MS Rear Cover Decrease the Effect of Rear Wing?

Just reading a post on SELOC and coame across this statement:

“For example the the smooth engine cover of the Exige reduces both parasitic and induced drag but this in turn increases the airflow over the car causing lift (but happily increases the effectiveness of any wing mounted on the tail)”

The openings in the MS cover must disturb the air over the rear wing and possibly decrease its effectiveness.

Anyone with one fitted notice any difference at speed? of course fitting a Pesky-spec one would more than compensate

– “(but happily increases the effectiveness of any wing mounted on the tail)”

David - were you trying to tell us something?

Well they’re adding more and more vents (essentially what the cover is) to F1 cars, so the effect can’t be that great. And in any case, the removal of the top vent may cancel some of the loss out.

Ian

Just reading a post on SELOC and coame across this statement:

“For example the the smooth engine cover of the Exige reduces both parasitic and induced drag but this in turn increases the airflow over the car causing lift (but happily increases the effectiveness of any wing mounted on the tail)”

The openings in the MS cover must disturb the air over the rear wing and possibly decrease its effectiveness.

Anyone with one fitted notice any difference at speed? of course fitting a Pesky-spec one would more than compensate

Sorry to butt in…I’m normally just a lurker…but I think the originator of the quote from Seloc is talking balderdash. As far as I understand it, there are two main types of drag…Form drag and Induced drag. “Induced Drag” is the component resulting from the creation of Lift by a surface.

Seems to me like he’s geting a bit mixed up. I’d have thought the vents in a motorsport cover would cause very little detriment to the efficacy of the rear wing, because of the effects of laminar flow, and its elevated mounting.