Show me your wings, spoilers and Gurney Flaps.

Pikes Peak is always a good place for massive aero

I like aero. There's more planned for the winter.

The wing does tricks sometimes, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK5wDfDK2Lk

Any reason for the kink in the uprights?

Appleseed wrote: Any reason for the kink in the uprights?

Yes, it lets me bolt the wing into the very strong vertical edges of the trunk instead of using all my downforce to deform the trunk lid. I also found it allowed for less deflection of the mount from drag - if you grab the wing and pull backwards, you can see the mounts trying to bow apart on the longest edge at the back. Thus the wires on the taller of the two mount setups. They're attached to the center of that area that wants to bow and make a big difference.

Kinks in the mounts are good enough for Porsche...

Go big or stay home:

My favorite wing of all time

And it made a lot more downforce than your pansy wings posted so far.

The Pikes Peak aerofoils would likely disagree :D

And since it would be inappropriate to drop a comment without participating:

In reply to jsquared:

Top Fuel dragsters generate about 5,500 lb of downforce on the rear wing, and about 1,000 lb on the front, and about 800 lb just from the headers being pointed upwards.

I would almost promise that the Pikes Peak guys aren't seeing that, if nothing else because of the huge speed deficit.

Though sometimes even both wings isn't enough to keep them on the ground:

pinchvalve wrote: I think the Countach has the most famous rear wing, and the stupidest/ugliest wing ever out front.

The front wing is a bumper. They needed it to meet the US bumper height law. Yes, stoopid.

tuna55 wrote: In reply to jsquared: Top Fuel dragsters generate about 5,500 lb of downforce on the rear wing, and about 1,000 lb on the front, and about 800 lb just from the headers being pointed upwards. I would almost promise that the Pikes Peak guys aren't seeing that, if nothing else because of the huge speed deficit. Though sometimes even both wings isn't enough to keep them on the ground:

I forgot to factor in the speed differential I am seriously off my game today.

Oh and

tuna55 said: about 800 lb just from the headers being pointed upwards

What is a Gurney Flap?

slantvaliant wrote: Go big or stay home:

Team Chaparral should have stayed home because even that monstrosity of an afterthought never helped that car go fast.

Here's a more successful early attempt:

I don't have closer pics, but I built this wing after the driver said the rear was too loose. 3'x6' with 6" sides. He didn't think it was too loose anymore, and when his breather started blowing oil it made an awesome rooster tail.

cwh wrote: What is a Gurney Flap?

Also known as a wickerbill. It's a short vertical extension on the rear of a wing that increases the efficiency of the airfoil quite shockingly.

tuna55 said: about 800 lb just from the headers being pointed upwards

And there's another top fuel fact that blew my mind.

Active aero is where its at.

McLaren MP4-12C

Pagani Hyura front wing

Saw the 2H at the Chaparral museum in Midland, thank God it doesn't have the monstrous high wing on it. The car didn't work, but as usual, Hall was trying some daring ideas. It was supposed to be a coupe with a flat top, but Surtees refused to drive it in that form. DeDion rear suspension and the widest tires I've ever seen. I saw Hall, Sharp and Penske (yes, Penske) drive the 2B and 2C back in the day, and was at the Stardust Can-Am in '68 when Hall flipped the 2G and ended his driving career. Anyone who has any reason to be anywhere near Midland (which is pretty close to the middle of nowhere) must go to the museum.

A-TEAM wing.

[URL=http://s240.photobucket.com/user/NOTATA/media/78%20Chevy%20van/003.jpg.html][/URL]

front aero....

rear aero....

Scott_H wrote: The front wing is a bumper. They needed it to meet the US bumper height law. Yes, stoopid.

Oh wow, I never knew.

Mitsubishi MU-2 wing with the spoiler extended and the flaps at 40 degrees