They didn't come with a wing only to save weight. I'm assuming they expect someone that buys it to put a light weight wing on there.

 

They did it to keep the cost down.

 

but to keep cost low they risked a performance lose? after all the RS is their car that will be modded by buyers, At least I would like to think the buyer would buy a lighter weight wing for his RS but the stock carbon fiber wing is pretty light, trust me I know

 

It may be light, but some of those full carbon fiber ones are just as light, but also being higher, can produce more downforce. Plus lots of people would pull that off and put something on that may match their bodykit better.

 

old topic
Just FYI, ours are full carbon, sides and everything

 

The RS has no wing, as the RS is expected to sell mostly to race teams and the hardcore weekend racers. Those people will no doubt want to add their own wing, whether the stock one will do or an aftermarket one. Coming without the wing just gives them the aftermarket option.

 

And as stated earlier, in AutoX the wing is not that useful... I think the EvoRS is also designed to be an AutoX killer, especially with that Front LSD which would make a bigger difference on a tight course than on a longer road course.

 

The big wing will be an accessory on the RS:

 

by what this sheet says 2004 evo will offer leather recaros, ah ****!!!! f@#$@$ mits and all the car companies that screw the firts year buyers.

anyway sorry to get off the subject

 

Thanks djsbadger,
Is this the theoritical performance of the wing, or the wing as it performs when mounted on the vehicle? If the latter, where did you get that data?


Sean

 

I can vouch for the wings usfulness, my dumbass thought it was just for show, i removed it and went on a backroad run that i had done many times before (with the wing) at 120, coming over a minor lift i caught wayyyy more air than i normaly did and when i landed i had no rear end , it was swinging all over finaly ending up in a hard side ways slide, fronttire caught in a ditch, i went end over end at prolly 90 mph (my skid marks where aprox 300 feet long so im asuming i slowed a bit) and landed back on my wheels in the ditch

Before this i had noticed a lil squirlyness at 90mph on some twistys on pavement, but stupidly ignored it thinking it was wet roads

in retrospect the signs where there and i shouldnt have made such a drastic change to the cars performance then drivin it on the edge like i did

anyway i got a totaled evo out of it,,

moral of the story, im not getting another one with out a big wing

 

wow.. maybe the moral of the story should be to not hit 120 on back roads with jumps in them...

the RS has no wing for weight and cost savings, as it is expected to be added aftermarket by most buyers.

as for whoever said that the airstream under a car would cause suction due to the bernoulli effect, you're simply taking a very simplified premise and theorizing with it. while a faster moving airstream does cause lower pressure hence suction, what makes you think the the air under a car moves faster than the air above it. If you look at the profile of most cars it kinda resembles an airfoil, flat bottom, protruding top. Air has to move faster to get around the protruding top than the flat bottom, plus separation of flow issues which get complex and were not getting into. Also, the underside of the car is close to the ground which can cause air to move slower also.

limiting the amount of air going under the car will decrease lift, but tends to make tha car have a bit more drag due to a larger area for air to hit and go around. the underbody panels we have are there to decrease the drag of whatever air makes it under tha car, and to cause the cool air entering through FMIC and radiator to flow out the top. Lowering the car or having a larger front dam shouldnt really affect the brake cooling guides b/c they move such little air in comparison to whats sneaking under the car that you'll never be able to limit enough air under the car to make them useless... not that i think theyre really that usefull in the 1st place, but thats another argument...

whew.. sorry for the long winded post.

 

==============================


wow that fast! thanks God you still here with us telling the story

 

This is very interesting indeed. Maybe the next time I talk to one of my Aeronautical Engineering friends I can have him take some measurements and put those numbers into his nifty computer program. I'm curious to see if these numbers are in fact accurate. 437 lbs at 150 mph - impressive.

 

Try putting a 437 lb weight on the wing, it will break lol.