And you thought you knew every possible way to

 

I have this feeling that if enough downforce is generated on that wing, it's going to rip off...Why design a wing that attaches via tension compared to compression???

Any engineers out there that can shed some light on this? I guess it could work but it does look quite un-orthodox.

Maybe that's where the airflow hits the wing and a traditional wing won't give the amount of down force required?

Engineer here. My best guess -

 

By the looks of it, they wanted specific placement for the wing itself with regards to its distance horizontally from the rear wheels as well as height when compared to the roof-line. Mounting in the traditional method would have created too much horizontal force due to the angle on the mounting brace and would have resulted in higher tension forces than the pictured arrangement.

 

I could be completely off base however.

I have this feeling that if enough downforce is generated on that wing, it's going to rip off...Why design a wing that attaches via tension compared to compression???

 

 

I'm definitely not an engineer... but aren't front wings on F1 cars also suspended? So maybe it looks worse than it really is? I don't really know.

 

 

if you look close acura as been using that on their le mans car for a few years now, not as extreme but similar concept

Any more info on the car? I sell Cadillacs and everybody at work was interested to know more about the car

Maybe when the wing is under down force it flexes and it would flex the wrong way if mounted from under the wing?

Engineer here. My best guess -

 

By the looks of it, they wanted specific placement for the wing itself with regards to its distance horizontally from the rear wheels as well as height when compared to the roof-line. Mounting in the traditional method would have created too much horizontal force due to the angle on the mounting brace and would have resulted in higher tension forces than the pictured arrangement.

 

I could be completely off base however.

 

No engineer here, but this sounds very reasonable. I also wondered whether the center supports might serve as additional vertical elements to the end plates that further manage airflow at and behind the car's rear. Perhaps something that exploits a rules loophole: i.e. vertical winglets in the center of the wing not allowed, but "supports" that happen to extend by "necessity" above the plane of the wing, a gray zone.

 

I could more easily be off base, however.

Any more info on the car? I sell Cadillacs and everybody at work was interested to know more about the car

 

Read here: Autoblog

I'll have to stop out to their shop soon. I'll ask when I'm there and see what the rationale is.

i only think this

Adrian Newey would fall out of his chair laughing.

 

if you look close acura as been using that on their le mans car for a few years now, not as extreme but similar concept

 

 

So has Jaguar

 

 

 

Maybe done for aerodynamic reasons not structural reasons??

 

It sure looks gay.

It's not as noticeable in person oddly enough.

 

Maybe done for aerodynamic reasons not structural reasons??

 

Nah, from a frontal planar view, the area is greater with the arch structure.

Was thinking more of the aerofoil/wing surface itself, having a clean underside outweighs the greater front area of the brackets? Just a thought.

Was thinking more of the aerofoil/wing surface itself, having a clean underside outweighs the greater front area of the brackets? Just a thought.

Ahh, gotcha. That is always a possibility.