Is the rear wing removable?

[F83]

Originally Posted by Lups

Lol, if we are right, we will have great crash clips posted here soon enough!

Yeah. Can't let that opportunity go by

[AsiaKid]

maybe the wing was designed in response to c63 black series which also uses the GT wing..

if eel like we are in the era of the GT wing..a few years back..they were too "rice" now its common place for all cars to have them somehow

last few years were gloss black rims..now i feel like gold is the new color



as for that video...correct me if i am wrong...but isnt that a function of poor downforce on the front with good downforce in the back? the air went underneath the car (front splitter design or maybe a bump) and then basically flipped

[BigMo]

Actually his PSI was off by one.

[Arcades]

Hm...

A GTS car is build specifically the way it is for a reason. Why do you want to do this? That's like getting a 911 GT3 RS and ask for them not to put on the rear wing, you literally get half of the car the way it is.

Yes it is your car and you can do what you want with it, but that doesn't make it any less of a stupid decision.

[F83]

Originally Posted by AsiaKid

as for that video...correct me if i am wrong...but isnt that a function of poor downforce on the front with good downforce in the back? the air went underneath the car (front splitter design or maybe a bump) and then basically flipped

Sort of. The lift mostly comes from the air that travels under the car that's true. However a well designed wing provides downforce to the entire car, not just the rear of the car. Many reasons for that but part of it is that the wing is designed to provide a somewhat rotational downforce which helps keep the front of the car down. Plus it's designed to work with the rest of the aerdynamics of the car - like one big wing upside down. At high speeds, race cars (eg Indy Cars) can generate 3Gs or more of downforce which means that technically they could ride on a track upside down as long as they didn't slow down.

If you look at the second video I posted, the front lifted initially because there was a minor crest/lift in the road. That's the point where the front end just got an inch or two higher than it should and that's all it took. Once all that extra airflow got under the car it was over.

[Devilzmantis]

Instead of getting the GTS at $150K+ and spending another $10K in removing the tail/fixing the trunk.... why not get a base M4 and mod the crap out of it all for about $100K! saving yourself 50% !!

[Maddict3]

Originally Posted by Devilzmantis

Instead of getting the GTS at $150K+ and spending another $10K in removing the tail/fixing the trunk.... why not get a base M4 and mod the crap out of it all for about $100K! saving yourself 50% !!

Your prices are really exaggerated. If you've been following this thread it won't cost $10k to remove the wing/trunk.

Also modding a base M4 isn't the same thing as having a GTS. The base car depreciates and modding it won't help its value. So while you're looking at it as saving money, If you start to calculate depreciation it makes a lot more sense to pay the hefty price tag and go with the GTS.

BTW don't think the GTS will be $150,000+ in the US.

[Devilzmantis]

Originally Posted by Maddict3

Your prices are really exaggerated. If you've been following this thread it won't cost $10k to remove the wing/trunk.

Also modding a base M4 isn't the same thing as having a GTS. The base car depreciates and modding it won't help its value. So while you're looking at it as saving money, If you start to calculate depreciation it makes a lot more sense to pay the hefty price tag and go with the GTS.

BTW don't think the GTS will be $150,000+ in the US.

I'm exaggerating on the cost of wing/trunk. Ofcourse modding an M4 isn't the same as having a GTS... but removing a wing from the GTS isn't the same as having an original GTS either right? Performance at the track will be off plus the depreciation of removing would be huge.

The GTS may be 150+ on markup just like the I8... but it'll cool down. At the end of the day it is your car but we are all talking theoretical here.

[peter_s]

Originally Posted by Maddict3

Any of you guys know if the rear wing on the M4 GTS will be detachable?

One option would to be like what I did to my Subaru STi. I ordered another trunk, had it painted and then installed. I just had to buy the steel panel, the dealer just swapped out all the hardware between the trunks.

[F83]

Originally Posted by peter_s

One option would to be like what I did to my Subaru STi. I ordered another trunk, had it painted and then installed. I just had to buy the steel panel, the dealer just swapped out all the hardware between the trunks.

Would be the way to go, that also lets one keep the trunk/air foil for later if he changes his mind. plus it doesn't "wreck" the car.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by F83

Sort of. The lift mostly comes from the air that travels under the car that's true. However a well designed wing provides downforce to the entire car, not just the rear of the car. Many reasons for that but part of it is that the wing is designed to provide a somewhat rotational downforce which helps keep the front of the car down. Plus it's designed to work with the rest of the aerdynamics of the car - like one big wing upside down. At high speeds, race cars (eg Indy Cars) can generate 3Gs or more of downforce which means that technically they could ride on a track upside down as long as they didn't slow down.

If you look at the second video I posted, the front lifted initially because there was a minor crest/lift in the road. That's the point where the front end just got an inch or two higher than it should and that's all it took. Once all that extra airflow got under the car it was over.

What ????

[F83]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

What ????

Think of the wing of a plane - it's the same principle. The wings of an airplane are generally towards the rear of the aircraft. They don't just provide lift to the rear - otherwise the plane couldn't fly. Plus the wings have flaps that allow the pilot to adjust the nose up or down. That's what I mean by "rotational force" - an airplane's wing on takeoff doesn't just lift the plane up generally - it also specifically lifts the nose up.

An airfoil is literally an upside down wing - it provides downforce instead of lift but the principle is the same. It is designed to provide downforce to the entire vehicle not just the rear.

In theory in terms of downforce it would be better to have the airfoil placed in the middle of the two axels - right on top of the roof. You see that in short wheel base racers like go-karts. That would provide more "perfect" front and back downforce but at the cost of increased drag. Part of what the airfoil is doing is disrupting the low pressure zone immediately behind the vehicle which is a major part of the vehicle's drag.

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by F83

Think of the wing of a plane - it's the same principle. The wings of an airplane are generally towards the rear of the aircraft. They don't just provide lift to the rear - otherwise the plane couldn't fly. Plus the wings have flaps that allow the pilot to adjust the nose up or down. That's what I mean by "rotational force" - an airplane's wing on takeoff doesn't just lift the plane up generally - it also specifically lifts the nose up.

An airfoil is literally an upside down wing - it provides downforce instead of lift but the principle is the same. It is designed to provide downforce to the entire vehicle not just the rear.

In theory in terms of downforce it would be better to have the airfoil placed in the middle of the two axels - right on top of the roof. You see that in short wheel base racers like go-karts. That would provide more "perfect" front and back downforce but at the cost of increased drag. Part of what the airfoil is doing is disrupting the low pressure zone immediately behind the vehicle which is a major part of the vehicle's drag.

Flaps do not change the attitude of a aircraft,they provide more lift usually used in at lower airspeeds.Nose up or down is controlled by the elevator or the incidence of a flying tail which are trimmed by trim tabs to control forces that the pilot sees on the controls in stable flight.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by F83

Think of the wing of a plane - it's the same principle. The wings of an airplane are generally towards the rear of the aircraft. They don't just provide lift to the rear - otherwise the plane couldn't fly. Plus the wings have flaps that allow the pilot to adjust the nose up or down. That's what I mean by "rotational force" - an airplane's wing on takeoff doesn't just lift the plane up generally - it also specifically lifts the nose up.

An airfoil is literally an upside down wing - it provides downforce instead of lift but the principle is the same. It is designed to provide downforce to the entire vehicle not just the rear.

In theory in terms of downforce it would be better to have the airfoil placed in the middle of the two axels - right on top of the roof. You see that in short wheel base racers like go-karts. That would provide more "perfect" front and back downforce but at the cost of increased drag. Part of what the airfoil is doing is disrupting the low pressure zone immediately behind the vehicle which is a major part of the vehicle's drag.

You are way off my friend.

The center of lift of the main wings is very close to the Cg of the aircraft. Further, the vast majority of planes have two pairs of wings, most of the time with the second pair located at the rear of the aircraft (horizontal stabilizer). It is the elevators located on the horizontal stabilizer that control pitch, not the flaps. The function of the flaps on the main wing is to increase lift in low speed operation (take-off and landing).

A rear wing on a car will generate downforce on the rear of the car only, period.

Further, as tidbit, because the wing is located aft of the rear axle, it will actually create lift on the front axle.

[F83]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

You are way off my friend.

The center of lift of the main wings is very close to the Cg of the aircraft. Further, the vast majority of planes have two pairs of wings, most of the time with the second pair located at the rear of the aircraft (horizontal stabilizer). It is the elevators located on the horizontal stabilizer that control pitch, not the flaps. The function of the flaps on the main wing is to increase lift in low speed operation (take-off and landing).

A rear wing on a car will generate downforce on the rear of the car only, period.

Further, as tidbit, if the wing is located aft of the rear axle, it will actually create lift on the front axle.

You are right about the airplane - I'm describing the role of the elevator vs the flaps to control pitch (i.e., the flap at the back). Won't pretend to know airplanes that well.

Perhaps you are right about the airfoil not helping the front of the car also - it's just very different from what I've always understood - that the airfoil created a force that helped pitch the nose down as well as creating downforce.
If I'm wrong about that - peace. However that was never my main point. My main point has always been - the guy is not flying off the freeway at 90 MPH for want of an airfoil.

[Jet Mech]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

Flaps do not change the attitude of a aircraft,they provide more lift usually used in at lower airspeeds.Nose up or down is controlled by the elevator or the incidence of a flying tail which are trimmed by trim tabs to control forces that the pilot sees on the controls in stable flight.

This.

[Maddict3]

Originally Posted by peter_s

One option would to be like what I did to my Subaru STi. I ordered another trunk, had it painted and then installed. I just had to buy the steel panel, the dealer just swapped out all the hardware between the trunks.

Yeah this is what I plan on doing.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by F83

You are right about the airplane - I'm describing the role of the elevator vs the flaps to control pitch (i.e., the flap at the back). Won't pretend to know airplanes that well.

Perhaps you are right about the airfoil not helping the front of the car also - it's just very different from what I've always understood - that the airfoil created a force that helped pitch the nose down as well as creating downforce.

If I'm wrong about that - peace. However that was never my main point. My main point has always been - the guy is not flying off the freeway at 90 MPH for want of an airfoil.

Lift is created by the air that travels over the car, not under the car as you previously mentioned. Because the air that travels above the car needs travel a greater distance, it needs to travel faster and hence creates a low pressure area above the car. That is what rear (functional) diffusers are for, to accelerate the airflow under the car and lower the pressure under it.

Loosing a rear wing will not cause the car to fly in the air, but rather cause an imbalance in handling with the rear of car becoming loose (see video below). I however doubt that the downforce created by the GTS rear wing is significant enough to cause such a dramatic loss of control. I however believe it would make the car more more prone to oversteer in high speed corners. The simple fix for that would be keeping the front splitter in its stowed in position, but all this is that the expense of lost speed in the corners and longer lap times.

[F83]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Lift is created by the air that travels over the car, not under the car as you previously mentioned. Because the air that travels above the car needs travel a greater distance, it needs to travel faster and hence creates a low pressure area above the car. That is what rear (functional) diffusers are for, to accelerate the airflow under the car and create lower the pressure under the car by accelerating the airflow.

Loosing a rear wing will not cause the car to fly in the air, but rather cause an imbalance in handling with the rear of car becoming loose (see video below). I however doubt that the downforce created by the GTS rear wing is significant enough to cause such a dramatic loss of control. I however believe it would make the car more more prone to oversteer in high speed corners. The simple fix for that would be keeping the front splitter in its stowed in position, but all this is that the expense of lost speed in the corners and longer lap times.

I think you are misinterpreting my previous point. Let me clarify.

As I'm sure you know, most race cars allow very little under vehicle airspace at the front of the vehicle - generally increasing slightly towards the rear culminating in the diffuser. As the amount of airspace under the car is increased slightly towards the back, the air expands as it travels the length of the car creating a low pressure zone below the car - particularly at the front - generating downforce. Even in vehicles that don't have more underbody air space towards the rear the diffuser seeks to accelerate the underbody air helping to create a low pressure zone below the vehicle. I think you are saying the same thing.

You do speak to it being desirable to have low pressure above the car - I will assume that's a typo. There are places of high pressure above a car (in front of the windshield, creating downforce) and low pressure (towards the rear of the car, creating drag).

My point with the second video is that the car that flipped popped up too much (seemingly due to a rise in the road) and took an excessive amount of air under the front. Once that happens the vehicle is a wing and.. Well flies.

Your comments are besides my point which is; none of these factors are MATERIALLY relevant at street speeds. They are at track speeds. My comments are to make the point that concern about the handling and safety of the vehicle are overstated at street speeds. OP can remove the wing safely if he doesn't track the car.

Agree that video is a better example of the effect of a wing but... Less exciting isn't it? . What I was really trying to show with that video is that stuff can happen on a race track that just doesn't happen on the streets.

This image isn't perfect, most trunks have low pressure zones above them - and almost all cars have low pressure zones behind them. But it is 80% right.

[F83]

This ones better but doesn't show below the car.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by F83

Your comments are besides my point which is; none of these factors are MATERIALLY relevant at street speeds. They are at track speeds. My comments are to make the point that concern about the handling and safety of the vehicle are overstated at street speeds. OP can remove the wing safely if he doesn't track the car.

To start, we agree on the fundamental that removing the rear wing will have mostly no impact on a street driven car (except on the autobahn maybe ). Further, as I stated previously, by keeping the front splitter stowed, the GTS will likely remain aerodynamically balanced without a rear wing.

But I need to reiterate what others have posted, what is the point of getting a GTS if one does not intend to track it. A total waste IMO.

Originally Posted by F83

As the amount of airspace under the car is increased slightly towards the back, the air expands as it travels the length of the car creating a low pressure zone below the car - particularly at the front - generating downforce. Even in vehicles that don't have more underbody air space towards the rear the diffuser seeks to accelerate the underbody air helping to create a low pressure zone below the vehicle. I think you are saying the same thing.

I think we are close here. However, I want to precise that when the "airspace" under the car increases, the air needs to slow down which increases pressure in that area. The lowest pressure point occurs where the space between the floor and the ground is the smallest. My understanding of the function of the diffuser is to maximize the sucking effect of the low pressure area in the rear of the car thus accelerating the general airflow under the car and lowering the pressure. The downforce does not occur at the diffuser, it occurs before it.

Originally Posted by F83

You do speak to it being desirable to have low pressure above the car - I will assume that's a typo. There are places of high pressure above a car (in front of the windshield, creating downforce) and low pressure (towards the rear of the car, creating drag).

This image isn't perfect, most trunks have low pressure zones above them - and almost all cars have low pressure zones behind them. But it is 80% right.

The picture above is fundamentally wrong. As I posted previously, the air above the vehicle mostly needs to travel faster (not slower), hence creates a low pressure zone above the car that creates lift. I never said it was desirable, I just stated it as fact. A car is like a big wing. The picture below is better depiction of the pressure distribution around a normal car.

[F83]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

To start, we agree on the fundamental that removing the rear wing will have mostly no impact on a street driven car (except on the autobahn maybe ). Further, as I stated previously, by keeping the front splitter stowed, the GTS will likely remain aerodynamically balanced without a rear wing.

But I need to reiterate what others have posted, what is the point of getting a GTS if one does not intend to track it. A total waste IMO.



I think we are close here. However, I want to precise that when the "airspace" under the car increases, the air needs to slow down which increases pressure in that area. The lowest pressure point occurs where the space between the floor and the ground is the smallest. My understanding of the function of the diffuser is to maximize the sucking effect of the low pressure area in the rear of the car thus accelerating the general airflow under the car and lowering the pressure. The downforce does not occur at the diffuser, it occurs before it.



The picture above is fundamentally wrong. As I posted previously, the air above the vehicle mostly needs to travel faster (not slower), hence creates a low pressure zone above the car that creates lift. I never said it was desirable, I just stated it as fact. A car is like a big wing. The picture below is better depiction of the pressure distribution around a normal car.

Yeah that's why I put in the second image, it's a better depiction for sure.

Anyway I think we are more or less saying the same thing. Up to and including that the OP is a) safe driving the car without a wing at highway speeds but b) why?