Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
79-93 mustang hatchback, stock spoilers do nothing. A saleen wing might, the domimator wing will. These cars have no gentle slopes, they have a hard, sharp, 70* fastback hatch. Anyone on any mustang board, or corner-carvers will attest, the wings and spoilers don't get air unless it's closer to the roofline. Theres about a foot of turbulent air past the roofline, and ambient air from there down- the lowset factory ones don"t do anything but collect leaves and water. The dominator wing sits up high like a 69daytonas, the saleen spoiler is a massive whale tail- those two actually work. Theres a certain wing I think 85/6 gts got that is exactly like the one on that white/orange camaro, it works on the camaro because its fastback hatch isn't as steep as the stangs.
79-93 mustang hatchback, stock spoilers do nothing. A saleen wing might, the domimator wing will. These cars have no gentle slopes, they have a hard, sharp, 70* fastback hatch. Anyone on any mustang board, or corner-carvers will attest, the wings and spoilers don't get air unless it's closer to the roofline. Theres about a foot of turbulent air past the roofline, and ambient air from there down- the lowset factory ones don"t do anything but collect leaves and water. The dominator wing sits up high like a 69daytonas, the saleen spoiler is a massive whale tail- those two actually work. Theres a certain wing I think 85/6 gts got that is exactly like the one on that white/orange camaro, it works on the camaro because its fastback hatch isn't as steep as the stangs.
Ugh. You still don't get it.
The hard sharp angles are exactly what causes the low pressure area. Putting ANYTHING on the end of the trunk reduces that effect. The steeper the back angle is, the MORE it causes a low pressure area that will be reduced with ANY spoiler. If a car has a smooth decline from the roof to the back of the vehicle there is LESS need for a wing, because it doesn't make the same low pressure area.
I don't care about people on a Mustang message board's opinions. They are just Mustang guys. Not only do I race cars (That eat Mustangs), I study aerodynamics and have for a very long time. I am far more qualified to speak on the subject than they are.
(How many of them are building their cars for handling anyway? The are mostly drag racers.)
Show me any published academic paper that proves your point conclusively. They don't exist. I have already posted a couple that prove that I am telling the truth.
The hard sharp angles are exactly what causes the low pressure area. Putting ANYTHING on the end of the trunk reduces that effect. The steeper the back angle is, the MORE it causes a low pressure area that will be reduced with ANY spoiler. If a car has a smooth decline from the roof to the back of the vehicle there is LESS need for a wing, because it doesn't make the same low pressure area.
I don't care about people on a Mustang message board's opinions. They are just Mustang guys. Not only do I race cars (That eat Mustangs), I study aerodynamics and have for a very long time. I am far more qualified to speak on the subject than they are.
(How many of them are building their cars for handling anyway? The are mostly drag racers.)
Show me any published academic paper that proves your point conclusively. They don't exist. I have already posted a couple that prove that I am telling the truth.
Okay, whatever, I don't care about how many mustangs you beat in whatever you drive. Many people build them for autocross, and road racing, there are models as well designed for it; Boss Mustangs, SVO, almost every Cobra(sans 79, and king cobras, and Cobra GT). I don't need to present any paper, with the many people who race them outside of dragracing say as such, like those of corner carvers, in which some are at or above whatever your level is. The Mustang is a widely raced car, I'm sure you could find something on it. I'm done arguing, you're the only person who thinks the ones on these cars does anything, you win an argument, proceed for cookie.
Okay, whatever, I don't care about how many mustangs you beat in whatever you drive. Many people build them for autocross, and road racing, there are models as well designed for it; Boss Mustangs, SVO, almost every Cobra(sans 79, and king cobras, and Cobra GT). I don't need to present any paper, with the many people who race them outside of dragracing say as such, like those of corner carvers, in which some are at or above whatever your level is. The Mustang is a widely raced car, I'm sure you could find something on it. I'm done arguing, you're the only person who thinks the ones on these cars does anything, you win an argument, proceed for cookie.
Lol!
Mustangs are notoriously bad in corners, period. Those cars, in touring racing, are known for beating the lower displacement cars on the straights and then trying to hold on in the corners where the cars with far superior handling tend to whip them. Yeah, people use Mustangs for all styles of racing, that doesn't change anything about the fact that most of them, especially on an amateur level are used for drag racing.
I love how you pretend that you know what my "level" is.
Maybe you should read what I said, I never said that Mustangs can't be used for touring, I said most people who mod Mustangs do it for drag racing. Most people who mod cars in general do it for drag racing, it is the most popular amateur racing style. It cost a good deal to get into amateur road racing before the cost of the car.
I know I win the argument. I provided actual science with academic papers to back them up... you provided "some guys on the internet told me....".
Mustangs are notoriously bad in corners, period. Those cars, in touring racing, are known for beating the lower displacement cars on the straights and then trying to hold on in the corners where the cars with far superior handling tend to whip them. Yeah, people use Mustangs for all styles of racing, that doesn't change anything about the fact that most of them, especially on an amateur level are used for drag racing.
I love how you pretend that you know what my "level" is.
Maybe you should read what I said, I never said that Mustangs can't be used for touring, I said most people who mod Mustangs do it for drag racing. Most people who mod cars in general do it for drag racing, it is the most popular amateur racing style. It cost a good deal to get into amateur road racing before the cost of the car.
I know I win the argument. I provided actual science with academic papers to back them up... you provided "some guys on the internet told me....".
Cookie accepted.
Yeah, because they are the only rwd cars that use a triangulated four link, and modified macpherson strut front suspension. Stock some are bad in turns, has to do with the rear suspension, specifically the rubber bushings causing bind in the arms. Which is why suspension is usually the first thing changed. Exactly, they are used for many race types, yhe rest of that sentence is irrellevant, stating most people drag race has little to do with anything to carry whatever case you're trying to rest.
I like how you pretend that I stated that I know your "level," because saying there are guys on a rr/ax board who are probably onpar, or above, specifically, at face value, without even assuming your level of experience, and intelligence, at it's deepest meaning, means I think you're just, say, pro/am- even though it doesn't, even though it was worded using the broadest of terms, not speaking of anyones level, or naming names, I meant exactly what you claim, despite the fact I didn't say that at all. This is whay happens when things are not only taken out of context, but also electronically put word in my mouth, as I had just shown this morning with texas horse lady in the bike thread.
You didn't win the argument through your proof and claims, don't get it twisted, I receded- like I had typed, because I grew tired of arguing- which is rare. Not because I think you're right, not because of anything you think is hidden in this paragraph. I was tired of arguing, and didn't want to carry on another page. With that, I don't care what you race, how many mustangs you beat, or if you know why the Veyron is so capable of it's speed- I don't care. By that I don't mean I have a slight interest in what your reaponse may be, it means I'm not discussing aerodynamics, mustangs, or what you think I typed when I didn't, with you in this thread, anymore. I dont even wanna know what kind of cookie, Ill assume an arsenic ome
Yeah, because they are the only rwd cars that use a triangulated four link, and modified macpherson strut front suspension. Stock some are bad in turns, has to do with the rear suspension, specifically the rubber bushings causing bind in the arms. Which is why suspension is usually the first thing changed. Exactly, they are used for many race types, yhe rest of that sentence is irrellevant, stating most people drag race has little to do with anything to carry whatever case you're trying to rest.
I thought you were "done arguing". That is a sure sign of maturity... to storm off stomping your feet just to return and complain some more.
Ugh. Again, you completely miss the point, which you are great at by the way. I NEVER SAID THAT THEY ARE NOT USED FOR TOURING RACING. You keep arguing like I did, but I never made that claim.
I made the claim that most of the people on Mustang forums are trying to optimize their cars for drag racing, and that statement is correct no matter how much you complain about related but separate issues.
Quote:
I like how you pretend that I stated that I know your "level," because saying there are guys on a rr/ax board who are probably onpar, or above, specifically, at face value, without even assuming your level of experience, and intelligence, at it's deepest meaning, means I think you're just, say, pro/am- even though it doesn't, even though it was worded using the broadest of terms, not speaking of anyones level, or naming names, I meant exactly what you claim, despite the fact I didn't say that at all.
You were trying to discredit my opinion by saying that the people you listen to are "above my level" in some capacity. The ONLY way you can reasonably make that assumption is if you know their level and mine.
Otherwise your statement is nothing more than a guess. For all you knew when you made that statement, I could be Nico Rosberg or Lewis Hamilton.
The point is that you know NOTHING about my level in racing, so to make assumptions of it are silly no matter how you frame it.
Quote:
This is whay happens when things are not only taken out of context, but also electronically put word in my mouth, as I had just shown this morning with texas horse lady in the bike thread.
Wrong. As explained above, if you have zero knowledge of me, it is silly to level even a guess about my credentials in an attempt to frame my credentials as "the same or lesser" than strangers on the internet.
Quote:
You didn't win the argument through your proof and claims, don't get it twisted, I receded- like I had typed, because I grew tired of arguing-
Wrong, I provided scientific proof, you stomped your feet and stormed off. (And then came back for more.)
Quote:
which is rare. Not because I think you're right, not because of anything you think is hidden in this paragraph. I was tired of arguing, and didn't want to carry on another page.
And then you came back because you want to get the last word and try to win based on pedantic arguments about debate without providing any scientific evidence to back your claims.
Notice that this post has no scientific evidence, it is just you complaining about my debate prowess, while using the very same tactics you complain about.
Quote:
With that, I don't care what you race, how many mustangs you beat, or if you know why the Veyron is so capable of it's speed- I don't care. By that I don't mean I have a slight interest in what your reaponse may be
Then don't get all upset about it and continue posting without evidence to back your claims.
Quote:
it means I'm not discussing aerodynamics, mustangs, or what you think I typed when I didn't, with you in this thread, anymore
You never were discussing aerodynamics, you were discussing misconceptions based on what you heard on Mustang message boards without any actual evidence to back your claims... all the while ignoring the scientific evidence that backs mine. (You wan't to talk about putting words in someones mouth, when did I say anything about Veyrons?)
Nobody is forcing you to respond to my scientifically backed statements with anger and hyperbole. You choose to do that on your own.
Quote:
I dont even wanna know what kind of cookie, Ill assume an arsenic ome
You offered me the "cookie" as a prize for winning the argument. That would lead one to believe you get to choose the the variety.
It is beyond sad and disturbing that you would bring up the concept of me ingesting a deadly toxin simply because we can't agree on an internet forum. Like, that is really weird and dark....
Also rules out Taurus, Intrepids, gm j-bodies, some minivans, Ram Daytona, Kcars, Aleros, Grand Am/Prix, Bonnevilles, Sables, Passats, Neons, Chargers, you see...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Without
