Anderson Composites GT500 CFTP Wing Showed Up..

[toothdkdr]

Like I said in the other thread, theri website says nothing about what its rated at, and if I were you I'd call find out and get it in writing if you go with them.

I will do that and let you know.

Sponsored

 

[Tomster]

I would not be happy if that was the case If no foam insert I wonder if the Vicrez wing is just as strong?

I wouldn't use this wing on the track after seeing the cutaway. It looks to be a cosmetic replica for anesthetics that would only be suitable for light duty and appearances. If that's all you are looking for, you will probably be alright.

The layers look really thin and don't seem to have a lot of strength. It especially seems evident now based upon such minimal damage to the shipping box, yet extensive damage to the wing. Now I understand why AC rated their wing to 130 MPH.

The wing would make a nice showpiece. If I ever got one, that is exactly what it would be used for. It would make a good replica for light duty that has the resemblance of the OEM wing.

If that is what you are after doc, I wouldn't worry about it. As long as you didn't have plans to go faster than the AC speed rating you'd probably be fine. I suspect that if you did, you might see some of those pressure spider cracks around the mounts and surrounding areas.

 

[Evolvd]

I wouldn't use this wing on the track after seeing the cutaway. It looks to be a cosmetic replica for anesthetics that would only be suitable for light duty and appearances. If that's all you are looking for, you will probably be alright.

The layers look really thin and don't seem to have a lot of strength. It especially seems evident now based upon such minimal damage to the shipping box, yet extensive damage to the wing. Now I understand why AC rated their wing to 130 MPH.

The wing would make a nice showpiece. If I ever got one, that is exactly what it would be used for. It would make a good replica for light duty that has the resemblance of the OEM wing.

If that is what you are after doc, I wouldn't worry about it. As long as you didn't have plans to go faster than the AC speed rating you'd probably be fine. I suspect that if you did, you might see some of those pressure spider cracks around the mounts and surrounding areas.

That being said, has anyone chopped open an OEM wing and see how thick the CF is on it? Also, does it have a core?

 

[Tomster]

That being said, has anyone chopped open an OEM wing and see how thick the CF is on it? Also, does it have a core?

To anyone who has one.....

Who wants to go first?

Edit: most of the reputable manufacturers use a foam core. Here is multimatic
https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/water-in-my-carbon-fiber-wing.151537/page-2#post-3090557

Also search "tornado vs GT350R wing". You will see that is also a foam core.

 

[JeremyPro5.0]

To anyone who has one.....

Who wants to go first?

Edit: most of the reputable manufacturers use a foam core. Here is multimatic
https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/water-in-my-carbon-fiber-wing.151537/page-2#post-3090557

Also search "tornado vs GT350R wing". You will see that is also a foam core.

Based on the parts I have seen and worked to manufacture in the past, I would reason that the core allows you a FAR more solid and accurate base to lay the pre-preg carbon weave on to have a truly seamless, one-piece design. That design would be strong hence the factory speed rating.

My opinion, you know about opinions so take it or leave it, would be based on what I have seen from AC is that they are a cosmetic reproduction house with a background in fiberglass and not really any carbon fiber structural component expertise.
I would not rely on the products I have seen from them to provide a strength based application or need to their consumers.

Possibly their lack of experience with structural components and carbon fiber manufacturing is a large part of why they have no ability to deliver products in a timely fashion and why they have a reputation of their stuff constantly breaking in shipment as documented on these boards.

Body panels, yeah they can make those.
Aero components that need strength to go with the pretty, not so much it would seem.

 

[Tomster]

Based on the parts I have seen and worked to manufacture in the past, I would reason that the core allows you a FAR more solid and accurate base to lay the pre-preg carbon weave on to have a truly seamless, one-piece design. That design would be strong hence the factory speed rating.

My opinion, you know about opinions so take it or leave it, would be based on what I have seen from AC is that they are a cosmetic reproduction house with a background in fiberglass and not really any carbon fiber structural component expertise.
I would not rely on the products I have seen from them to provide a strength based application or need to their consumers.

Possibly their lack of experience with structural components and carbon fiber manufacturing is a large part of why they have no ability to deliver products in a timely fashion and why they have a reputation of their stuff constantly breaking in shipment as documented on these boards.

Body panels, yeah they can make those.
Aero components that need strength to go with the pretty, not so much it would seem.

Yep, my opinion exactly. Its a nice reproduction that will look good on the street.

If anyone would like to loan me theirs, I'd be happy to test it to 180. Let's see how that goes.

I dont think it would go flying off the car, but I think it would develop stress cracks

 

[JeremyPro5.0]

Yep, my opinion exactly. Its a nice reproduction that will look good on the street.

If anyone would like to loan me theirs, I'd be happy to test it to 180. Let's see how that goes.

I dont think it would go flying off the car, but I think it would develop stress cracks

GOOD luck on that.
If that wing does come off or crack heavily and change angle at speed, the last thing you are going to give a d_mn about is the friggin wing.

That would not be a good ride at speed.

 

[Tomster]

GOOD luck on that.
If that wing does come off or crack heavily and change angle at speed, the last thing you are going to give a d_mn about is the friggin wing.

That would not be a good ride at speed.

Carbon fiber is some pretty strong stuff..... I dont think you'd see it completely fail without signs that it is about to do so. The way I would handle that test is limit each particular session to a limit speed. I would start with the advertised 130. Next session, 140. Keep going in brackets until you get it to 180. After each session, do a very close inspection. Again, I think you would see stress cracks before the wing would fail.

Obviously, the most critical part of that wing is where the mounts attach to the airfoil. From the external view, the mount attachment point seems beefy just like the OEM wing. But take a close look at the cutaway (courtesy of Tob). The airfoil carbon fiber layer is very thin. Compare that to the multimatic example in the photo in the link in the previous thread (again, courtesy of Tob). The beefy mount doesn't mean anything if it is attached to a very thin structural layer of carbon fiber (which by the way, is the structural part of the lower part of the airfoil).

My case in point..... Tobs wing suffered from all kinds of damage from a load that impacted the mounts. The mount attachment point on the wing is fine, but all around it (where it interfaced with the airfoil) has all kinds of pressure stress cracks. If the wing were to begin to fail at the mounts, I think it would fail in a manner as it is depicted by the shipping damage of Tob's wing. Since there is no core to support the carbon fiber, the wing will probably flex some (im not talking a lot, but some) up to the point that the forces are too great and the stress cracks will appear. IMHO, all AC had to do was to beef up the airfoil CF and use some kind of support on the inside of the wing. Instead, the weak link in the chain is the overall airfoil structure that is internally unsupported that the mounts attach to.

This wing could be modified on the exterior to beef up the areas of structural concern, but it certainly would remove from the aesthetic appearance, which defeats many of the goals people are after.

So again, its a great cars and coffee showpiece. It certainly would do for a designated decoy if you are trying to keep your OEM wing from being lifted. But track use at high speeds? I'd want to see some testing.

I'm your huckleberry if anyone would like to loan me a unit for testing. Anyone? Yes, you too AC..... I promise I'll give back what is left.

 

[AngelDeath]

Carbon fiber is some pretty strong stuff..... I dont think you'd see it completely fail without signs that it is about to do so. The way I would handle that test is limit each particular session to a limit speed. I would start with the advertised 130. Next session, 140. Keep going in brackets until you get it to 180. After each session, do a very close inspection. Again, I think you would see stress cracks before the wing would fail.

Tom, while I agree with all of what you said, I would think there is no need to test this wing, as AC has claimed 130 is the max speed, I would venture to say they more than likely did this speed rating test which brought them to this number. Remember MPR more than likely was getting it from AC and they were telling me (I have the whole convo) they had to test it to make sure it held up to 200MPH (Which basically means AC had to test the prototype), now here is the weird part I told MPR that as long as it held up to 130 MPH I would buy their prototype from them as long as there were no cracks or structural damage, Funny how that number seems to be the max limit.

Unless AC just throws numbers out there and didnt test it, which I cant see as thats a liability if one hits just under the max line.

 

[Tomster]

Tom, while I agree with all of what you said, I would think there is no need to test this wing, as AC has claimed 130 is the max speed

No, they used to say 130+. Now their description says 140+. Look at their website.

Its like when they set a crosswind limit for an aircraft, those were demonstrated speeds at the time of aircraft certification. They find the biggest crosswind they can find and then demonstrate it for certification.

It sounds like AC tested it to 130 wherever that was and that is all they could demonstrate at that time. It seems they sent one over to the FPRS to have those guys have a crack at it. CLT is no Daytona. Thats about what you are going to be able to do in a 500 at CLT.

There aren't many tracks where you can get up to 180 with this car. When I do it, I am standing on it from outside the bus stop at Daytona and you can only get to 180 for a few seconds approaching turn 1 of the 24 hour course. Again, not many tracks where you can obtain those speeds (in this car).

So read AC's description, they say 140+. Keep in mind that lift and drag change exponentially as speed increases. Where that limit is? Who knows. Based on the thickness of the wings body, I would think it wouldn't fair well at 180, but nobody would know until they tested it.

For some, 140 may be perfectly fine. I'd be curious how it held up to repeated high speed runs over time.

Edited to add:
Thinking about this a bit more, you may not need to take it up to 180. We know the OEM wing produces 500+ pounds of downforce at 180. All you'd have to do is fabricate a rest that would evenly distribute the weight across the entire wing and then place 500 pounds or so on top of it. You could bounce the car a bit and see how the structure handles it. I would probably start with that before I slapped it on the car and drove around at 180, lol

 

[AngelDeath]

No, they used to say 130+. Now their description says 140+. Look at their website.

Its like when they set a crosswind limit for an aircraft, those were demonstrated speeds at the time of aircraft certification. They find the biggest crosswind they can find and then demonstrate it for certification.

It sounds like AC tested it to 130 wherever that was and that is all they could demonstrate at that time. It seems they sent one over to the FPRS to have those guys have a crack at it. CLT is no Daytona. Thats about what you are going to be able to do in a 500 at CLT.

There aren't many tracks where you can get up to 180 with this car. When I do it, I am standing on it from outside the bus stop at Daytona and you can only get to 180 for a few seconds approaching turn 1 of the 24 hour course. Again, not many tracks where you can obtain those speeds (in this car).

So read AC's description, they say 140+. Keep in mind that lift and drag change exponentially as speed increases. Where that limit is? Who knows. Based on the thickness of the wings body, I would think it wouldn't fair well at 180, but nobody would know until they tested it.

For some, 140 may be perfectly fine. I'd be curious how it held up to repeated high speed runs over time.

Edited to add:
Thinking about this a bit more, you may not need to take it up to 180. We know the OEM wing produces 500+ pounds of downforce at 180. All you'd have to do is fabricate a rest that would evenly distribute the weight across the entire wing and then place 500 pounds or so on top of it. You could bounce the car a bit and see how the structure handles it. I would probably start with that before I slapped it on the car and drove around at 180, lol

You also have to factor in that testing cost is also a factor in retail cost, the more testing is done I'd figure the price would go up also to compensate for the cost of the testing. But yes they could add weight to the wing if distributed evenly they would have to mount that wing to a sturdy board and probably lay a 2x4 across the wing and start adding weight until they hear that crack.

 

[JeremyPro5.0]

Carbon fiber is some pretty strong stuff..... I dont think you'd see it completely fail without signs that it is about to do so. The way I would handle that test is limit each particular session to a limit speed. I would start with the advertised 130. Next session, 140. Keep going in brackets until you get it to 180. After each session, do a very close inspection. Again, I think you would see stress cracks before the wing would fail.

Obviously, the most critical part of that wing is where the mounts attach to the airfoil. From the external view, the mount attachment point seems beefy just like the OEM wing. But take a close look at the cutaway (courtesy of Tob). The airfoil carbon fiber layer is very thin. Compare that to the multimatic example in the photo in the link in the previous thread (again, courtesy of Tob). The beefy mount doesn't mean anything if it is attached to a very thin structural layer of carbon fiber (which by the way, is the structural part of the lower part of the airfoil).

My case in point..... Tobs wing suffered from all kinds of damage from a load that impacted the mounts. The mount attachment point on the wing is fine, but all around it (where it interfaced with the airfoil) has all kinds of pressure stress cracks. If the wing were to begin to fail at the mounts, I think it would fail in a manner as it is depicted by the shipping damage of Tob's wing. Since there is no core to support the carbon fiber, the wing will probably flex some (im not talking a lot, but some) up to the point that the forces are too great and the stress cracks will appear. IMHO, all AC had to do was to beef up the airfoil CF and use some kind of support on the inside of the wing. Instead, the weak link in the chain is the overall airfoil structure that is internally unsupported that the mounts attach to.

This wing could be modified on the exterior to beef up the areas of structural concern, but it certainly would remove from the aesthetic appearance, which defeats many of the goals people are after.

So again, its a great cars and coffee showpiece. It certainly would do for a designated decoy if you are trying to keep your OEM wing from being lifted. But track use at high speeds? I'd want to see some testing.

I'm your huckleberry if anyone would like to loan me a unit for testing. Anyone? Yes, you too AC..... I promise I'll give back what is left.

Tom I think these parts from AC would not act like normal Carbon.

The weak point by looking at the assembly method I would surmise is the joint they have in between the two halves. It appears the halves are held together with modern body panel adhesive, there is absolutely ZERO carbon fiber structural strength imparted to that joint. That stuff works great to hold a body panel to the rigid chassis of a car or truck, I would not trust it to hold together a pair of parts that need to work together to provide structural integrity at a great deal of load.
Keep in mind, one side of the wing is working to pull itself off of the other piece of wing, with air in between that may be under vacuum or may be under pressure at that load.
Also if it does flex you are adding shear load into that joint, how much (side to side and or front to back)???? There may also be twist on the wing with the middle pushing downward for load while the outer edges experience lift.
Ever watch F1 and see what the front Ground FX or rear wings do at speed on an F1 car? Those pieces are INCREDIBLY well engineered and proven Carbon fiber single piece units, they are not cobbled together and then bonded parts. F1 Carbon Assemblies are also cured and final formed in autoclaves just like aerospace components to remove any air bubbles and eliminate as much uneven bond layering as possible. That is done to ensure strength and reduce any stress cracking / failure modes. Most F1 cars rarely see over 200-220 max speed at least for an extended period but you see flex and failure well below those speeds occasionally.

Anybody wanting to guess as to what may happen to an AC piece, especially a damaged and repaired one, would be doing just that.

All I'm saying is be a very careful huckleberry.
At least get it on video so we can all see the result. Just kidding.

 

[Tomster]

Tom I think these parts from AC would not act like normal Carbon.

The weak point by looking at the assembly method I would surmise is the joint they have in between the two halves. It appears the halves are held together with modern body panel adhesive, there is absolutely ZERO carbon fiber structural strength imparted to that joint. That stuff works great to hold a body panel to the rigid chassis of a car or truck, I would not trust it to hold together a pair of parts that need to work together to provide structural integrity at a great deal of load.
Keep in mind, one side of the wing is working to pull itself off of the other piece of wing, with air in between that may be under vacuum or may be under pressure at that load.
Also if it does flex you are adding shear load into that joint, how much (side to side and or front to back)???? There may also be twist on the wing with the middle pushing downward for load while the outer edges experience lift.
Ever watch F1 and see what the front Ground FX or rear wings do at speed on an F1 car? Those pieces are INCREDIBLY well engineered and proven Carbon fiber single piece units, they are not cobbled together and then bonded parts. F1 Carbon Assemblies are also cured and final formed in autoclaves just like aerospace components to remove any air bubbles and eliminate as much uneven bond layering as possible. That is done to ensure strength and reduce any stress cracking / failure modes. Most F1 cars rarely see over 200-220 max speed at least for an extended period but you see flex and failure well below those speeds occasionally.

Anybody wanting to guess as to what may happen to an AC piece, especially a damaged and repaired one, would be doing just that.

All I'm saying is be a very careful huckleberry.
At least get it on video so we can all see the result. Just kidding.

Yes, based upon Tob's cutaway sectional view, it is obvious that they have a mold for the upper and lower portion of the wing. They are then joined together with what appears to be epoxy at the leading edge and trailing edge of the wing. As far as I can tell, the fabric is not continuous and I agree that would be a weak point of the wings structure. As I have said, the overall structure appears to be very thin, lacking in heft and overall strength.

One thing they could have done is made the lower portion of the airfoil a more suitable load bearing surface. I still can't believe how wafer thin they built it.

I completely agree with everything you are saying.

As for taking Tob's wing and using it for track duty? Hell no. My point is that it could be repaired and used as a general street use wing. I also believe that wing could be taken apart in reverse assembly order and put back together addressing some of these concerns.

We completely agree that Tob's wing shouldn't ever see a track day, but I am saying that if it was remanufactured, it would be serviceable for ordinary use.

As for what ACs wing is capable of? We may find out when people start running into problems with results as I mentioned. AC not too long ago sent a guy packing when he had issues with his GT350R style wing. No warranty, no customer service.

 

[JeremyPro5.0]

Yes, based upon Tob's cutaway sectional view, it is obvious that they have a mold for the upper and lower portion of the wing. They are then joined together with what appears to be epoxy at the leading edge and trailing edge of the wing. As far as I can tell, the fabric is not continuous and I agree that would be a weak point of the wings structure. As I have said, the overall structure appears to be very thin, lacking in heft and overall strength.

One thing they could have done is made the lower portion of the airfoil a more suitable load bearing surface. I still can't believe how wafer thin they built it.

I completely agree with everything you are saying.

As for taking Tob's wing and using it for track duty? Hell no. My point is that it could be repaired and used as a general street use wing. I also believe that wing could be taken apart in reverse assembly order and put back together addressing some of these concerns.

We completely agree that Tob's wing shouldn't ever see a track day, but I am saying that if it was remanufactured, it would be serviceable for ordinary use.

As for what ACs wing is capable of? We may find out when people start running into problems with results as I mentioned. AC not too long ago sent a guy packing when he had issues with his GT350R style wing. No warranty, no customer service.

OK I thought you were trying to get Tob's wing to repair and try running it.

High Quality Carbon Fiber Pre-preg material is extremely expensive that is why it is generally only seen in aerospace and areas like F1 and again in our $5-6-7K OEM wings. That is why theirs is so thin and to be honest looking at the cut-up 130 MPH is not something I would be comfortable with at high wing angles of attack.

In regard to AC does anyone have any really good history with them in regard to a part supplier of structural RACE components?
I would really like to see how they determine their wings are good to 130??? Now 140

 

[L8APEX]

Typical Seibon quality. I hope they can make it right for you.

Sponsored