henrysj

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gswetsky
Right!

RED MX5

[QUOTE]Originally posted by henrysj

Russ

I removed my wing to paint it and during it's removal, I did some high speed runs
and did NOT like the result. The lack of downforce I had gotten used to was completely eliminated though the throttle response had improved. When the wing's
paint job was finished, after reinstalling it, I went back to the same few miles of road
and did some more high speed runs. What a difference!
Anyone who owns a wing (who has removed it for any reason) will tell you there is
a significant difference in how the car handles at very high speeds. Quick lane changes
especially.
I can see no reason from this point on why I would ever want to remove it...not that
I often go from point A to point B doing 125mph but the wing is adding downforce
at 75mph as well, just not as much. Together, with the canards, they provide an aero package that generously helps to offset the added oversteer from my chosen 215/225 combo. I have no problems tripling exit ramp speeds but probably would if I didn't have the wing or the canards. They DO help contrary to what naysayers might think.
Aesthetically, to each his own but in principal, both work as designed at high speeds.

RED MX5

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Russ
I removed my wing to paint it and during it's removal, I did some high speed runs
and did NOT like the result.

Russ

Red, I've noticed gas mileage slightly worse with the wing (2 mpg city lower) but
the increased handling is well worth it. I've told owners for two years now that
modifications without much forethought can create problems. I have .2 inches of
stagger (not 1.6 as originally intended from Honda). Though the effects of the lost
stagger are decreased somewhat by a larger tire track both fore and aft, it was a
calculated decision on my part to add the canards and wings to retain some of the car's
high speed cornering balance and it damn sure has worked. Without the aero aids,
high speed runs and DEFINITELY high speed cornering would be a butt-puckering
affair. While I enjoy tail-happy automobiles (42 years old, been driving 'em for years),
removing stagger without some attempt to regain footing would make the car less than it is and for that, what on earth would be the point?
I've always thought that any argument about the effectiveness of a well-designed
wing (APR is a damn good wing manufacturer) could be resolved by simply
placing your hand outside the window (at 60mph) , fingers facing the front. Now,
start tilting your hand at various angles to feel just how much affect the drag is having
on your hand. Imagine that affect over the entire surface of an automobile. In fact,
I have actually adjusted the angle of the wing and can instantly notice the nuances
from doing so. After trial and error, I decided the best angle was position two, which
is a compromise between position 1 (flat) and 3 (very steep). In position three, it
felt like God himself was pushing down on my trunk. This position would be good
for a tight road course where the straights wouldn't have so much say in a lap time.
Position one is good for drag racing where the angle of the wing won't become
too much of a drag on the car and thus in the process, adding time to your 1320.
I've seen wings on cars that I know have little to do with aerodynamics and more to
do with Pep Boys-inspired styling but anything APR makes is usually well thought
out and adjustable.
I can see why some folks simply don't like the look but wings have been around a LOT longer than Brian Spilner. My wing has more to do with keeping my car planted than jonesing judges for trophy points.

Hendo

I've hit 161 twice and 163 once going downhill

RED MX5

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Russ
Red, I've noticed gas mileage slightly worse with the wing (2 mpg city lower) but
the increased handling is well worth it.

DavidM

I've been looking for lift and drag numbers (coast-down figures too) but haven't found any. Where'd you get your numbers from?

np. The numbers are from a German magazine 'Sports Auto'. They do pretty comprehensive testing/data-collection on each they test, and the 'lift at 200kph' is just one of them.

I don't get your point about horsepower increases on a drag limited car. "As long as the car is drag limited, increasing horsepower will always increase its top speed." The fact that with enough power you will eventually reach the point where you are no longer drag limited doesn't alter the accuracy of the statement.

Yes you are right, the original statement is correct. What I was trying to address is that the speed will not increase infinatelly, only upto the point of being 'gear limited'.

ps.
Going by the 2nd phote (ie. from Henrysj), it shows 165mph @ 8,500rpm. At 8,500rpm in 6th, the S2000 will be pulling ~159mph (ie. 254kph) 'true' speed. So here we have a 6mph speedo error at these speeds again. Seems to agree with the other photo.

RED MX5

David, one question, then one comment.

Any chance you could scan or copy the lift and drag figures you have on the S2000 and post or PM them to me? OR could you tell me where I might be able to get the appropriate back issue of the magazine?

Comment: The tach isn't going to give an accurate speed indication either, because of the tire slip. I'll bet the 8,500 RPM is probably closer to a "true speed" of 150 than 159. (I'm about ready to offer to loan my GPS to one of these guys with the space to play so we can get a real speed reading. :

The 6 MPH sppedometer error at indicate 159 is actually pretty accurate for a non-calibrated speedometer.

RED

Has ANYBODY ELSE seen any aerodynamic testing on the S2000?

Thanks to all,

RED

DavidM

Any chance you could scan or copy the lift and drag figures you have on the S2000 and post or PM them to me? OR could you tell me where I might be able to get the appropriate back issue of the magazine?

PM me with your e-mail and I'll send you the whole article where they put the S2000 through it's paces. Though, I have to warn you that it is in German ;-) Still, you can figure out what the numbers mean.

The 'drag figures' returned a cd of .38 for the 'roof up' and .46 with the roof down.

Comment: The tach isn't going to give an accurate speed indication either, because of the tire slip. I'll bet the 8,500 RPM is probably closer to a "true speed" of 150 than 159.

I agree ... that's why I always tried to say that these are 'rough' numbers. Though, there are a couple 'calculators' on-line that take the tyre-slip and tyre-deformation into account and (from what I can remember), the speed loss there was about 5mph at max-speed. Either way, the figures I'm poosting from the tach- readings are still optimistic and the true speed will certainly be lower.

Maybe someone else can point us to one of these calculators as I can't remember where I've seen it.

ps. The highest top-speed clocked localy (by a radar gun) for the S2000 is 154mph (ie. 246kph). Generally speaking, the tests that actually measure ther S2000 top-speed with a precise instrument, return 147 - 155mph (ie. 235 - 248kph). 150mph (ie. 241kph) is about all that the car can do unless you've got wind or slope helping you out.

Personally I've had the car at close to 150kph (speedo indicated), but from the point I needed to shift to 6th gear (ie. 140mph) the progress was very slow and the car had very little 'extra' to give.