GT500 CFTP GT4 style wing mount set

[WD Pro]

Does he have the tooling? It looks like these are cheap 3d printed mounts. Are these mounts just some cheap copy or were they designed by an engineer who knows what they are doing? Do they have any sort of wind tunnel testing or any validation they actually do something or is it someone's guess? If someone is paying this much, I would expect to know this at the minimum. Can these mounts even handle any sort of down force? What validation or tests have been done?

There are other options out there for better mounts. AJ Hartman offers both wings and wing mounts for less than what is proposed here. They are wings that have been wind tunnel tested and designed by an engineer who designed aero for Mercedes-AMG F1 for the GT350. There is no reason to pay $1-2k for some poser mounts.

There are some things that you must have missed in the first post for you to have made some of your comments above.

Tom can’t afford for these things to be neither ‘cheap’ or ‘poser’ ….

WD

Sponsored

 

[Tomster]

Lol, no I'm not going to bite anyone's head off. First, I must say that at this point, I'm not selling anything. All I am doing is trying to figure out the demand for such a product. When it comes time to produce these in quantity, I will probably become a sponsor of the site and offer them up here. Let me be clear, nothing is for sale, yet.

Many of you know that I track my CFTP. I spend a lot of time on the track with GT4s, FP350S's, and full on race cars that take advantage of better aero than that is offered on the GT500CFTP. I am not a poser, nor will this product be intended for that purpose. It is obvious to me that the wing height of the stock CFTP is a compromise. Putting the wing at a higher elevation gives the ability to interact with air that is less disturbed by the chassis (free air).

The answer to the question of "has this been tested" and "has it been designed by an engineer" is yes. I designed the product and it has gone through rigorous pre-production engineering analysis. All of that data will be available for independent verification when I plan to release the items.

The purpose of this thread is to determine the demand and the price point that people are comfortable with. I am looking at manufacturing from anywhere between T6 aluminum to CF.

I intended to have working prototypes for testing at Daytona last December. The supply chain and covid had the world so screwed up that it didn't make that deadline. This wing mount system will have undergone real world testing up to the top speed of the car (which I do with regular occurrence at Daytona).

I'm not going to give all the information away. There is more to this idea than meets the eye.

So again, I'm not selling anything at this point. For what its worth, I don't half ass anything. Reference the Watson lightweight roll bar group buy that I engineered and saw through distribution. I approached Watson Racing and proposed a re-design of their standard 4 point roll cage. Instead of using DOM steel weighing over 70 pounds, I proposed a cage made of cromolly which almost cut the weight in half. Working with Watson to bring this advantage to fruition helped fellow forum members realize a significant weight reduction compared to the standard 4 pt roll cage.

So, there will always be neigh sayers making false claims and trying to smear. My record and presence on this forum stands for itself.

Love me.... hate me.....

I could give a rats ass because this will be the kind of product that I would buy, and I'm a particular son of a bitch.

 

[Warpath]

Super excited to see these.

 

[Evolvd]

Lol, no I'm not going to bite anyone's head off.

Well now what the hell am I gonna do with all this cooked popcorn?

 

[L8APEX]

It is obvious to me that the wing height of the stock CFTP is a compromise. Putting the wing at a higher elevation gives the ability to interact with air that is less disturbed by the chassis (free air). The answer to the question of "has this been tested" and "has it been designed by an engineer" is yes. I designed the product and it has gone through rigorous pre-production engineering analysis. All of that data will be available for independent verification when I plan to release the items.

Aero is optimised for the chassis - it may be true that higher up the wing does receive free-er air, but if it's placed too high, it won't be making as much downforce. Downforce is created by the speed difference above and under the wing, if the wing is too high, the speed below may not be slow enough and just creates drag. Aero works as a total package and the OEM aero set up is optimized already. I'd be interested if you have any baseline data on the GT500's OEM set up.

 

[Epiphany]

Aero works as a total package and the OEM aero set up is optimized already.

Note that the aero up front is identical whether you have a swing spoiler or the CFTP wing out back. I wouldn't use the term optimized but rather, compromised, as Tom put it.

 

[Tomster]

Aero is optimised for the chassis - it may be true that higher up the wing does receive free-er air, but if it's placed too high, it won't be making as much downforce. Downforce is created by the speed difference above and under the wing, if the wing is too high, the speed below may not be slow enough and just creates drag. Aero works as a total package and the OEM aero set up is optimized already. I'd be interested if you have any baseline data on the GT500's OEM set up.

This isn't a discussion, it is a poll. Vote your wallet or conscience.

And yes, to keep you at bay, I do have all that and I know more about this than you.

Forums are a great thing, but they also allow any swinging dick to come along and throw their opinion out.

It's a poll. Vote if you have any interest in this product. Have a nice hot cup of something if you dont.

 

[L8APEX]

This isn't a discussion, it is a poll. Vote your wallet or conscience.

And yes, to keep you at bay, I do have all that and I know more about this than you.

Forums are a great thing, but they also allow any swinging dick to come along and throw their opinion out.

It's a poll. Vote if you have any interest in this product. Have a nice hot cup of something if you dont.

We are on a discussion forum. Anyone is free to comment on this thread. Don't be so close-minded when someone asks you a question. Especially if you are considering asking up to $2k for a wing mount set. I am not sure how anyone could vote given the non-existent data you provided. You have yet to validate any of your claims.

Best of luck at your next HPDE. I hope you win the trophy at the end of the day!

 

[Epiphany]

The issue with quoting factory data is that if you happen to have/had access to it, you likely can't comment on it publicly. So we are left with third party testing for verification which can be a bit costly. Suffice it to say that the GT4/CFTP airfoil has the potential to be more effective at an elevation greater than what factory engineers ultimately settled on. You can flowchart from that generic statement endlessly.

Ford typically provides the media with single data point and in the case of the GT500 it was that the CFTP wing hit a maximum rear downforce number of 550lbs at 180 mph (Swing with Gurney flap was 379lbs at the same speed). Can't plot much of a curve with that but at least its a start. It'd be nice to know varying angles of attack and their effect at given speeds with the factory hardware too while we're at it.

I don't believe that Tom is considering raising the wing to a height greater than what Ford had approved for use on the GT4 car. That said, there is indeed a benefit to be had in moving the CFTP wing up higher and away from the decklid along those lines, and it isn't merely aesthetic.

 

[Tomster]

We are on a discussion forum. Anyone is free to comment on this thread. Don't be so close-minded when someone asks you a question. Especially if you are considering asking up to $2k for a wing mount set. I am not sure how anyone could vote given the non-existent data you provided. You have yet to validate any of your claims.

Best of luck at your next HPDE. I hope you win the trophy at the end of the day!

Maybe I missed the "no discussion" option to the poll thread. It's a poll. Pick an option and move on.

The rest will present itself in due time when the product is released. Until then, it's not open to discussion.

Now go away. I'm not interested in your business or opinion.

 

[L8APEX]

I don't believe that Tom is considering raising the wing to a height greater than what Ford had approved for use on the GT4 car. That said, there is indeed a benefit to be had in moving the CFTP wing up higher and away from the decklid along those lines, and it isn't merely aesthetic.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote. I just don't think raising it makes much of a difference, downforce wise, compared to a real aero set up. The data would reveal this. Changing the end plates would have a much bigger impact. An amateur driver at an HPDE is not optimizing their aero set up and driving at the limits of the car to really get any tangible benefit anyhow.

I have potentiometers and with my VBOX, I do have plenty of data on the aero set up on my car at the track. I can eliminate drag and downforce from the logged data to determine the exact magnitude of aero on the car. I just log dynamic pressure, suspension load, and ride height while recording it together w/basic signals like speed, RPM, lat G, etc etc.

 

[Tomster]

Mods, please lock this thread. Always, someone has nothing else better to do but to argue something that does not need to be argued or discussed.

It was just a F'in poll, GT guy.

Goober.

 

[Epiphany]

I don't disagree with anything you wrote. I just don't think raising it makes much of a difference, downforce wise, compared to a real aero set up. The data would reveal this. Changing the end plates would have a much bigger impact. An amateur driver at an HPDE is not optimizing their aero set up and driving at the limits of the car to really get any tangible benefit anyhow.

To be fair, we are discussing the factory setup and the limitations therein. Changing endplates, major changes to AOA and/or elevation are a bit beyond the scope. Consider dropping your AJH wing down to the elevation the CFTP cars' wing is at and I sense you'd be imposing a major restriction that would pretty much negate the benefit of using it in the first place.

Sponsored