Wings/Spoilers: You're probably doing it wrong.
 

Pretty good article about the aerodynamics of wings vs. spoilers.

http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/win...312667/+orlove

thank you for this!

50% of people are still doing exactly the opposite of what this article says.

well most people don't have access to a legit CFD (computational fluid dynamics) program, which helps... a lot

Aero is easy in principle to understand, but an utter bitch to get right in reality

I like to say, "air does exactly what you don't think it will do, when it wants".

Thank you for that.

So now my question is, does anyone have a graphic showing airflow around an OE FR-S spoiler? I'd be interested to see one...

Look on the front page of the site :)

That article is complete bullshit. Fluid dynamics is an incredibly complex science that no one who hasn't spent years studying has any useful input on. Even the very best software has a pretty major margin of error.

Untrue...

Pretty accessible programs are massively accurate of showing behaviors and trends. But just like a dyno, actual gain/numbers can change depending on different parameters.

If CFD was so far inaccurate, then unlimited budget race teams wouldn't use it as a design tool.

Which points in particular? Be specific and provide a counter-argument. i'd like to learn here.

Actually I'll argue against you as well. Turbulent flow is nearly impossible to predict. However, laminar flow is very easy to work with. If you can avoid a region of turbulent flow, your results wouldn't be too far off with the consideration of velocity, density, and a few other factors.

I can't comment on specific points, it's way over my head. My point is that this guy (the author of the article) laying a blanket claim like that is preposterous. He doesn't know any more about fluid dynamics than anyone else here, and without at the very least making a detailed 3d model of the cars (which I already mentioned have limited value, but maybe not as limited as I believed) he's mentioning and testing it he has zero basis for his claims.

if you can't comment on specific points, how do you know they're wrong? to state that the author's claims are incorrect requires you to have enough knowledge to tell us why. or else, it's just one person who doesn't know what they're talking about against another person they claim doesn't know what they're talking about.

we have a very wide range of members here with different backgrounds. to say that he, as a subsea hydraulics engineer doesn't know any more about fluid dynamics than anyone else here is the sort of preposterous blanket claim that you're accusing him of.

dismissing something as b.s. requires that you can support that statement with good, sound explanations that we can understand and make sense to us.

Every race team I have worked for, wants to run as much CFD as possible. The more detailed the CAD model, the better, but even early on in a design, CFD is the tool used to drive the aero aspect of the design.