Who makes a REAL NSX-R wing? Is their such a thing?

[stuntman]

Seems like your prayers have been answered. Check out Detlefs last post in the Procar specials thread:

http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showpost.php?p=871224&postcount=645

Looks like he's got all versions there ever was of the R-wing and I dare to promise you - those aint replicas.

Great find!

Yea, it even has the adjustable prototype R wing there too...

Look at the 3rd pic, see the sharp angle where the nicely curved underside of the wing sharply goes to a straight line to the top of the wing? =stall.

I guess thats settled then. Dali, Procar, Downforce, etc... all make proper replicas, and that's how Honda designed it...

 

[Gansan]

Stuntman, you make some good points, but I think you might be up in arms over a relatively minor aero compromise. There are a few points to consider:

1. For the NSX-R, the engineers were trying to go for "balanced" downforce which roughly approximated the front to rear weight distribution. This keeps handling consistent at low and high speeds. It also means they probably added the front undertrays and hood vent, then added just enough downforce in the rear to balance it out. Their goal was not the maximum downforce from the rear wing. So, they probably accepted some compromise of the rear wing's shape in order to make it easier to manufacture or to improve the structural shape so that less material would be required for a given load.

2. Although I haven't studied a real NSX-R wing up close and I can't comment on how close the replicas are, the one inch strip you are referring to in the photos is not going to totally destroy the function of the wing, even if the airflow separates at the edge where it starts to slope up. It may hurt the efficiency, but the affected area seems relatively small compared to the rest of the wing.

edit:
3. I'm adding a third point here after looking at the new photos RacingHeart linked to. I think it's also worth considering the possibility that the vortex that the Gurney flap creates behind it is to some extent filling in the void created by the abbreviated trailing edge.

 

[stuntman]

Stuntman, you make some good points, but I think you might be up in arms over a relatively minor aero compromise. There are a few points to consider:

1. For the NSX-R, the engineers were trying to go for "balanced" downforce which roughly approximated the front to rear weight distribution. This keeps handling consistent at low and high speeds. It also means they probably added the front undertrays and hood vent, then added just enough downforce in the rear to balance it out. Their goal was not the maximum downforce from the rear wing. So, they probably accepted some compromise of the rear wing's shape in order to make it easier to manufacture or to improve the structural shape so that less material would be required for a given load.

2. Although I haven't studied a real NSX-R wing up close and I can't comment on how close the replicas are, the one inch strip you are referring to in the photos is not going to totally destroy the function of the wing, even if the airflow separates at the edge where it starts to slope up. It may hurt the efficiency, but the affected area seems relatively small compared to the rest of the wing.

THANK YOU for this post. This is the type of arguments/propositions I hoped for in this thread. It's a pleasure to talk, and argue for and against an issue when brought up in this manner... again thank you.

1. For the NSX-R, the engineers were trying to go for "balanced" downforce which roughly approximated the front to rear weight distribution. This keeps handling consistent at low and high speeds. It also means they probably added the front undertrays and hood vent, then added just enough downforce in the rear to balance it out. Their goal was not the maximum downforce from the rear wing. So, they probably accepted some compromise of the rear wing's shape in order to make it easier to manufacture or to improve the structural shape so that less material would be required for a given load.

yes they were looking for a balanced car, setting up the suspension and aero to give the car good high and low speed handling characteristics. The lower the speeds, the less the aero is effective in changing the handling of the car. So you can set a car up with the suspension and aid high-speed handling with aero. Their goal not being to maximize downforce is a good argument, whether its true or not will be unknown unless we get the engineers working on that project to come in here, so thats a good point. I do not agree that its to improve the structural shape as carbon is very strong and would have no problem handling even a couple hundred pounds of downforce (which is a greatly dramatic example) so I do not think it was for structural purposes, maybe for simplicity of the mold, but I still think Honda would have done a little better than that.

2. Although I haven't studied a real NSX-R wing up close and I can't comment on how close the replicas are, the one inch strip you are referring to in the photos is not going to totally destroy the function of the wing, even if the airflow separates at the edge where it starts to slope up. It may hurt the efficiency, but the affected area seems relatively small compared to the rest of the wing.

Ive seen 'replicas', "real", and remakes of the wing, all are very close and similar to each other. Yes the transition on the underside of the wing from the curve to the realatively steep straight line woun't KILL the downforce or efficiency, but it probably reduces both the efficiency and total downforce a significant amount. It is the most important part of the wing but theve done such a detailed job about the rest of the wing that i'm still not sure why they went from a beautifully sculpted, proper profile to this sharp transition and steep rake of the underside of the wing. They very well may have intended the airflow to detach from the bottom of the wing, but again, unless we have the project engineer here to explain, it still brings up a lot of questions.

edit:
3. I'm adding a third point here after looking at the new photos RacingHeart linked to. I think it's also worth considering the possibility that the vortex that the Gurney flap creates behind it is to some extent filling in the void created by the abbreviated trailing edge.

This is great. Once again, thank you Gansan - you should be a role-model for how arguments/propositions should be on forums all the time. Bringing up good points without bashing, ignorance, or firmly sticking to the product that you are loyal to. I wish all conversations were like this, unfortunately their are too many people who dont think/read through the issue at hand and just post irrelevant or ignorant comments.

Back on topic: This is a good point (3) and may answer my question. A gurney flap is a vertical piece that is put on TOP of the trailing edge of a wing. This creates a lot more downforce, and allows their to be much more angle in the entire wing (as a whole) without stalling = wings can be run at steeper angles without stalling out by the addition of a gurney flap. Gurney flaps disrupt the air right behind the vertical flap and causes the air going from under the wing to fill the void behind the flap =more downforce. ***(If you look at the Factor X Time Attack car, we have a 1" gurney flap on it)

The NSX-R is not an aggressive wing angle at all, but they may have designed this vertical transition as a built-in gurney flap. Gurney flaps are usually on TOP of the wing, but through testing in a wind tunnel, they may have got the desired airflow by doing this. Its definately a good possibility/argument and may be what we are going to leave the thread at. Again, until we get a Honda project engineer in here, it sounds like a viable option.

 

[demigod]

Downforce balance front to rear (Straight-line driving at constant speed)

Quoted from Honda's site:

By creating a downforce with the same front-to-rear balance as vehicle weight, changes in steering characteristics from low to high speeds remain well under control. At higher speeds this translates into a more linear response. More precise control of the vehicle helps the driver delve further into the car's potential.

No large aerodynamic appendage was required, helping maintain the original NSX's overall design and ensure a relatively low aerodynamic drag. Downforce was thus achieved without sacrificing top speed.

:End

I believe Honda made the wing exactly the way they wanted to balance out the car, also without drastically changing the cars look.

 

[WingZ]

Seems like your prayers have been answered. Check out Detlefs last post in the Procar specials thread:

http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showpost.php?p=871224&postcount=645

Looks like he's got all versions there ever was of the R-wing and I dare to promise you - those aint replicas.

Those are friggin beautiful! No prices???

 

[Made in the USA]

One has to also take into account the trunk lip that was added to the 2002 redesign which I believe was retained for the R, but don't quote me on that. But if it was retained then the aero relationship of these two elements would dictate the design of the R wing.

Or Honda's wind tunnel problems started back in '02 and now that they have full control of their F1 team its showing up at the GPs...sorry I couldn't resist, I know Honda's F1 team is based in Brackley which is where the wind tunnel problems are, at least for the F1 team...

 

[demigod]

One has to also take into account the trunk lip that was added to the 2002 redesign which I believe was retained for the R, but don't quote me on that. But if it was retained then the aero relationship of these two elements would dictate the design of the R wing.

The NSX-R doesn't have the trunk lip spoiler.

 

[BD]

I have absolutely no aerodynamic experience... But I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night!

First off, the NSX-R wing create more downforce than the regular NSX wing, and the top speed was changed. That has to do with the additional aero treatments such as the diffuser, under aero covers, hood, etc.

If you are looking for a real deal, you will have to pay over $6 grand for one, if you have the money up front, I'll get one for you.

As for the shape, Procar v.1 without LED is the direct replica, therefore, if you don't care for LED, that's the one to go.

If you must have LED, DF version is the closest to the OEM shape. DF did round up the edges a little, but over all appearance has not change. And their LED system is the closest to the JDM NSX-R wing - Where the air escape from the bottom side of the wing.

 

[WingZ]

The NSX-R doesn't have the trunk lip spoiler.

Interesting I wonder why not or maybe the trunk lid spoiler works best with the flat lip spoiler?

 

[BD]

Interesting I wonder why not or maybe the trunk lid spoiler works best with the flat lip spoiler?

NSX-R GT uses both.

 

[tbnsxt]

I agree with billy. You dont need to be an aerodynamicist to know how to create or destroy lift or downforce. Lets not bash him because he is crushing your "jdm honda love". Hondas philosophy was to make a wing very efficient so that it could be small and retain semi-stock appearance, and still make a decent amount of downforce. If this was there goal, why would they make such a mistake by ruining the trailing edge of the airfoil?

Honda may have had more than one version of this wing.

 

[M-P]

4.5 year old thread revival

 

[Gansan]

I didn't even see Billy's reply to my post until now! :biggrin:

 

[sicarius82]

I agree with billy. You dont need to be an aerodynamicist to know how to create or destroy lift or downforce. Lets not bash him because he is crushing your "jdm honda love". Hondas philosophy was to make a wing very efficient so that it could be small and retain semi-stock appearance, and still make a decent amount of downforce. If this was there goal, why would they make such a mistake by ruining the trailing edge of the airfoil?

Honda may have had more than one version of this wing.

Part of me wants to thank you for bringing up this thread. It was a pretty good read.

The other part wants to give you "five across the eyes" for reviving a dead thread of this magnitude.

 

[ediddynsx]

^ LOL Long

 

[tbnsxt]

I didnt even see that this thread was 4 years old because it was on top of the thread page.

 

[NA1/2-R GT]

Here are pictures of the REAL NSX-R wing:

 

[stuntman]

If youre bored, can you take a couple pics of the trailing edge of the wing at different angles?

 

[BATMANs]

I agree with billy. You dont need to be an aerodynamicist to know how to create or destroy lift or downforce. Lets not bash him because he is crushing your "jdm honda love". Hondas philosophy was to make a wing very efficient so that it could be small and retain semi-stock appearance, and still make a decent amount of downforce. If this was there goal, why would they make such a mistake by ruining the trailing edge of the airfoil?

Honda may have had more than one version of this wing.

yep, typical Japanese conservative thinking. Not be the leader in design nor be outrageous.

Does anyone know exactly how much downforce these wings provide?

I've driven a few on the street at freeway speeds and just don't have the downforce confidence that my "king-of-wings" provide.

Here's my start with spoilers to understand the downforce and WOW I certainly felt the difference at 65MPH.

 

[HBui39]

its not about maximum downforce, it is about balance. on the NSX-R site it says the wing reduces the lift coefficient by .085.

http://world.honda.com/NSX/technology/t3.html

it is interesting to note for those going NSX-R style without the new front that you are not achieving the proper balance of the NSX-R.

don't know if you are running anything in front or not, but it'd be a good idea to balance your aero as well, unless the amount of downforce produced at 0 degrees is somehow close to stock.

 

[HBui39]

crunching numbers, the NSX-R wing provides about 71 lbs of downforce at about 112 mph, the Apr gtc 300 at 0aoa is at 238 lbs of downforce at 100mph. so yeah, you are producing quite a bit more than the NSX-R and probably need a good sized front lip to achieve proper balance. although the CFD analysis of the apr wing is without the car, so it is likely the numbers are a tad lower, but still quite a bit more than that of the NSX-R

 

[BATMANs]

..... the Apr gtc 300 at 0aoa is at 238 lbs of downforce at 100mph......

Do you know at what angle since the GTC-300 is adjustable?

I'm asking since it feels more than that at 100MPH with my butt downforce micrometer....

 

[HBui39]

Do you know at what angle since the GTC-300 is adjustable?

I'm asking since it feels more than that at 100MPH with my butt downforce micrometer....

0aoa = 0 degree angle of attack. the data is on the APR site.

http://www.aprperformance.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=181

 

[stuntman]

You do not HAVE TO "balance" the car with nsxr front or splitters if you add the msxr or an aftermarket wing. All cars need a much higher. % of rear df than front. Theres nothing wrong with only putting an nsxr wing on.



0.02

 

[Nukem]

Do you know at what angle since the GTC-300 is adjustable?

I'm asking since it feels more than that at 100MPH with my butt downforce micrometer....

How often is this Butt Micrometer calibrated? LoL :tongue: