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

[Koa]

Originally Posted by MRE

In almost every track made there are benefits in utilizing aerodynamics. The only ones that might not are ovals or Le Sarthe—as I can think of so far. I do not promise that my products will improve lap-times on every track in the world.

I can make these claims, because that is the physics of how vehicle dynamics operate at. The studies and researches of this subject has proven it already.

My main goal is to give users who are seeking improvement in laptimes. I chose the aerodynamics sector, because the current product lines out there are not performing at a level that satisfies my performance goals. Increase in downforce is a by-product of achieving that goal. That is initially why I decided to invest my time and efforts to do this.

The CFD done here is extremely accurate in replicating real fluid flow, as I've followed parameters and softwares used by many OEM automotive manufacturers, aftermarket manufacturers, and racing teams. Regarding testing costs, wind tunnel is something I won't do. I haven't planned on doing any wind tunnel testings, because there isn't one close enough locally that has the scale and output needed to acquire more accurate data than CFD. The equations running the softwares and computation power we have access to today are far more sophisticated than in the past. The gap continues to close more and more to necessitate wind tunnel testing, although it would be a nice compliment. The controls I've set for live-testing will yield the data and provide information that customers are most interested at, and that will take place in the near future.

... again you really should change your thread title before you mislead others, who, like me and alex, thought you had an actual working and tested design.

[MRE]

Originally Posted by Koa

... again you really should change your thread title before you mislead others, who, like me and alex, thought you had an actual working and tested design.

But what about reading the content of what I posted? I've stated that nothing was finalized or created yet, and that further testing will need to be conducted—the big one being CFD of car and wing together. The title name is still appropriate, because this will still be the best performing wing produced and massively sold for the FRS/BRZ.

[Koa]

Originally Posted by MRE

But what about reading the content of what I posted? I've stated that nothing was finalized or created yet, and that further testing will need to be conducted—the big one being CFD of car and wing together. The title name is still appropriate, because this will still be the best performing wing produced and massively sold for the FRS/BRZ.

the title isn't appropriate right now is what we're trynna say. The followup info is really great. Maybe change the title to, "Building the Best..."

[MikeM7]

Did you design this podium for when you're presenting your wings at car shows?

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by MRE

In almost every track made there are benefits in utilizing aerodynamics. The only ones that might not are ovals or Le Sarthe—as I can think of so far. I do not promise that my products will improve lap-times on every track in the world.

I can make these claims, because that is the physics of how vehicle dynamics operate at. The studies and researches of this subject has proven it already.

My main goal is to give users who are seeking improvement in laptimes. I chose the aerodynamics sector, because the current product lines out there are not performing at a level that satisfies my performance goals. Increase in downforce is a by-product of achieving that goal. That is initially why I decided to invest my time and efforts to do this.

The CFD done here is extremely accurate in replicating real fluid flow, as I've followed parameters and softwares used by many OEM automotive manufacturers, aftermarket manufacturers, and racing teams. Regarding testing costs, wind tunnel is something I won't do. I haven't planned on doing any wind tunnel testings, because there isn't one close enough locally that has the scale and output needed to acquire more accurate data than CFD. The equations running the softwares and computation power we have access to today are far more sophisticated than in the past. The gap continues to close more and more to necessitate wind tunnel testing, although it would be a nice compliment. The controls I've set for live-testing will yield the data and provide information that customers are most interested at, and that will take place in the near future.

... so there's no aerodynamics at La Sarthe??? Wow! I should go tell this to all the Toyota/Porsche designers that they're doing it all wrong!!!

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsjan15.html


Let me spell it out for you clear and simple, what you are doing wrong:

1) no amount of CFD can replicate real-world testing
2) real-world testing is EXPENSIVE
3) in order to claim your wing is better than everyone else's, you need to test identical cars under same conditions. This is the expensive part, not wind tunnel and not sitting behind a desk...
4) Lift, drag, downforce... these are all things you use to your advantage/disadvantage to increase traction. Weight distribution, power output, and chassis setup is a huge part of it. To claim "more downforce and more drag" is better than the ARP wing you're putting down is akin to saying "more power and more fuel consumption" is better than "less power and less fuel consumption" out of the FA20. It's making a lot of assumptions and introducing too many variables, when the goal of this is to reduce the amount of variables that will affect your results

I'm not doubting your data. I'm doubting your messaging and what you are doing. CFD and engineering may be your strong points, but real-world application and messaging (aka marketing) is not (as shown by the pushback in this thread)...

-alex

[MRE]

Originally Posted by mav1178

... so there's no aerodynamics at La Sarthe??? Wow! I should go tell this to all the Toyota/Porsche designers that they're doing it all wrong!!!

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsjan15.html


Let me spell it out for you clear and simple, what you are doing wrong:

1) no amount of CFD can replicate real-world testing
2) real-world testing is EXPENSIVE
3) in order to claim your wing is better than everyone else's, you need to test identical cars under same conditions. This is the expensive part, not wind tunnel and not sitting behind a desk...
4) Lift, drag, downforce... these are all things you use to your advantage/disadvantage to increase traction. Weight distribution, power output, and chassis setup is a huge part of it. To claim "more downforce and more drag" is better than the ARP wing you're putting down is akin to saying "more power and more fuel consumption" is better than "less power and less fuel consumption" out of the FA20. It's making a lot of assumptions and introducing too many variables, when the goal of this is to reduce the amount of variables that will affect your results

I'm not doubting your data. I'm doubting your messaging and what you are doing. CFD and engineering may be your strong points, but real-world application and messaging (aka marketing) is not (as shown by the pushback in this thread)...

-alex

I apologize for the confusion. In the context I was using the word 'aerodynamics', I referred to downforce. On some ovals and on Le Sarthe, downforce levels needs to be monitored and tested to ensure there aren't too much.

Regarding your first and second note, I will be conducting real world testing. The data acquired will provide information customers want to know about the product they are buying into.

#3 While I have yet to do a live comparison of wings on the same car, the physics that binds how aerodynamics interacts with a car have been accurately replicated already in CFD. The equations running the softwares and computation power we have access to today are far more sophisticated than in the past. The gap continues to close more and more to necessitate wind tunnel testing, although it would be a nice compliment. When analysing the design of the many current market wings, and comparing it to mine, I can still continue to confidently claim that mine is better performing than theirs. Live results will merely solidify and anchor those claims.

#4 In the analogy you've given, and under the goal of improving lap times, more power is better. The fuel economy aspect is neglected in improving lap times.

I do not view this as a pushback. This is all part of my business model. I've expected all of this to happen, and I'm more than happy to address concerns and questions. Through the studies and observations made by scientists and engineers, my testing can be viably extrapolated to real-world scenarios so long as I follow the same instruction set they used too.

[Tromatic]

Originally Posted by MRE

More evidence will come, but I am not at all void of any evidence. My wing with the experimental endplate, at 120kph, makes 201.2lb lift and 49.6lb drag. In comparison, the APR GTC-200 at 130kph makes 110lb lift and 16.5lb drag. Despite the increase in drag, The huge leap in downforce will still yield results around a track much better than the APR.

Bona fides: evidence of one's qualifications or achievements —often plural in construction

So "none" then? Not a really hard question. As in tell us what gives you the background to claim that real-world tested and respected aero sucks.

ETA: Don't you have to be a registered vendor to advertise your shit like this?

ETA again: The claims get better and better, with nothing to back it up. Keep going, OP!

[MRE]

Originally Posted by Tromatic

Bona fides: evidence of one's qualifications or achievements —often plural in construction

So "none" then? Not a really hard question.

Oh, my mistake. I've misunderstood the meaning of that phrase then. I am an engineer undergraduate at UBC. I attend autocross, HPDE, and chump racing. 2 years spent in an engineering club that competes in the FSAE.I cannot think of way to qualify the knowledge I've gained in studying aerodynamics, vehicle dynamics, suspension dynamics, and brake dynamics, outside of school and club time—touche to that then. I'd like to hope that the success of this product will be qualification to the knowledge I needed to have and used to design this.

[MRE]

Originally Posted by Tromatic

ETA: Don't you have to be a registered vendor to advertise your shit like this?

Probably. I mentioned a disclaimer on my first post. At least one grey zone difference is, I'm not selling anything, and have only so far raised awareness and attention. Grey zone, because I preluded about selling.

[LucidMomentum]

Originally Posted by MRE

I'd like to hope that the success of this product will be qualification for the knowledge I needed to design this.

That's a bit of a catch 22, however. You keep talking about the product being successful, but you have no real data, scale models or etc. to back the success up, nor do you have any full plans to manufacture or produce this for the community.

You're pretty close to advertising, which requires different rules than normal member status on the forums, and you still haven't told us your plans for this other than "it works, I tested it on my computer."

Forgive us being skeptical and / or cynical, but there are many aero options for the FR-S already. If you aren't intending to troll us, you might want to proceed with testing this on a scale model or real world car to get some more quantifiable results.

[MRE]

Originally Posted by LucidMomentum

That's a bit of a catch 22, however. You keep talking about the product being successful, but you have no real data, scale models or etc. to back the success up, nor do you have any full plans to manufacture or produce this for the community.

You're pretty close to advertising, which requires different rules than normal member status on the forums, and you still haven't told us your plans for this other than "it works, I tested it on my computer."

Forgive us being skeptical and / or cynical, but there are many aero options for the FR-S already. If you aren't intending to troll us, you might want to proceed with testing this on a scale model or real world car to get some more quantifiable results.

Yup, absolutely. Real world testing, and CFD of the wing on the car are coming soon and I am working on that. Despite not proceeding to those steps yet, I already know that mine will perform greater than the competitors. I can claim these because of the preliminary tests I've already performed: the wing, and the wing interaction on a vehicle. The physics of fluid flow can be extrapolated, and why I have the wing as it is shown right now. The CFD of the wing on the FRS allows me to fine tune the positioning and acquire data on output values. I have manufacturing and supplying ready.

[Gunman]

Originally Posted by MRE

Oh, my mistake. I've misunderstood the meaning of that phrase then. I am an engineer undergraduate at UBC. I attend autocross, HPDE, and chump racing. 2 years spent in an engineering club that competes in the FSAE.I cannot think of way to qualify the knowledge I've gained in studying aerodynamics, vehicle dynamics, suspension dynamics, and brake dynamics, outside of school and club time—touche to that then. I'd like to hope that the success of this product will be qualification to the knowledge I needed to have and used to design this.

I was talking with @Roadcone about this thread earlier today, I told him that my gut feeling was that MRE was a college, or grad student, with no real world racing experience. Please don't take offense to that, I've just been around the industry for a while

So, what led you do use a dual element straight wing, rather than a single element with twist, or variable chord to maximize the downforce? Many racing series do not allow multi element wings, and for a consumer, removing setup complexity is usually good, unless the elements are not individually adjustable?

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by MRE

I am an engineer undergraduate at UBC.

... wait, what?

Originally Posted by MRE

My background is engineering from UBC, and I took full advantage of the resources and knowledge I have access to and started from scratch in designing my own rear wing.

This entire time I thought you were already post-college.

Maybe it should be edited to read "my background is a current undergraduate engineering student at UBC"...

-alex

[MRE]

Originally Posted by Gunman

I was talking with @Roadcone about this thread earlier today, I told him that my gut feeling was that MRE was a college, or grad student, with no real world racing experience. Please don't take offense to that, I've just been around the industry for a while

So, what led you do use a dual element straight wing, rather than a single element with twist, or variable chord to maximize the downforce? Many racing series do not allow multi element wings, and for a consumer, removing setup complexity is usually good, unless the elements are not individually adjustable?

I utilized a multi-element wing, because it allows higher angle of attack without stalling, therefore producing more downforce. I would love to produce variable chord wings. My wing is the way it is right now, because of the limitations of my current suppliers, manufacturers, and capital. In the future versions of wings I'll release, I'll incorporate many elements into the design, including some not even used in the popular market. The market for regulated wings are plentiful and I wish not to produce a product that only achieves slight improvement. The use and installation of the wing will be simple. The individual elements of this wing is not adjustable, the positioning and relationship of one another has been set to output the highest amount of downforce. In future models, I plan to integrate more complexities.