Gravy hangover mate? 
I knew what you meant!!! 
More likely a lack of gravy* - I’m a new man now!
*Olive oil is the new gravy!
[quote=Mr Pesky]More likely a lack of gravy* - I’m a new man now!
*Olive oil is the new gravy! [/quote]
Are you that ‘Extra Virgin’ then!!!
Here you go then … if anyone still thinks the wing is ineffective , take it off !!
Then see how you get on through a high speed corner !!!
Hmmm. Thought not ???
If you take the front splitter off too… 
Never said the pre 2010 rear wing had no effect, did I?
Get yerself a proper manly wing, dude, then you’ll understand!
[quote=Mr Pesky]
Get yerself a proper manly wing, dude, then you’ll be slower down the Kemmel straight like Jonny Fox! [/quote]
Fixed that for you
[quote=Mr Pesky]I think you guys are in denial. The wing itself may well be effective, but what happens to the bulk of the energy it produces - it isn’t transmitted downwards to the chassis!
[/quote]
Sorry Pesky mate, but that’s utter tosh! I think the gravy’s gone to yer head
Where you do suppose the force magically vanishes to? Do you imagine somehow that your car doesn’t exert its full weight on the road because it’s not directly bolted to the tarmac? Some of the force is “lost” in the springs and tyres?
Now, if the wing actually bounces up and down, the level of downforce transmitted to the car would fluctuate accordingly, but the average force would be the same as if the wing were perfectly rigid.
If the wing in that picture is leaning to the left, a small percentage of the downforce is actually going to be transferred to a sideway force. Amusingly, this force would be to the right, which would actualy help cornering! But because this force is at the rear, it would also tend to steer the car to the left, helping stability. Of course this force is miniscule, and not really worth considering, but thats about the extent of the effect of the flexing wing.
Anyway, I heard you had some kind of heart trouble. I hope you’re doing well?
Sorry Pesky mate, but that’s utter tosh! I think the gravy’s gone to yer head
Now, if the wing actually bounces up and down, the level of downforce transmitted to the car would fluctuate accordingly, but the average force would be the same as if the wing were perfectly rigid.
If the wing in that picture is leaning to the left, a small percentage of the downforce is actually going to be transferred to a sideway force. Amusingly, this force would be to the right, which would actualy help cornering! But because this force is at the rear, it would also tend to steer the car to the left, helping stability. Of course this force is miniscule, and not really worth considering, but thats about the extent of the effect of the flexing wing. [/quote]
Brenden!
I think ‘utter tosh’ is a bit OTT!!! and you are perhaps getting a tad imaginative with aerodynamic theory mate!
There can be no such thing as an ‘average force’ and it’s net result being the same as a ‘rigid’ wing! If a wing is changing it’s relationship with the relative airflow, those changes will be immediate and would affect the vector quantity of lift generated by the wing at that precise moment in time. If this were not the case you could, for example never turn an aircraft by changing the position of the ailerons.
As far as the ‘amusing’ force to the right, yes but as you point out this is at the rear of the car so this would turn the rear of the car to the right and hence tend to yaw the front to the left around the center of gravity. But there is also a sideslip angle to be taken into account and looking at the position of the standard rear wing I think a good proportion of it may well be ‘blanked’ by the shape of the rear clam.
Anyway, as you say though, miniscule forces (40lbs???!!!) so I vcannot get too excited about this . But I would much prefer to know that these forces were a ‘fixed’ rather than moveable quantity.
And aerodynamic forces cannot be fixed as air is too complex, varies in density,humidity and is constantly moving …
Hence the need for a computer to maintain your course /speed /altitude eh Pete ?
And average force could be construed as stable/level flight !!
Ie. When thrust weight lift and drag are equal …
As I said tho … man is far from understanding aerodynamics yet… give us another 100 years or so … maybe 200 for Pesky !!!
I think you misundstand my remarks about the wing wobbling. Pesky was talking about the transmission of the force onto the car, and that is the point I was addressing. I purposely ignored any aero effect in that paragraph for the sake of simplicity.
What I was suggesting is that if the wing as a whole vibrates, then the force applied to the car will fluctuate, but the average force applied to the car over time will still match the force generated by the wing.
I still stand by my argument that 100% of the force being generated by the wing must be fully transferred to the car. Newtons laws of Physics make that pretty clear.
Oh, and don’t worry about the “utter tosh” comment. I know Pesky, and I’m quite sure he appreciates that I’m just gently ribbing him
… actually I agree that the head Tosser does come out with a load of ‘utter tosh’ about us S2 boys!
Aah, but you soft buggers always rise to the bait, because you’ll always be wannabe proper Exige owners
And if you think that the wobbling appendages on your engine covers produces any significant downforce, you’re living in cloud cuckoo land.
Our S2 wings look pretty but they are functionally pretty crap, due to the fixing. They could be mounted a lot better. (like a 2010!)
Logic suggests that the bending force required to twist the lid is wasted energy that should be translated directly into the chassis in the correct orientation - downwards.
Boothy is yer man for stiffness! He’s improved the situation by stiffening the boot seal rubber to stop the lid twisting.
As for the splitter, I lost mine just before Angelsey and ran all day without one. It seemed to make naff all difference.
However, I agree with Pesky. Fitting proper aero devices of an appropriate size and structure will make a postiive difference. I’m just not convinced that our standard S2 bling makes any more difference at high speed than running with a full tank of fuel or having a passenger on board.
So does that mean you will take it off then ???
Think of all that precious weight saving !!!
I recall a similar discussion about downforce on the S1 Exige stock wing that ended up in Randy being banned…showing my age now
[quote=jfk]So does that mean you will take it off then ???
Think of all that precious weight saving !!!
[/quote]
Tarmac Terrorist took it off his S2 Exige in the LOT race at Spa in 2007 - purely for the gain he got in the car’s performance.
[quote=wesj111]Our S2 wings look pretty but they are functionally pretty crap, due to the fixing.
[/quote]
No, the fixing makes ZERO difference. If the wing is not massively effective, it’s due to its size and shape.
[quote=wesj111]Logic suggests that the bending force required to twist the lid is wasted energy that should be translated directly into the chassis in the correct orientation - downwards.
[/quote]
Actually, the only loss is the heat generated by friction as the engine cover and wing bends. I think we can safely ignore that! Once the wing has bent downwards, no further energy is lost.
Totally agreed. Nobody suggested otherwise.
I hope I’m not coming across as confrontational, but it seems that a lot of these comments are based on flawed understanding of physics. I’m only trying to get a little accuracy into the discussion as it’s an area that interests me.
As for comparisons with the S1, yes, the official figures say the S1 has double the downforce of the S2. That’s fine by me, I’m happy to trade half of naff all for much lower drag.
Makes good sense. Spa has some long straights. I’m sure that reducing drag and weight would more than make up for that tiny bit of downforce.
[quote=Brendan][quote=Mr Pesky]
Tarmac Terrorist took it off his S2 Exige in the LOT race at Spa in 2007 - purely for the gain he got in the car’s performance.
[/quote]
Makes good sense. Spa has some long straights. I’m sure that reducing drag and weight would more than make up for that tiny bit of downforce.[/quote]
Spot on, mate - iirc he gained about 10mph going up the long Kemmel straight.
Remove the wings from a 757 and I,m sure its speed will increase too !!!