The Best Performing Rear Wing for the FRS/BRZ/FT86

[Koa]

Originally Posted by MRE

I do not want to release information regarding my business model. I'm funding this from my own capital. I won't release any information on pricing yet. I have a handful of car owner of varying chassis already interested in having this product, more is always lovely. The initial expenses and scale of my production are at a level where I'll be fine financially.

As a finance professional and current chartered global management accountant to a billion+ dollar business, I assume you mean Intellectual Property, which you're sharing here. Automotive aftermarket parts industry "business models" are very predictable and cost accounting for these, which take into acount variable and fixed costs to arrive at holistic product expenses, are VERY easy to calculate with today's interconnected and available pricing sheets for raw materials.

Your IP is the ONLY long-term competitive advantage you have to leverage, and by sharing with us your prototypes etc, without any real world track data, you become vulnerable of getting your ideas and thought processes sweeped up from under you, considering you have something that others do not.

That's the single greatest threat and disadvantage to an open-source or semi-open product/service design project... propriety is VERY important in this respect. Jut some food for thought brotha, take it or leave it.

[Amaya]

Originally Posted by retoocs

Since I already offended the other guys about their CFD data, I'll continue to do the same. As a flight test engineer, I get to validate CFD analysis. CFD results don't always correlate to real test data. Even the major airplane manufacturer have CFD be completely different than results from testing. You young engineers need to stop it with those 3 letter acronyms.

TLA's FTW

[MRE]

Originally Posted by Koa

As a finance professional and current chartered global management accountant to a billion+ dollar business, I assume you mean Intellectual Property, which you're sharing here. Automotive aftermarket parts industry "business models" are very predictable and cost accounting for these, which take into acount variable and fixed costs to arrive at holistic product expenses, are VERY easy to calculate with today's interconnected and available pricing sheets for raw materials.

Your IP is the ONLY long-term competitive advantage you have to leverage, and by sharing with us your prototypes etc, without any real world track data, you become vulnerable of getting your ideas and thought processes sweeped up from under you, considering you have something that others do not.

That's the single greatest threat and disadvantage to an open-source or semi-open product/service design project... propriety is VERY important in this respect. Jut some food for thought brotha, take it or leave it.

Your explanation still is not a reason for me to expose in detail my business model.

I've taken all things into consideration.

[Koa]

Originally Posted by MRE

Your explanation still is not reason for me to expose in detail my business model.

I've taken all things into consideration.

Just trying to explain to you that your business model isn't what you think it is.. nobody asked you to expose your IP. You came forward with that yourself.

You've obviously taken everything into consideration except knowing how to properly address feedback. It seems you're set on your ways and don't want to hear how the community thinks about your proposition.

Good luck to you, hope you do as well as you set yourself out to be doing

[MRE]

Originally Posted by Koa

Just trying to explain to you that your business model isn't what you think it is.. nobody asked you to expose your IP. You came forward with that yourself.

You've obviously taken everything into consideration except knowing how to properly address feedback. It seems you're set on your ways and don't want to hear how the community thinks about your proposition.

Good luck to you, hope you do as well as you set yourself out to be doing

My statement was in response to someone asking about my business plans.

I intentionally leave still many facts in the dark on purpose. I could be left vulnerable to someone stealing all my ideas. It is important for people to thoroughly read and understand what my purpose is and where I am in the process. I believe the feedbacks I've given so far have been properly addressed, they are appropriate to the stage I am at now.

[Gunman]

Originally Posted by retoocs

Since I already offended the other guys about their CFD data, I'll continue to do the same. As a flight test engineer, I get to validate CFD analysis. CFD results don't always correlate to real test data. Even the major airplane manufacturer have CFD be completely different than results from testing. You young engineers need to stop it with those 3 letter acronyms.

We are always working to better correlate the CFD to the tunnel, and to the track. It gets better and better all the time, but usually we use CFD to get trends, then go to the tunnel to see if the same trend occurs. No one should rely solely on CFD, and expect the numbers to be exactly what happens on the track, or in your case, in the air.

[plucas]

Originally Posted by Gunman

We are always working to better correlate the CFD to the tunnel, and to the track. It gets better and better all the time, but usually we use CFD to get trends, then go to the tunnel to see if the same trend occurs. No one should rely solely on CFD, and expect the numbers to be exactly what happens on the track, or in your case, in the air.

This is 100% the right way for development. For smaller racing series with less money, the trend seems to be CFD for trends and verify at the track with times and data acquisition. This works well also and have seen that first hand. CFD only with no validation is not smart. We do the CFD development and validation at the track.

I am glad to see this young engineer challenge himself. I would rather see him get his basics down first. I would love to see it happen just because I like aero cars.

[Tromatic]

OP seems to be immune to suggestions from people who have experience with what he is trying to do.

Nobody is going to steal your business model, and I doubt anybody on Earth cares about how you are working the money and materials side. Your intellectual property is now all over the WWW, and someone in China is already busy setting up production for your giant-killer wing.

[Ashikabi]

So I didn't read all this but... OP, stick with it. I like the look and IF the wing does perform as you claim I'm sure there is a niche market between the grocery getter rice haters who think they own a fancy car because it is 100% stock, and the professional race teams who only care about numbers(you specified not looking for professional race team markets). If these guys put a big wing like this on their cars, where would they put their massive egos?

[LucidMomentum]

Originally Posted by Ashikabi

So I didn't read all this but... OP, stick with it. I like the look and IF the wing does perform as you claim I'm sure there is a niche market between the grocery getter rice haters who think they own a fancy car because it is 100% stock, and the professional race teams who only care about numbers(you specified not looking for professional race team markets). If these guys put a big wing like this on their cars, where would they put their massive egos?

I don't think this is an ego thing, really. The wing is too much of a view obstruction / too bulky for DD purposes, and it probably doesn't adhere to SCAA / AX rules.

If OP isn't looking for the DD market, or the Professional race team market, then where does this lie?

Even if it does perform great, it may not have that much of a market, even a niche one.

For people who aren't "rice haters" or "number crunchers", something like the RB or Seibon Carbon wings will be more like what they get. Even those are a bit overkill for everyday use outside of the track.

Unless OP can make this for less than those, and have it perform better, and make it road and AX legal, I don't see this selling all that well, except for maybe the show car crowd. But then you have the catch 22 of why would performance matter on a show car?

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by LucidMomentum

I don't think this is an ego thing, really. The wing is too much of a view obstruction / too bulky for DD purposes, and it probably doesn't adhere to SCAA / AX rules.

If OP isn't looking for the DD market, or the Professional race team market, then where does this lie?

Even if it does perform great, it may not have that much of a market, even a niche one.

For people who aren't "rice haters" or "number crunchers", something like the RB or Seibon Carbon wings will be more like what they get. Even those are a bit overkill for everyday use outside of the track.

Unless OP can make this for less than those, and have it perform better, and make it road and AX legal, I don't see this selling all that well, except for maybe the show car crowd. But then you have the catch 22 of why would performance matter on a show car?

Even the show car crowd would just fab something up that looks like it but does not impact the driving since they just want form not function.

[Caspeed]

Originally Posted by MRE

My statement was in response to someone asking about my business plans.

I intentionally leave still many facts in the dark on purpose. I could be left vulnerable to someone stealing all my ideas. It is important for people to thoroughly read and understand what my purpose is and where I am in the process. I believe the feedbacks I've given so far have been properly addressed, they are appropriate to the stage I am at now.

Can you please explain the benefit of mounting the wing as you do in the renditions? It not only interferes with air flow to the underside of the wing but also the upperside and flow into the slot. I can't see a plus to that. You are also not showing a Gurney flap. Are you going to add one later?

[MRE]

Originally Posted by Caspeed

Can you please explain the benefit of mounting the wing as you do in the renditions? It not only interferes with air flow to the underside of the wing but also the upperside and flow into the slot. I can't see a plus to that. You are also not showing a Gurney flap. Are you going to add one later?

Absolutely true. This is not the best way to mount a wing as it does interfere with flow dynamics onto the wing. However, a front and over-mount, 'swan neck', benefits over the traditional, underside mounted wing because of the flow interference the underside mount incurs. My current mount design still yields better results in drag reduction and downforce production than an underside mount.

In the future, I will use a mounting method that is even more aerodynamically advantageous than this. Along side that, more features that improves performance over this, including but not limited to a Gurney flap. This is the first iteration of wings I will produce.

[Caspeed]

Originally Posted by MRE

Absolutely true. This is not the best way to mount a wing as it does interfere with flow dynamics onto the wing. However, a front and over-mount, 'swan neck', benefits over the traditional, underside mounted wing because of the flow interference the underside mount incurs. My current mount design still yields better results in drag reduction and downforce production than an underside mount.

In the future, I will use a mounting method that is even more aerodynamically advantageous than this. Along side that, more features that improves performance over this, including but not limited to a Gurney flap. This is the first iteration of wings I will produce.

Have you considered end plate mounting? No negative air flow issues.