Rear Wing Position

[Payco]

Can anyone share a photo of the rear wing mounting position as per the below photo please. Is it just the case of mounting it as close to the edge of the boot/trunk or should it be mounted a certain distant from the edge ?.

Thanks in advance for any replies.

 

 

[iceman510]

See the post from November 19th in this thread.  It has a picture from a side angle.

 

https://the510realm.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=26929&start=165

 

 

[Stoffregen Motorsports]

If you're speaking in terms of aerodynamics, the 510 is basically a brick, so placement of the wing is probably not detrimental to its function.

 

The most advanced use of aero on a 510 that I can think of was on Don Nimi's Nasport/SCCA GT3. I'll see if I can find a pic.

 

Here's the only one I have.

[datzenmike]

Usually close to the very back. It's totally for looks so there's really no wrong way.

[iceman510]

21 hours ago, datzenmike said:

It's totally for looks 

 

I don't think you can categorically state that for all applications.  

[carterb]

I've read this referred to as the FIA rear wing for the bluebird coupe.  If it really is a homologated (?) FIA approved part, they may have paperwork for it.

 

There are many more photos of coupes with that wing here:

 

https://datsun510.com/index.php?/gallery/album/681-bluebird-coupes/

 

Also, doesn't the orange 510 coupe racecar in the UK have one?  Maybe he can send dims.  His car is currently being repainted.

 

https://ratsun.net/profile/40638-randywanger/

 

 

Edited November 24, 2021 by carterb

[datzenmike]

You can definitely say this for street cars that just want to look like a 'race car'.

 

Lets say you have a redonculous 5' wide and 6" deep wing.

Down force can be calculated as 1/2p (0.00119 a constant) X Area (in sq. ft) X CL (coefficient of lift, a constant 1) X Velocity in feet per second ²

 

0.00119 X 2.5 X 1 X 88 (@ 60 MPH) = 23.03 pounds of down force. I shit more than that every morning.

 

0.00119 X 2.5 X 1 X 146 (@ 100 MPH) = 63.4 pounds.

 

No street car drives at 100 MPH and none on a road that would benefit from only 64 pounds of down force in a corner!!! So yeah they look good but do nothing.

 

0.00119 X 2.5 X 1 X 176 @ 120 MPH = 92 pounds. (what you wish your g/f weighed)

 

0.00119 X 2.5 X 1 X 220 @ 150 MPH = 143 pounds (your g/f's weight)

 

0.00119 X 2.5 X 1 X 259.6 @ 177 MPH = 200.5 pounds. Now we are starting to get somewhere.

 

 

A well set up wing with maximum down force generates about 1 pound of drag for every 6 pounds of down force so at 60 MPH you have 10 pounds of drag. The price you pay to 'look' like a race car.

[Stoffregen Motorsports]

Without wind tunnel testing, or even just track testing with string taped all over, there's only speculation.

 

My earlier point about the car being a brick was meant to imply that no amount of aero can change the fact that the car's shape and size are built in limitations. I hate to use the term "back in the day", but in my experience, even with 240, 250, 300 hp, the 510 is only capable of 135-140 mph, period. To get any traction with that much hp, you need wide tires and flares, which are both frontal air impediments. Then, with those massive tires, the car starts to become as wide as it is long, which makes for strange handling characteristics.

 

I will also add that from what I have seen of these UK racing Bluebirds, they are not making anywhere near 240 hp, so the wing is entirely for nostalgic purposes. And that's ok.

 

I'd love to be wrong on this one. If someone could dig up that FIA tech, I'd love to see it.

[Tedman]

Here's page 1 of the FIA homologation document for the Bluebird 1800 SSS for reference, and the page showing the wing.  Unfortunately it doesn't describe the wing placement. You can download the entire document here:

FIA Historic Database

 

 

[datzenmike]

Cars that come from the factory with a rear wing today certainly wouldn't set them up for maximum down force. Instead they would be adjusted for minimum drag to retain fuel mileage just like the side view mirrors. 

[Stoffregen Motorsports]

In retrospect, maybe that's what this wing was for. Less drag, not downforce.

[iceman510]

I think that is likely, to decrease turbulence as the air comes off the rear of the car.  Interesting Brock never put a rear spoiler on the BRE 510s, being he was into aerodynamics.  Maybe as Mike suggested earlier, no benefit at typical road racing speeds?

[datzenmike]

Wing...  Usually elevated off the rear body on legs so it is in the air stream, used to maximize down force at the cost of some drag losses

Spoiler.... Usually in close contact to the rear body, used to alter or 'spoil' the air flow off the rear of the car to lower drag and maximize aerodynamics.

[Stoffregen Motorsports]

This one isn't exactly Superbird tall.

 

Pretty close to the deck lid by comparison.

[datzenmike]

May be so low that it can only act as a spoiler.

[RandyWanger]

Evening Martin. I should have my car home soon so can take more detailed pictures and measurements if needed. I know I have the technical drawings somewhere too but can't seem to locate them at the moment 

Edited December 5, 2021 by RandyWanger

[RandyWanger]

First hole is 115mm back from the rear of the car according to what I was given as part of the FIA papers. Oddly it's not online though.

 

 

[Tedman]

I don't think rear spoilers or wings were allowed in the 2.5 Trans Am rules, so that would explain why Brock never put one on the BRE 510s.  The 240Zs were obviously allowed rear spoilers in the C Production class, so BRE ran them. The Nissan engineers must have seen aero benefit for the Bluebirds (reduced lift and/or drag), otherwise why go through the trouble to produce and homologate them?  Also, they may also be more effective on the Coupe than the Sedan because of the sloped roofline.  I wonder if the Hako fanatics have unearthed any aero data on the effect of the GTR rear wings? 

[iceman510]

I was thinking the same about the coupe, since the papers show only for the H510 (though the picture shows a four door).