![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() Enthusiast ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Joined Jun 1, '03 From WV Currently Offline Reputation: 2 (100%) ![]() |
I was driving back to college from home, and it was raining out. I noticed that the back glass kept dry even in the heavey rain. This just made me curious to see a wind chart for the celica. It's a hachback with a wing. Any have this? And I was also wondering how functional this wing really is? Any know? Thanks.
-------------------- Live Free, Be Happy
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Enthusiast ![]() Joined Jun 28, '07 Currently Offline Reputation: 0 (0%) ![]() |
http://freespace.virgin.net/shalco.com/tte_ST205.htm This article may shed some light on the matter. This is for the GT-FOUR rear spoiler however. In particular: The purpose of the rear wing is to correct the inherent balance disadvantage of a transverse-engined car compared with longitudinal-engined models like Fords and Subaru's. The aerofoil has been designed to minimise drag losses while still increasing the downforce and it is effective from 100-120 kph upwards. "We get better traction and it makes the car more stable. The wing has two positions, up and down, with removable distance pieces... The amount of downforce is influenced by ride height and we still have to carry out wind tunnel tests, but it's expected that there will be 50 kg of downforce at 100 kph with the wing in the up position, and maybe five times more than that with the wing at the low position." According to this, my understanding is that the 2-post spoiler produces more downforce without the GT-Four riser blocks. My question is, is all this downforce really necessary on the lighter engined ST? Will the ST be better off with or without the spoiler, from a drag/ fuel economy standpoint? If you can point me to other such discussions, it would be appreciated |
![]() ![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: July 18th, 2025 - 12:41 AM |