Just curious about the "newish" trend for mounting rear wings. Several of the current IMSA (and other series) racers, prototypes and sports cars, use "goose neck/swan neck/upsidedown "J" struts for rear wing mounts. With these struts the wing hangs from the struts opposed to being bolted to the top of the strut. If this is to allow smoother air flow across the bottom surface of the wing, isn't the flow disrupted by the strut itself, being in front of the wing? If smother air flow is desired, why not have the struts behind the wing. Inquiring minds want to know.
Rear Wings
Started by
JacnGille
, Oct 19 2024 20:28
3 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Michkov
-
- 22 posts
- Joined: September 18
New Member
Posted 19 October 2024 - 21:56
I suppose the longer moment arm you get from the wing being the furthest element back on the car is more important than some disturbed air. Keep in mind that cars these days have to comply with a range of limitations set by the regs on how far back the wings can sit, what the overall length of the car is and such a like stipulations. Besides the narrow slender mounts are the least to worry about given that you got airboxes, rollbars and wheels upstream of them.
#3
JacnGille
-
- 2,885 posts
- Joined: July 02
Member
Posted 20 October 2024 - 01:44
Besides the narrow slender mounts are the least to worry about given that you got airboxes, rollbars and wheels upstream of them.
On Formula cars, yes. Not so much om IMSA/WEC prototypes and GTs.
#4
gruntguru
-
- 7,681 posts
- Joined: January 09
Member
Posted 20 October 2024 - 07:02
I guess a disturbance ahead of the wing is less detrimental to wing performance than a strut directly penetrating the boundary layer. A well designed airfoil-section mount in free air can have an eddy-free slipstream.
The critical issue for the underside of the wing is keeping flow attached. Mounts in this area make that more difficult.
