CTR wing removal / deletion solution

OneSickFK8 said:

You guys still don’t get it. The wing is for safety. The ass end of the CTR will be loose in higher speeds without it. Which Honda knows people are going to do. They can’t sell a car that is rated for 169mph that is unstable above 100mph. The wing is functional.

Click to expand...

There are many cars out there that run over 169 that don’t have wings that big and still manage to keep the car planted. They could engineer a lower profile wing if they wanted to. Here is a Z06 corvette for an example:

mvela said:

There are many cars out there that run over 169 that don’t have wings that big and still manage to keep the car planted. They could engineer a lower profile wing if they wanted to. Here is a Z06 corvette for an example:

Click to expand...

Yes, the point is they are DIFFERENT cars. Their aerodynamic characteristics are DIFFERENT, you are comparing apples to oranges. You're showing a Corvette which is a 2 seater with a lower height so the wing wouldn't have to be as large as the CTR's.

I honestly don't understand how a wing would keep someone from buying a car. The "widebody", fake vents, hood scoop and vortex generators are OK...but the wing?? Oh no...too much. CTR looks neutered without the wing. Get an Si or a sport hatch instead.

mvela said:

There are many cars out there that run over 169 that don’t have wings that big and still manage to keep the car planted. They could engineer a lower profile wing if they wanted to. Here is a Z06 corvette for an example:

Click to expand...

Please forgive the crappy hand sketches with my thumbs. It's good enough to demonstrate why the wing on the Type R is so high up.







Note: I am an engineer. Engineers aren't magicians. We can't "engineer" anything we want. We are constrained by physics.

Happy to see the enthusiasm in the thread. Everyone likes what they like for their own reasons.

This thread wasn't created for advice or decision making to remove the wing or not.

The thread was created to gauge the interest of those who want the wing off their cars and a product could be made to neatly weatherproof the mounting area.



The concern of 'safety' is at the discretion of the end user and their own common sense. For me personally... CTR will be a daily driver and rely on it's mechanical grip (aftermarket wheels/tires will increase this too), it won't see a speed or situatuon when the wing is actually worthwhile "... the big wing generates 66 pounds of downforce at 124 mph." - Per Car and Driver's article in 2017: https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...2017-honda-civic-type-rs-aero-bits-explained/

I already own a vehicle with 'functional' aero... 440lbs of downforce at 150 mph (does not have a wing).... at no point in my enjoyment of that vehicle have I utilized that aerodynamic ability

J o n said:

Happy to see the enthusiasm in the thread. Everyone likes what they like for their own reasons.

This thread wasn't created for advice or decision making to remove the wing or not.

The thread was created to gauge the interest of those who want the wing off their cars and a product could be made to neatly weatherproof the mounting area.

The concern of 'safety' is at the discretion of the end user and their own common sense. For me personally... CTR will be a daily driver and rely on it's mechanical grip (aftermarket wheels/tires will increase this too), it won't see a speed or situatuon when the wing is actually worthwhile "... the big wing generates 66 pounds of downforce at 124 mph." - Per Car and Driver's article in 2017: https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...2017-honda-civic-type-rs-aero-bits-explained/

I already own a vehicle with 'functional' aero... 440lbs of downforce at 150 mph (does not have a wing).... at no point in my enjoyment of that vehicle have I needed that aerodynamic ability

Click to expand...

I think if you looked at the results of the voting so far. Interest is pretty low.

I just read what I wrote again and I thought I needed to clarify some things.
That was few months ago. It's not wingless anymore.
I didn't remove the wing because of the looks.
There was a family event and I had to make my family members think that I drive a "normal" car.
(You'll only understand this if you're from a very strict Asian family lol)
I put it right back on when it was over.

The stock wing isn't my favorite but the wingless look wasn't either.
That's why I'll never stop looking for other options.
but I still love the car. I loved it when it was wingless too.
What I'm saying is that the looks shouldn't be the excuse for not buying a car, especially a hot hatch like this.

R-10552 said:

I honestly don't understand how a wing would keep someone from buying a car. The "widebody", fake vents, hood scoop and vortex generators are OK...but the wing?? Oh no...too much. CTR looks neutered without the wing. Get an Si or a sport hatch instead.

Click to expand...

Exactly. This is what I don't understand. I mean, it completely normal to like or hate certain design elements, but the wing gets too much hate.

RedGiant217 said:

Please forgive the crappy hand sketches with my thumbs. It's good enough to demonstrate why the wing on the Type R is so high up.

Note: I am an engineer. Engineers aren't magicians. We can't "engineer" anything we want. We are constrained by physics.

Click to expand...

I am a designer. I know nothing about engineering.
But I do know that Money always comes first, and after that they can think about design or engineering.
That's why they had to deal with whatever's left from the regular hatch. Not the most optimal shape for a performance car.

I think the wing's there because of the vortex generator.
There are other performance vehicles with similar looking body that went with different options.
They could have gone with a smaller bottom wing with no vortex generator, a huge top wing, or a completely different hatch design.
Honda probably thought this was the best option after a lot of simulations and calculations.
Of course with all those different factors like money, time, weight, materials considered too.

Without the wing it looks like it's missing its balls. . Or at least what gives my Type R a unique personality.

tinyman392 said:

I went outside and pulled one off, takes seconds to do actually. There are two holes for each vortex generator on the car that need to be plugged if you remove them. The black portion is a rubber gasket that keeps liquid out.

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting those pics... Makes me realize how much easier it would me to vinyl wrap those.

Iilac said:

I think if you looked at the results of the voting so far. Interest is pretty low.

Click to expand...

Even lower if you only count Type-R owner votes.

mvela said:

There are many cars out there that run over 169 that don’t have wings that big and still manage to keep the car planted. They could engineer a lower profile wing if they wanted to. Here is a Z06 corvette for an example:

Click to expand...

Those Vettes look so good on the road

The vortex generators are there because of the wing, not vice versa. The following is a paraphrase from Wikipedia, not necessarily the greatest peer-reviewed source of information, but sometimes good for simple descriptions of things:

“A vortex generator (VG) is an aerodynamic device, consisting of a small vane usually attached to a lifting surface (or airfoil, such as an aircraft wing) or a rotor blade of a wind turbine. VGs may also be attached to some part of an aerodynamic vehicle such as an aircraft fuselage or a car. When the airfoil or the body is in motion relative to the air, the VG creates a vortex, which, by removing some part of the slow-moving boundary layer in contact with the airfoil surface, delays local flow separation and aerodynamic stalling, thereby improving the effectiveness of wings and control surfaces, such as flaps, elevators, ailerons, and rudders.”

The vortex generators are there to break up the smooth flow of air off the roof, and make it pass over the wing, which is an inverted airfoil that produces downforce, rather than lift.

The height of the wing is there to get it into that disrupted airflow. Whether by design or coincidence, it also raises the wing so that it’s not in the rearview mirror obstructing the view of the driver. Anything else, cannot do that job if there’s not some other kind of redesign to properly direct the airflow. You can take the wing off or replace it with something of a different height or a different design, but that’s not what the Honda engineers intended in terms of keeping the car planted on the road at higher speeds. That’s probably why they didn’t change it in this facelift, or enhancement, or whatever it is that you want to call it. They kept the 20” wheels and they kept the wing where it is, because they are integral to the overall performance design of the automobile.

Have to say the replacements that I’ve seen so far, including the one shown in this thread are less attractive aesthetically as they don’t harmonize with the overall design of the car. If you don’t like the wing maybe just shouldn’t buy the car,
Have never had an unfavorable comment on the overall appearance of the CTR.

CTSteve said:

The vortex generators are there because of the wing, not vice versa. The following is a paraphrase from Wikipedia, not necessarily the greatest peer-reviewed source of information, but sometimes good for simple descriptions of things:

“A vortex generator (VG) is an aerodynamic device, consisting of a small vane usually attached to a lifting surface (or airfoil, such as an aircraft wing) or a rotor blade of a wind turbine. VGs may also be attached to some part of an aerodynamic vehicle such as an aircraft fuselage or a car. When the airfoil or the body is in motion relative to the air, the VG creates a vortex, which, by removing some part of the slow-moving boundary layer in contact with the airfoil surface, delays local flow separation and aerodynamic stalling, thereby improving the effectiveness of wings and control surfaces, such as flaps, elevators, ailerons, and rudders.”

The vortex generators are there to break up the smooth flow of air off the roof, and make it pass over the wing, which is an inverted airfoil that produces downforce, rather than lift.

Click to expand...

What I was trying to say was that the VG and the wing are one package.
It's not the best idea to remove one element from that perfect package.
So if you remove a wing, then the VG should be replaced too.
And you shouldn't be adding any extra stuff to that package either.
Everything you said is right.

CTSteve said:

If you don’t like the wing maybe just shouldn’t buy the car,
Have never had an unfavorable comment on the overall appearance of the CTR.

Click to expand...

But I really don't think anyone should walk away from this car just because of the wing. This car is much more than a wing and I'm sure you know that too.
It's like saying "If you don’t like the 20inch wheels and rubberband tires maybe just shouldn’t buy the car."
Because just like you said, they kept all those thing the same for 2020 since they are integral to the overall performance design.
It's the owners' decision to mess up the perfect package or not.
But I'm pretty sure even with the messed up balance this car will outperform a lot of the alternatives.

And no, I'm not going 100% wingless again. There are reasons why I put mine back on right away.
I just want to see more options.