Cal Club Autocross Forums

Craig -

Take care not to confuse the two terms, "spoiler" and "wing" - two distinct elements that don't mean the same thing.

Max Hayter wrote:Does this mean that adding a Rowse/Peters style rear spoiler would be illegal on my car?

Why in heavens name would you want to run that?! We in SP run spoilers because we can't use wings - wings are far superior to spoilers.

Bill Schenker wrote: Why in heavens name would you want to run that?! We in SP run spoilers because we can't use wings - wings are far superior to spoilers.

Duh!!! Because it looks cooler of course

Max Hayter wrote:

Bill Schenker wrote: Why in heavens name would you want to run that?! We in SP run spoilers because we can't use wings - wings are far superior to spoilers.

Duh!!! Because it looks cooler of course

Wings are MUCH cooler looking than spoilers!!! Think original CanAm racing - the coolest series in the History of Man!

Not on an MX5, I fear!

Max Hayter wrote:Not on an MX5, I fear!

U sayin' the HenryMobile ain't the most bitchin' lookin' MX-5 out there?

Bill Schenker wrote:

Max Hayter wrote:Not on an MX5, I fear!

U sayin' the HenryMobile ain't the most bitchin' lookin' MX-5 out there?

I think it would look even better if that wing was replaced with a spoiler,

Case in point

I prefer F1 cars of that era... just sayin'!

Max Hayter wrote:I prefer F1 cars of that era... just sayin'!

Which had wings:




A few years earlier, they didn't but the cars still flew the Nurburgring:

Max Hayter wrote:

Bill Schenker wrote:

Max Hayter wrote:Not on an MX5, I fear!

U sayin' the HenryMobile ain't the most bitchin' lookin' MX-5 out there?

I think it would look even better if that wing was replaced with a spoiler,

I must admit MY car does look pretty sexy with a spoiler...

Feast your eyes...http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/328/ ... rolet.html

Just got back from Coronado watching the orange McLaren being thrashed around the track.

Does anyone else find it amusing that the rules specify that the that effective aerodynamic device you can use is based on what ineffective one the factory installed?

Street Prepared: any news on wings for us? I have been waiting to put a proper device on my CSP car since I drove these older cars sometime ago.

George

Jeff Wong wrote:Does this mean those damn wings are staying???

It means you should write a letter. http://www.sebscca.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

George Doganis wrote:Street Prepared: any news on wings for us? I have been waiting to put a proper device on my CSP car since I drove these older cars sometime ago.

George

No wings.

Write your letters asking for them!

Bill, can I ask why you are comparing an 800hp McLaren on huge slicks, one of the sexiest cars ever built, with an STS Miata? On one hand, wings are cool, on the other? notsomuch...

Michael Wood wrote:Bill, can I ask why you are comparing an 800hp McLaren on huge slicks, one of the sexiest cars ever built, with an STS Miata? On one hand, wings are cool, on the other? notsomuch...

Agreed, McLarens=sexiest race car ever made. But wings work; spoilers are lame.

Back on topic, I don't think the wording of the October Fastrack means that the March proposal is the only one on the table, by any means. If wings are the deal, it will probably be enough to make me reconsider my current plans, unless I feel there really isn't a performance advantage and they are truly within the spirit of the original ST ruleset.

Good news, though, there is still time to resurrect the dignity of ST

My letter will be very short..."NO"...ok, maybe "Hell, NO"

edit: from June Fastrack...hey, that's more recent than March, right? Jeff, you may get your wish...

The following additional rule change proposals have been recommended by the STAC and are published here for member
comment:
- Delete 14.2.F. Per the STAC: This removes the original allowance for aftermarket body kits, wings, spoilers and other
appearance items, whose original purpose (i.e. attract Sport Compact enthusiasts) is no longer relevant, and which a
number of competitors were using for performance advantage.
- Modify 14.2.C to read as follows (ref. 10-127):
“C. Factory rub strips, emblems, mud flaps, wings, bolt on front valance lips/spoilers, and fog lights may be removed.
Fog lights that are an integral part of a main headlight or turn signal may not be removed”

Woohoo! I must have missed that memo from June! Glad they got my letter!

Bill Schenker wrote: But wings work; spoilers are lame.

Not saying you're wrong, but how much of this is quantitatively established as opposed to racer-legend? How much downforce per square foot can you get with a generic aftermarket wing at say 50 mph? Maybe both are lame. Links only, no opinions.

And I'll throw this in...reviewing my gps logger data, my max speeds on course never coincide with max lateral g's. Sure you might hit 65-70 mph at the fastest point on a straight, but then you typically brake before or as you turn in. By the time you generate max g's where you could use some downforce, you're going well off peak speed. Well, at least I am.

Bill Martin wrote:

Bill Schenker wrote: But wings work; spoilers are lame.

Not saying you're wrong, but how much of this is quantitatively established as opposed to racer-legend? How much downforce per square foot can you get with a generic aftermarket wing at say 50 mph? Maybe both are lame. Links only, no opinions.

And I'll throw this in...reviewing my gps logger data, my max speeds on course never coincide with max lateral g's. Sure you might hit 65-70 mph at the fastest point on a straight, but then you typically brake before or as you turn in. By the time you generate max g's where you could use some downforce, you're going well off peak speed. Well, at least I am.

Well there's your problem Bill, you're using the brakes. With a big a$$ wing, you don't need no stinkin' brakes!

Bill Martin wrote:

Bill Schenker wrote: But wings work; spoilers are lame.

Not saying you're wrong, but how much of this is quantitatively established as opposed to racer-legend? How much downforce per square foot can you get with a generic aftermarket wing at say 50 mph? Maybe both are lame. Links only, no opinions.

And I'll throw this in...reviewing my gps logger data, my max speeds on course never coincide with max lateral g's. Sure you might hit 65-70 mph at the fastest point on a straight, but then you typically brake before or as you turn in. By the time you generate max g's where you could use some downforce, you're going well off peak speed. Well, at least I am.

Bill - first off, what's with all these posts?! You're supposed to be the Silent Bill, me, the Not-Silent-Bill.

Anyway, no hard data. But I'm telling you, it makes a difference! True, highest speeds are in "straights" where downforce is actually a negative. But consider two things: 1.) It mostly feels effective in high speed slaloms - where downforce is needed, plus speeds can easily approach 50mph. 2.) W/the sq. footage that we're using, 50mph is more than enough speed to have an effect. And if you doubt that, just do the old hand out the window test and tell me how much force is felt w/that little area @50mph- an even smaller area if we're talking about Max's hand!

More anecdotal evidence: a couple of years ago, I cleanly sheared off my splitter half way though a 15 run practice in S.D. Once I realized that this was an opportunity to see what the splitter really does, as by this time my times had stabilized to within a tenth, and not something to be bummbed about (since it came of cleanly, it wasn't that hard to reattach later that week) I ran 7 more runs - couldn't get within 0.75secs. of my with splitter runs, on a ~65sec. course. Car would push, felt light in front, like there was something broken in the steering and/or suspension (there wasn't). Even after I got used to that feeling, I could still not get anyway near my best times.