings of movies I would have to put a spoiler on it. :hehe:
User avatar
By Fred_C_Dobbs
#201587
If a spoiler provides more force (up or down) than a wing, why do aeroplanes bother with the latter?
By Hammer278
#203198
I haven't read through the entire thread but I had the impression that the rear wing (spoiler) actually accounts for quite a significant level of downforce?

The reason for teams to give 80% of their attention to the front wing is because it is at the 'start' of the car. The rear wing is the 'end'. The front wing is the point which influences the airflow over the entire car. Thus, most time is spent on the front wing to get this right and there is a lot more detail in regards to not only producing the necessary downforce, but also in regards to the airflow over the monocoque, airflow into the brake cooling inlets, tyres, and airflow through to the sidepods for cooling. This is why the front wing has a 'spoon' shape whereas the rear has just a flat basic plate, which is where the airflow ends and 'leaves' the working area of the car's design.

See our F1 related articles too!