I'm going to stand up for the ricer's (someone has too)

t-man152

t-man152

Active member
I hear alot of people making fun of those guys who put wings the wrong way (creating lift instead of downforce) on their Honda's but when you think about it in theory wouldn't that be an advantage? creating downforce at the wheels. the problem thing with honda's is that they are front wheel drive cars so their original traction comes from the fact that the engine is right over the engine. when they get up to speed the mass of the car shifts towards the back because of acceleration and they are gaining traction on their rear wheels which arnt laying any power to the ground. but a wing in back creating lift wouldtake off some of that mass and end up with a faster car.

bam I proved it they know more shit about cars than all of us.
 
i think they want to prevent lift so that that car stays on the road.

i don't care why the put them on, they're still idiots because they don't need them.
 
If you want to be really analytical, think about how any car that performs on the track to any degree utilizes downforce (NOT lift) both in the rear and the front. You were making sense until halfway though the first sentence when I realized that you had the typical thought process of a ricer: Take some far-flung theory of yours that would work if the stars aligned and Jesus built your car, then ignore reality. Being a ricer is a purely aesthetic thing, and if you are accused of being one then you should really be ashamed of yourself. So go get yourself some NAAWWZZZZZ and see what happens when your trunk rips off.
 
bam no you didn't. i've got nothing against ricers though, although its cooler to put a six foot CB wip on the trunk and a loudspeaker under the hood so you can whistle the dukes of hazard tune. on a satrun.
 
Na man that wouldn't work. By creating negative downforce in the rear the car won't produce more weight on the front. Think about a plane with wings toward the back, it still takes off...
 
it does look silly but if it makes you look cool in your opinion.....then do it up i guess. if a honda ever took off and started flying in front of me cause it had a wing i think i'll owe that car a million dollars for making a believer out of me. and i don't have a million dollars so let's pray that never happens.
 
No. Lift is not good, ever. It reduces the lateral Gs your car can pull in a turn (because there is less weight on the wheels and yet the car weighs the same amount). If you want more downforce in front, there are other solutions that are not totally stupid.

Actually lift is good sometimes. If you are in an airplane, for instance.
 
First off I was joking Ricer's only do it for the look, I was just trying to help them out with a reason to do it.

-what I was saying would work if the trunk or whatever you put the wing creating lift was rigid enough to transfer whatever lift was created to the chassis as far to the back as possible

-as for the plane it is designed completely differelty if you want to go with the plane analogy think of the horizontal stabilizers (the little wings on the very back of the plane) if flaps point up it creates downforce pushing the back of the plane down and making the nose point up thats because its pushing the back of the plane over the tipping point (which are the wings) if on the other hand the flaps point down (creating lift) the front of the plane tips down the wings being the center point that plane tips over.

well if you apply this to a car lifting the back makes the back of the car go up (in theory) and pushes the front down over the tipping point which is the back suspension (since the wing is behind the back suspension) this pushes down on the front suspension.

also it would take much higher speeds for this to have any noticeable affect.

 
how would lift help a front-wheel drive car?

it would mean less power on the ground AND less handling

and most of them don't drive fast enough to necessitate one anyway
 
OK let me clear up the confusion

-I am not saying lift is good, I am not saying that lift will make a front wheen drive better, I am not saying any of these things. I am saying that those dumb asses who put upside down wings on the rear of their cars can actually use this reasoning to explain their reason for putting their wing like that.

-I started this thread because I saw a guy in some Civic from the 80s had a huge wing at a 45 degree angle going the wrong way.

-I have a 240SX that I am not going to put a wing on for a while (maybe when I retire it as my track only car) and when I do it this thread won't affect me since its an FR car.
 
Ok time for a real lesson as to how airplanes work lol. At least you got the horizontal stabilizer part but the part thats on the horizontal stabilizer that makes A/C (aircraft) move up and down is called the elevator. Enough with the terminology the reason a A/C climbs or descends is when the elevator is moved upwards the lift on the tail becomes decreased so the tail moves down and the nose of the airplane rises this produces a climb. When the elevator is deflected downwards the lift is increased on the tail forcing the nose down allowing for a descent.
 
I did not say lift on the whole car I said lift only behind the rear wheels. it would create downforce on the front of the car.
 
I dont see how that is differnt from what I said other than naming a part I didnt know. but thanks for the lesson
 
all i know is ricers equal gay. a 7500 lbs diesel pickup truck with a tuner is faster than some POS civic with a fart can on the back. Some tuners are cool though like 240sx 350z evo etc.
 
90% of the riced out civics are stupid because they could never produce enough power or go fast enough to need a spoiler that big.

personally i'd rather have a smaller more functional spoiler than a huge one that didn't do anything. m3 spoiler ftw
 
Oh fuck now I fell like a real asshole. I misread what you wrote and I just reread it and now I look like a jackass. Sorry about that weren't my intentions.
 
No ricers car will ever go fast enough for any wing to ever actually make any positive performance difference. In fact, the wing will just add weight and make the car go slower... ricers are not usually modifying their cars for performance... its usually just for the racing look.
 
none of this will take mass off the car. to lose mass is to lose matter and air resistance in any direction doesnt take matter off the car. F
 
"the problem thing with honda's is that they are front wheel drive cars

so their original traction comes from the fact that the engine is right

over the engine."

say whaaaa?
 
god damnit everybody is eithe k20 or fucking sr20 around me, but seriously sick car choice i wish my car was rwd oh well
 
a wing on anything that doesnt go over 120mph for long periods of time is pointless. plane wings depending on how they are designed create lift at around 100mph BUT a plane is built of lighter materials weighs less than a car and the wing is bigger, F1 cars see speeds of 180mph regularily and take turns at like 100mph they are light and thye have a tonne of upside down wings to create NEEDED downforce ANY WING U SEE ON A Street car that isnt used at the track is JUST FOR SHOW and sometimes it looks really gay like on ricers
 
An airplane is generally designed so that the CG (center of gravity) lies near the center of lift. This is usually more or less between the wings, because the wings produce the majority of the lift. This means that in flight with no control inputs, the plane will fly straight forwards, because the center of gravity is 'balanced' on the center of lift.

When the elevators are deflected downwards, the tailplane produces more lift, moving the center of lift aft. Now, since the center of gravity is forward of the center of lift, the plane tips forward. Upwards deflection produces an opposite effect When more extreme control inputs are used, things get more complicated, but for small adjustments this is more or less true.

In a car, the back wheels are not the same as the center of gravity in a plane (like you seem to be saying). If you apply lift behind the back wheels, you will not shift a very significant amount of weight to the front... what will happen is that you will lose traction in the rear and you will produce a lot of drag.
 
on the 12th (currently 18th) I love it. its pretty close to stock and I have tons of plans for it. they include:

SR20DET swap (or if I get money and want to make this car a beast ill try to get an RB26)

Suspension upgrades (not sure what until I drive the car a little bit more)

and an S15 Silvia front end.

I might wait till I can get my hands on a manual hatchback since I prefer that to the coupe. I called 3 places today already and these things go fast.
 
116698_ski.jpg


this thread is retarded. your logic makes it clear. i feel sorry for that 240sx.
 
wow, you realize the 240sx bandwagon left in 2003 right?

and in case you didn't get the memo, s15 face is gay. good luck with the rb26. are you only getting it because it came from a skyline? it really messes up the weight distribution. and the KA engine is fine to build up i don't understand why everyone wants to get rid of it. you can put a turbo on it you know?

what kind of wheel offsets are you going to get, i hope they aren't sunken.

the only acceptable conversion is a coupe with an s13 silvia face or a coupe with a 1998 180sx face which is called a onevia.

and the coupe is lighter btw. but it has less room then a hatch back, which means you can't fit a lot of tires in it because im assuming you're going to do events right? and not hard park?

 
No it really wont all you will do is loose traction but when u do get ur wing for your TRACK ONLY CAR HAHAHA plz apply this theory put it on wrong and when u r pulling 140 around a turn and end up in the wall rem this thread!!!

Your physics are a little screwy, applying lift in the rear( at least on a car) is not going to help you in the front, not even on Front wheel drive!
 
well Im sorry that I like a car that got very popular because of drifting but I have always liked these cars. the S15 has been my dream car since it came out (since way before I even heard of drifting). and since I live in the US I can not get that car. so im going to settle for the next best thing. which is the 240SX and seing as how easy it is to get my favorite style feature on the silvia onto this 240SX im going to do it.

I didnt get this car to impress you and I really dont need your agression. I like this car. I love the way it looks. and thats that.

dont feel the need to reply. I really dont care about your insults. they don't take away from how much I like this car. so just save yourself some typing and find another person whose personal taste you dont agree with and insult them.

god. I have to defend a theory which physically makes sence (even if in real world the negatives outweigh the positives). and now were bringing my personal taste into this.
 
I hate to be an asshole, but what were the positives again? And how does it physically make sense? I think I missed that part between rational rebuttals.
 
your not being an asswhole. im probably just not explaining myself correctly.

here I am going to try to explain this. I even made crude drawings to help with my explanation

I know that suspension, the fact that cars dont weigh the same in front as in back, and the fact that not enough lift would be produced all come add up to nothing or very little happening to the car. this is just a theory. it was supposed to be a joke. and as soon as one or two people start bashing a thread creator the rest of the people dont even bother trying to understand the thread they just go along bashing.

I hope that with pictures at least some of you will understand what I was trying to say.

1192744399-541124-600x450-1192744399lift-increases-front-tracti.jpg

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top