CTR wing removal / deletion solution

Interested in removing the factory wing and covering the mounting holes with a simple solution?


  • Total voters
    217
OP
OP
J o n

J o n

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Threads
7
Messages
190
Reaction score
144
Location
Pittsburgh
Vehicle(s)
'15 Z/28, '22 Ridgeline , '22 CR-V Hybrid
Country flag
People are hung up on their own perceived assumptions on the engineering and aerodynamics. If the downforce is only 66lbs at 124 mph... I'll make my own perceived assumption from prior learned aerodynamic knowledge, which I have no formal education to reference.. at 75 mph the downforce is null or single digit figures.

I'll continue with my perceptions and enjoy seeing the car without the wing being included:
Honda Civic 10th gen CTR wing removal / deletion solution F23tW1Z

Honda Civic 10th gen CTR wing removal / deletion solution H1PBOxC
 

CivilciviC

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2019
Threads
8
Messages
358
Reaction score
221
Location
Ohio
Vehicle(s)
2018 Civic Type R
Country flag
Honestly, I'd rock the no spoiler look, on and off throughout the year if I could nicely seal the holes in the rear hatch. The car looks completely different with and without the spoiler. I like both looks for different reasons.

For a daily driven car, I don't drive at crazy speeds and I'm sure for spirited driving the CTR is more than ok without it.
 

CivilciviC

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2019
Threads
8
Messages
358
Reaction score
221
Location
Ohio
Vehicle(s)
2018 Civic Type R
Country flag
That's not an OEM wing.

I don't know what the debate is. The wing adds downforce at speed, it was also obviously designed to not get in the way of visibility as it's still supposed to be a practical car to drive. If you want to remove the wing you can, but you should understand that you are losing downforce at higher speeds. This doesn't make the car a death trap, but it will be less stable if you're doing track events (or are driving around like a moron on the streets). You MAY notice a difference at highway speeds but it's not like the car is going to fly off the road.
For the amount of downforce that wing generates, you can place a bag or two of dog food in the back and have the same result.
 

Ouhei

Senior Member
First Name
Alex
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Threads
8
Messages
459
Reaction score
464
Location
Raleigh, NC
Vehicle(s)
2019 CW CTR
Country flag
For the amount of downforce that wing generates, you can place a bag or two of dog food in the back and have the same result.
Correct, but then you’re schlepping 60 extra lbs at all times instead of only at high speed.

Again, I’m not saying it’s going to be a big difference in most situations, but the wing does provide a function. Personally I think it visually completes the rear end as well, but do whatever makes you happy.
 

yargk

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Threads
21
Messages
499
Reaction score
359
Location
SF bay area
Vehicle(s)
'18 Civic Type R, '16 GT4, '19 GSW 4motion 6mt
Country flag
People are hung up on their own perceived assumptions on the engineering and aerodynamics. If the downforce is only 66lbs at 124 mph... I'll make my own perceived assumption from prior learned aerodynamic knowledge, which I have no formal education to reference.. at 75 mph the downforce is null or single digit figures.

I'll continue with my perceptions and enjoy seeing the car without the wing being included:
F23tW1Z.jpg

H1PBOxC.jpg
Two things: First, the math is easy, the downforce goes by the square. So 66*(75/124)^2 = 24 pounds of downforce at 75 mph, small, but definitely not null or single digits.

Secondly, a lot of cars without a wing actually have lift so you shouldn't assume you're at zero downforce without the wing. If the car makes 66 pounds of downforce on the rear with the wing at 124 mph, without the wing the car might lift 40 pounds (or more, for sake of argument). Then the net effect of the wing might be MUCH more than 66 pounds, it could be double that.

Either way, off ramps and on ramps with no one around are fun at, well, let's just say speeds for which downforce matters (or the track for that matter), and I'd rather have the extra grip. 66 pounds equates to about 6% of the weight on the rear of the car. So it's like going from being able to pull 1.0 G's to 1.06 at 124 mph (again, a bigger difference if no wing means lift). Not insignificant.

Finally, it doesn't make sense to doubt people's "perceived" assumptions about engineering and aero. Drive the same car back to back on a track with and without the wing, and there will be a clear difference according to a stop watch. There's no argument.

So you slightly decreased the performance of your car for looks. Great, if that makes you happy, but it has nothing to do with why I bought the car. I'd make it uglier if it performed better.

Although I actually do think it's much prettier with the wing, but that's beside the point. (the low front end and high rear make an appealing raked visual impression)
 


yargk

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Threads
21
Messages
499
Reaction score
359
Location
SF bay area
Vehicle(s)
'18 Civic Type R, '16 GT4, '19 GSW 4motion 6mt
Country flag
For the amount of downforce that wing generates, you can place a bag or two of dog food in the back and have the same result.
That's not how it works.

If you added the dog food, sure, it would push down on the rear wheels due to gravity. However, when you take a corner the dog food also will pull the car to the side, straining the rear tires more. So it's a wash, no extra "grip" felt because you both added grip (force down) and increased the need for grip (force sideways).

With a wing you add downforce because the wing pushes down with airflow, WITHOUT adding any more force pulling sideways in a turn (because you didn't actually add weight to the car).

So you can take a corner faster with a wing, you CAN'T take a corner faster with dog food. Which might be why you don't see a dog food option on the latest Porsche GT3 RS or McLaren. On that bombshell...

See below for math:
If you have tires that pull 1.0 G on a zero downforce car that means that their grip in pounds is equal to the weight of the car.

So a 1000 pound car (for instance) will have a 1000 pounds of grip. If you divide grip in pounds, by the weight of the car in pounds, 1000/1000 = 1, you get how many G's the car can pull. 1.0 G, simple, that matches our assumption about the tires.

If you increased the downforce by 100 pounds, then you have 1100 pounds of grip with 1.0 G tires. However, the car still only weighs 1000 pounds. So now you can pull 1100/1000 = 1.1 G's in the corner. That means you go faster through the corner :)
 
Last edited:

tinyman392

Senior Member
First Name
Marcus
Joined
May 21, 2018
Threads
14
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
2,082
Location
Illinois
Vehicle(s)
'18 Civic Type R (RR)
Country flag
For the amount of downforce that wing generates, you can place a bag or two of dog food in the back and have the same result.
True, you can place 66 pounds of weight on the rear to generate the same "traction" that the wing would create at 124 MPH. The issue with doing this is that it also adds mass to the car in the process which affects its power to weight ratio (ends up going up about 2%). The effectiveness of the wing becomes stronger under heavy braking (think turn in/trail braking for an incoming turn), that same 66 lbs now turns into 100-125 lbs of downforce (depending on how much the nose dips and the original angle of said wing) under heavy braking. That 2% just doubled to 4%. For reference a 2% drop in power (which would have similar results in power to weight) is about 6 HP and a 4% would be 12 HP (this is about half of what the CTR loses to heat soak).

Also keep in mind that adding bags of stuff to the back of the vehicle will also increase its inertia (mass and weight are different). This can affect handling, braking, and acceleration characteristics of the car. For the most part, the losses of doing this outweighs (no pun intended) the pros from doing this. The only event where I feel like it makes sense to do is if your rear can't stay planted at all and you overcome the traction from the rear wheels.

People are hung up on their own perceived assumptions on the engineering and aerodynamics. If the downforce is only 66lbs at 124 mph... I'll make my own perceived assumption from prior learned aerodynamic knowledge, which I have no formal education to reference.. at 75 mph the downforce is null or single digit figures.

I'll continue with my perceptions and enjoy seeing the car without the wing being included:
F23tW1Z.jpg

H1PBOxC.jpg
I computed this for you already... @75 MPH the CTR wing produces 24lbs of downforce. Since I'm not sure whether this 66 lbs is measured under acceleration or maintaining speed, it might actually be higher while maintaining speed. Under a heavy braking load the downforce will also increase 10-20 lbs (@75 MPH) depending on how much the nose dips and the original angle of said wing since the angle of attack increases.

At 124 MPH, it may produce 66 lbs while maintaining speed or under acceleration, but under a heavy braking load the wing cold possibly generate 100-125 lbs of downforce (again, depending on the same parameters before). A heavy brake load is normally used when trail braking for a sharp turn in which the CTR does need due to its FF drivetrain.

It's fine to want to take off your wing for aesthetic reasons, but telling yourself that you aren't affecting the car that much because it's not active until you reach speed X is kind of lying to yourself.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
J o n

J o n

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Threads
7
Messages
190
Reaction score
144
Location
Pittsburgh
Vehicle(s)
'15 Z/28, '22 Ridgeline , '22 CR-V Hybrid
Country flag
Thanks for the clarification on my mental math. Indeed off by a bit from what I remembered.

Entertaining conversation as always in this thread.

Once I obtain the CTR I'll have to post pics of the various weatherproofing I'll use:
-vinyl initially until I source/create more secure/permanent solution.
-3D printed iteration will be potentially attempted by a friend.
-Potential to alter aftermarket wing's base-plates for the CTR and prep/paint them
-another aftermarket solution presents itself

No desire for my intentions with car to utilize the wing from day 1. It will be removed promptly and safely stored. Car will be plenty capable and enjoyable without it
 

MoTeC R

Slow For Show
First Name
Smally
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Threads
31
Messages
712
Reaction score
390
Location
Ohio
Vehicle(s)
2000 S2000 Roadster, 2019 Civic Type R, 2020 Supra
Build Thread
Link
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
If you don’t like your Type R base high wing put the wing it was meant to have on it and you will love it really easily. I hated the R35 (GT-R) wing until they released the black edition with the CF wing in 2013.

Honda Civic 10th gen CTR wing removal / deletion solution 4724C5F4-939D-456B-AB83-D944952FF599
 

boosted180sx

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Threads
25
Messages
5,038
Reaction score
5,087
Location
torrance, ca
Vehicle(s)
2017 CTR, 2016 ILX
Country flag
ya'll are worried about the CTR being unstable with the lack of rear wings while around you, you have soccer mom vans/suvs and camry/accords driving on the freeway in excess of 80 mph.
 


MoTeC R

Slow For Show
First Name
Smally
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Threads
31
Messages
712
Reaction score
390
Location
Ohio
Vehicle(s)
2000 S2000 Roadster, 2019 Civic Type R, 2020 Supra
Build Thread
Link
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
ya'll are worried about the CTR being unstable with the lack of rear wings while around you, you have soccer mom vans/suvs and camry/accords driving on the freeway in excess of 80 mph.
I like wings on cars they are designed for and no wing or a trunk spoiler. The more Honda or Nissan I can keep my cars in the end the happier I am with them. You don’t find many sports cars out there anymore without most wings or contours for specific reasons during testing.
 

yargk

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Threads
21
Messages
499
Reaction score
359
Location
SF bay area
Vehicle(s)
'18 Civic Type R, '16 GT4, '19 GSW 4motion 6mt
Country flag
ya'll are worried about the CTR being unstable with the lack of rear wings while around you, you have soccer mom vans/suvs and camry/accords driving on the freeway in excess of 80 mph.
I don't know about you, but I bought the car to be faster than the minivan. Stable isn't for safety, stable is faster. So I'd flip the statement, if I was going to make my car slower around a high speed corner by removing the wing, I might as well have bought the minivan instead.
 

boosted180sx

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Threads
25
Messages
5,038
Reaction score
5,087
Location
torrance, ca
Vehicle(s)
2017 CTR, 2016 ILX
Country flag
I don't know about you, but I bought the car to be faster than the minivan. Stable isn't for safety, stable is faster. So I'd flip the statement, if I was going to make my car slower around a high speed corner by removing the wing, I might as well have bought the minivan instead.
Never said the wing isn't going to make you faster through a turn lol. Of course it'll make it more stable and faster.

just FYI, I like the wing and i personally would never remove it.
 

yargk

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Threads
21
Messages
499
Reaction score
359
Location
SF bay area
Vehicle(s)
'18 Civic Type R, '16 GT4, '19 GSW 4motion 6mt
Country flag
Never said the wing isn't going to make you faster through a turn lol. Of course it'll make it more stable and faster.

just FYI, I like the wing and i personally would never remove it.
Cool, I just thought the minivan comparison was funny and wanted to turn it on its head.
 

MoTeC R

Slow For Show
First Name
Smally
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Threads
31
Messages
712
Reaction score
390
Location
Ohio
Vehicle(s)
2000 S2000 Roadster, 2019 Civic Type R, 2020 Supra
Build Thread
Link
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
I think the Honda Red, Grey, Black carbon fiber weave just set the look of the car off, I have it in and out and it's worth every penny, so if you been on the fence don't worry pull the trigger you will not regret it.
Sponsored

 


 


Top