Veloster N Long-term (Track) Report

I’ve had my Veloster N for a year and a half, and with two track seasons finished, it’s time for a retrospective. I’m not going to get into daily driver details, just going to review the important things; race track things.

Wheels

Most people downsize the OEM wheels from 19” to 18” because aftermarket wheels are much lighter, and 18” tires are usually about 20% cheaper. The big challenge is fitting wider wheels and tires; unless you cut the fenders and install flares, the Veloster N can’t fit wide tires. When you compare the wheel and tire sizes to other cars, the Elantra N can easily fit 245 on 9”‘ wheels, while a Civic Type R can fit a 265 on 10”. It’s just not fair.

Ergo, VN track drivers typically fit a 235 tire on 18×8.5 +45. My buddy Chris was able to fit a 245 RT660 on a 8.5 +50, but he was at stock ride height. I tried the same tire on a 8.5 + 45 with 1” lowering springs, and it rubbed front and back.

On 1” lowering springs, a 245 RT660 on 18×8.5 +45 rubs front and rear. The same tire on 18×8.5 +50 will clear with stock springs.

I have three sets of wheels:

  • OEM 19×8+55 – Theres nothing to like about the stock wheel, it’s narrow and weighs over 29 lbs. When I wore out the OE Pirelli PZ4 tires, I put $65 Linglong Crosswind tires on these wheels, which is better rubber than they deserve.
  • Konig Countergram 18×8.5 +43 – I bought these because I like the black center and polished aluminum lip. They were about $300 at Fitment Industries and weigh 19 lbs. I have only used these for Kumho V730s, and they fit fine.
  • Motegi MR140 18×8.5 +45 – These are a bargain at $173 from Phil’s Tire. The only downside is the mounting holes are super narrow, and even 17mm lug nuts won’t fit, so you need to use spline (tuner) nuts, which I fucking hate. Anyway, the wheels are cheap and at 19.1 lbs, quite light. I used these for the 18” PZ4, Blu Trac Race, Pilot SS, and RT660.

I’ve read somewhere that reducing rotating weight is 3x more important than weight elsewhere on the car. So taking 10 lbs off each wheel is a huge benefit for acceleration and braking. Being unsprung weight, this also helps handling.

Tires

I put camber bolts in my Veloster N, and it maxes out at -1.8 degrees of camber. I understand that the DCTs can get more camber than the 6M versions, but I don’t exactly understand why. In any case, this doesn’t allow my car to get the most out of a proper track tire, and so the difference between an all-season and a super 200 is less what it should be. Or another way of putting that is that my car goes well on shitty tires.

At this point I’ve track tested eight different tires, from cheap all-seasons, to max performance summer tires, a few 200s, and a premium 100 treadwear. All of these were properly abused on the same race track, and I dutifully collected data for comparative analysis.

I’ll list them in the order I drove them (including two tires on a friends Veloster N), and sum it up with a report card.

  • Pirelli PZero PZ4 – I’ve had these in the OE 235/35-19 on 8” wide wheels, and 235/40-18 on 8.5”. I felt they were decent rain tires, but otherwise just average. You need to keep the pressures high to keep them from rolling over, and rotate them frequently, as they deteriorate quickly on a dry track.
  • Falken RT660 – I drove these in a wider 245/40-18 on my buddy Chris’s VN, and came away solidly impressed. On an otherwise stock VN I was only .25 seconds off Pineview’s all-time FWD record. Chris’s car doesn’t have a lot of camber, but he had the tires heat cycled before delivery, and thus experienced none of the center delamination or tread splice issues that others have reported.
  • Maxxis VR1 R2 – The Hankook RS4s used to be my favorite dual duty tire, but it’s not always available, and rarely on sale. Maxxis VR1s are pretty close in performance, and a great second choice. I used this tire on Chris’s VN and went a little slower than I did on the RT660. On the other hand, Chris didn’t like the feel of the Falken’s and went faster on Maxxis. This goes to show you that it’s not always the outright grip that matters, and you might turn a faster lap on a tire with less grip. Feel, feedback, and confidence are important.
  • Linglong Crosswind UHP All Season – I bought these because I needed something (anything) to put on my 19” OE wheels after the PZ4 wore out. At $65 on sale, I didn’t expect much more than round and black, but I took them to the track just the same. The sidewalls were mush and they howled like a chorus of tone-deaf banshees, but the performance wasn’t terrible. Three different drivers flogged them all day long, and the budget 400 TW tires earned some respect.
  • Kumho V730 – This is a good dry track tire, but worthless in the wet. It has a NT01 feel, with great feedback and grip that’s good down to the cords. While searching for more grip, I aired them down too low and corded the outside shoulder with half the tread remaining. I can’t start these at less than 32 cold, which means they’ll come up to 41 psi hot, and so I have to pit once and air them down, which is a PITA. They are cheaper than most 200s, and if the car could get more camber, I’d use nothing else.
  • Armstrong Blu-Trac Race – Armstrong left the e off of Blu and the k of off Trac and the grip off a 200 TW tire. And yet this was the most fun tire I’ve tried so far. They break away very early, but are super easy to control when sliding. You can get them with a money-back guarantee, and they go on sale a few times per year. This tire puts the E in HPDE.
  • Goodyear Eagle Supercar 3R – I admit that I often order food looking at the right side of the menu, and so it’s not surprising that I buy tires by price. But this summer I decided to spoil myself for once and get a premium tire and set some PB laps. The grip of the SC3R was incredible, if inaudible, and the turn-in was so insanely quick, it felt like I was driving a completely different car. All the ingredients were there, but the lap times never materialized. The tires made the car feel like I had all the nannies on, and took the fun out of driving. In the end, I went a second faster on V730 than I did on SC3R. I recently traded them away for a used set of RT660s. I’ve also had the devil of a time getting my rebate, which is part of why I bought them in the first place. I’m done with Goodyear.
  • Michelin Pilot Super Sport – These were the OE tire on the base Veloster N (non-Performance Pack), and came in a smaller 225/40-18 size on that version. I got them for free on Facebook Marketplace with half the tread remaining. They are easy to drive at the limit, but have an unusual sound, more of a protesting whine than a painful howl. The PSS are a generation older than most 300 TW tires, but were within a second of the V730 or SC3R. I corded the outside shoulder, just like every other tire. Man I need coilovers.

The following table is how I’d rank the tires on my Veloster N. I’ll probably get some disagreements here, but I like a playful tire that lets the car dance, and lap times matter don’t as much to me as having fun.

TireGripLongevityPriceFunGrade
SC3RA+DD- ($325)DC-
PZ4CCB ($175)CC+
RT660ACC- ($250)CC+
Crosswind DCA+ ($65)CC+
PSSCBC+ ($175)BB-
VR1BBC ($230)B+B
Blu TracDAB+ ($165)AB
V730ABB- ($200)B-B
Tires by grade.

In the future I have two choices: get coilovers so that I can use better track tires, or switch to endurance tires with a symmetrical tread pattern. RS4s are the easy button, working well with camber challenged cars, and allowing me to flip them once, after I wear the outside shoulders.

The more expensive choice is to buy coilovers, which allow more camber and corner balance the car, and that would reorder my tire list completely. The negative camber would also allow the wheels to tuck under the fenders better. With that I might be able to fit 18×9 +45 wheels and 245 tires.

But… this is still a street car and I’ve ruined other cars in the past making them too track focused. I’ll revisit this conundrum in 2025.

Brakes

Muzafar Umarov manages the N Track and Autocross group on Facebook, and is a knowledgeable source on all things N. From him I learned that the Veloster N brake bias starts at roughly 70% front, but changes dynamically based on slip. Brake bias is controlled electronically for each wheel, and can shift to as much as 93% front if the rear wheels are locking.

This is both good news and bad news. If you’re accustomed to using the rear brakes to rotate the car on corner entry, you’ll be disappointed. The system essentially prevents corner entry oversteer, intentional or not. This infuriated my brother, who swore the traction control was on, even though it was turned off in the custom settings.

This also means that putting higher friction brake pads on the rear is a waste. Just as the dynamic brake bias system won’t help you turn the car on corner entry, it also won’t stop the car any faster. The sticky rear pads will just transfer more bias to the front brakes sooner. As a result, even the very serious folks at GenRacer are still using the OE rear brake pads.

And for that reason I’m also using OE rear pads, and will be for the foreseeable future. They are inexpensive, wear is imperceptible, and there’s no reason to use anything else. Life can be just that simple.

The OE front brake pads are reported to be quite good as well, and can do autocross and light track duty as long as you use the OE tires. But they are a little expensive, and the cheap hack is to use the Elantra N pads, and reuse the Veloster N shims.

But I don’t know about that, since once you upgrade the tires, you’re going to want better than OE pads. Knowing this, I switched the front brake pads to Porterfield R4-E immediately upon delivery.

This is a pad I have racing experience with, and as someone who’s never had antilock brakes on a track car before, I typically prefer pads with a lower friction coefficient. I believe the R4-E (E is for Endurance) come in around .46 mu, which is quite a bit lower than most serious race pads. As a result, they probably require more brake pressure. But I like the way they feel as I release the brake pedal, and that’s more important to me than initial bite or maximum stopping power.

Another reason to use a less aggressive pad is that several Veloster N owners have reported getting ice mode when using higher friction track pads. This can overwhelm the stock calipers and ABS system, and send the car into a panic. And so there are at least a few reasons for me to use the R4-E (the E is also for Economy).

The pads cost $210, which is $100 less than what you’d pay for most hybrid street/track pads, and half the cost of a dedicated track/race pad. I leave the R4-E on for daily driving, and they stop fine when cold and don’t squeal annoyingly like an aggressive track pad. (Although I understand some people like that.)

The way the R4-E work on both street and track remind me of the old Stoptech 301, before they switched manufacturing plants. That was a true dual duty pad, but it lasted about half as long as a R4-E. Still, they were less than half the price, and I used them without complaint for years.

Admittedly, I don’t experiment much with brakes, but Gregg Vandivert has done a ton of brake pad testing on his Elantra N. He had a problem using the Porterfield R4 (not R4-E) compound; the pads cracked and separated from the backing plates. The reason this happens is because Hyundai uses a cheap single piston caliper, and so the backing plate needs to be ultra stiff, or it flexes.

Gregg says Porterfield has two thicknesses of backing plates available, and you can special order pads with the thicker ones. Well, my R4-E pads have not cracked or separated, and so perhaps the E pads come with thicker backing plates to begin with? I will need to ask the folks at Porterfield at some point.

In any case, the brake pads are just fine for street and track driving, and they held up for over a year of both. Eventually the brakes started to fade on track, and I figured it was time to change them out. When I pulled them off I noticed they wore evenly inside and outside, and I had used 99% of the friction material without getting into the backing plates. I got lucky there.

I got everything out of them.

Moving on from pads to rotors, I’m now just onto my second set. The service limit is 28mm and that’s where mine are at the outside edge, but down near the center they are 27.2mm.

It looks like I’ll need to replace rotors every two sets of pads, but if I get pad-curious then I’ll do both at the same time so they bed in properly. I paid $140 at Parts Geek for the front rotors, while my local Hyundai shop wanted $400 for essentially the same thing. Areyoufuckingkiddingme?

Two sets of front pads and one pair of rotors works out to $540, and that covers maybe two years. I don’t know how long the OE rear pads and rotors last, but certainly longer. That’s some serious economy, and it surprises me that Veloster brakes are as cheap as Miata brakes.

Fuel and engine modes

The Veloster manual says to use 91 octane, but I use 93 most of the time, because that’s what’s available. However, many of the pumps here only have non-ethanol 90 for Premium (lots of boats and such in this area). I don’t know what the power difference is between 90 non-ethanol, 91, and 93, but it may get more power out of 93 because of the higher octane. I don’t know if the VN has the “octane learning” feature of the EN, but I’m pretty sure the ECU will pull out timing when it senses lower octane. But then again, ethanol burns at 80k BTUs, while gasoline burns hotter with 118k BTUs, and so maybe I should be running non-ethanol?

I get exactly 7.0 mpg on track at Pineview and NYST. Every time. My friend Chris is only a couple tenths of a second slower than me on Pineview’s short track (45 second lap) and gets 2 mpg more than I do. So it’s interesting to see the diminishing returns on driving the car harder. At Watkins Glen I get a miserable 6.0 mpg. In practical terms, this means emptying a 5-gallon jug every track session.

On the highway I get mostly 32-33 mpg with the N wing, and I lose maybe 1 mpg with the ducktail spoiler. With a wing on the car, it gets just under 30 mpg, which is kind of surprising, because I thought that ducktail would have more drag. I haven’t done an accurate two-way test over a distance though.

The Veloster N has four different pre-set driving modes that change engine response, exhaust note, suspension stiffness, steering quickness, traction control, rev matching, and the electronic limited slip diff. I only use one of the pre-set modes, Normal. Economy mode doesn’t do shit, and the performance modes are a collection of settings I’d never use together.

Thankfully Hyundai made a N Custom mode that allows you to adjust each setting individually and save it as a custom setup. Mine has the suspension set to soft, and a quiet engine note with none of the pop and burble nonsense. I turn all of the nannies off, including rev matching, and max out the eLSD. I haven’t decided which of the three steering modes I like best, but I can change that on the fly using the touchscreen.

I use the Normal driving mode when I’m on the street, or when I am on track and it’s raining a shit storm. Compared to my N Custom mode, Normal is about a second faster in the wet and about 1.5 seconds slower in the dry. So I definitely appreciate having the options.

I dyno tested all the engine modes and they put out the same power. Eco mode is supposed to limit boost pressure, but it doesn’t make a difference on my car. I got 244 hp at the wheels on a Dynojet, and that’s 10 more than I expected.

Someone said the different engine modes don’t change power, they change how the engine responds. But given how the modes are identical on the dyno, I’m skeptical, I’ll A/B test engine response on track and see what the stopwatch says.

Finally, there was a recent software update that changes a bunch of things in the N Custom mode. I like the new layout, and appreciate that Hyundai is still making updates to a car they discontinued. I keep the updated software on a keychain USB drive in case I meet someone with a EN, KN, or VN that hasn’t made the update yet.

Track warranty

Arguably the best reason to buy a Hyundai is for the 10-year powertrain warranty. I bought mine as a Hyundai-certified pre-owned car, and so I’m covered until November 2032. I also upgraded to full bumper to bumper coverage, and so if anything goes wrong with my car in the next eight years, someone else is fixing it. And because this is a N car, the warranty extends to track use.

In fact, I’ve already used the warranty. The engine blew up on track at Waterford; Hyundai picked it up at the track, fixed it, and delivered it to me 500 miles away. They even paid for the rental car to get me home. I suspect in the next 8 years I will be using the warranty again.

Hatchback life

There aren’t a lot of sports cars that have enough room to transport a set of tires inside the car. Of course most 4-door sedans can do this, with two in the boot and two on the rear seats, but how many proper track cars can swallow a set of slicks? The Subaru-Toyota BRZ-86 was apparently designed to carry a set of track tires in the back, and I’ve seen four tires disappear inside a BMW 1-series. So I imagine that most BMW coupes can manage this as well.

Hatchbacks have the advantage here, and when you fold down the rear seats, even a diminutive MINI Cooper can carry four tires inside. But can you name any track car that can transport eight tires inside? With the space-saving Modern Spare in the well and one on the front seat, that’s actually nine!

Shocker! Seven in the back and one in the front.

The first time I went down to the A2 wind tunnel, I transported three splitters, five wings, two spoilers, a diffuser, boxes of tools, spares, and other parts inside the car and drove the 10 hours to Moorseville. Try that in any other car you’d actually take to a wind tunnel.

That’s a lot of junk in that trunk!

And if this wasn’t enough space already, I added a trailer hitch so that I can use a cargo tray or small trailer. The Veloster trailer hitch was designed for the base model Veloster, and required some modifications to fit my car.

Aerodynamics

My Veloster has been to the A2 wind tunnel twice, and now I know more about hatchback aerodynamics than I ever dreamed I would. The OE body has a drag of .416 and makes a tiny bit of downforce, which is pretty surprising, since most cars make lift.

Front downforce was easy to get, and even a flat splitter made 135 lbs of downforce at 100 mph. My curved splitter made 195 lbs, and coupled with upper and lower canards and hood vents, total front downforce was north of 300 lbs. And this is without cutting vents into the fenders or extracting air behind the wheels, which you would do on a proper race car, but I may never get around to on a daily.

At the other end of the car, wings didn’t perform as well as I expected, and even the Kamm-back shape is a compromise over a proper coupe or fastback. As such, most wings up to 55” span had lift-to-drag ratios less than 4:1. A 70” Wing Logic gave the best results at 7:1, which is more a function of the wingspan than the shape of the wing; it’s obviously important to get the ends of the wing into clean air where they can get away from the hatchback roofline.

If wings were disappointing, spoilers were a revelation, as they made both front and rear downforce. (Wings reduce front downforce through leverage; Spoilers aggregate pressure over the l roofline, and some of that is in front of the rear wheels.) Spoilers can’t get as much total downforce as a wing, but they work surprisingly well if you’re not going to add a splitter.

The biggest surprise was that adding a 1” Gurney flap on the OE N spoiler gave a better L/D ratio than all but the largest wing.

1” angle aluminum Gurney flap. In the wind tunnel I used duct tape, here it’s fastened with rivets, and in the future I’ll drill those out and use rivnuts for easy on/off. Notice I also added slightly taller end plates, but I didn’t do that in the wind tunnel.

At 100 mph, the OE wing makes 30.8 lbs of downforce and loses 2.5 hp due to drag. With the wicker-kicker it makes an astonishing 123.6 lbs of downforce and uses 8.3 hp. (These numbers are compared to the base model, which has a roof extension, but no wing).

Rear view of wicker, kicker, Gurney flap. I’ll probably paint it black at some point in the future.

The Gurney flap information isn’t (yet) in my wind tunnel report, but there’s over 50 pages specific to the Veloster N, going nose to tail on aerodynamic parts, simulated lap times, and a lot of discussion.

I also did some practical testing of wings and spoilers at Pineview Run and NYST. The short story is that my Veloster went 2.5 seconds faster with rear downforce alone. Given that, I wouldn’t even bother adding front downforce unless you have a really significant wing to balance it out.

Conclusion

In the past year and a half I’ve done probably 30 track days in my Veloster N; I’m still smiling. It’s got enough cargo capacity for everything I bring to the track, and a comfortable ride that makes long-distance track treks a pleasure. It has adequate power, and handles better than it should. Even on track like Pineview, which has a lot of long corners and uphill switchbacks that punish FWD cars, it’s fast and fun to drive.

As track cars go, it’s economical. It doesn’t need expensive brake pads or ultra grippy tires, and seems to work just as well with mid-performance items. If you want to keep the warranty, you can’t modify engine parts or tuning, which leaves very little to spend money on. Except gas, as it is pretty thirsty.

The funny thing is, I’m actually looking forward to when the car is out of warranty, and I can install a bigger turbo. With a larger turbo, all the bolt ons, and a ECU tune, it might get down to a 10:1 lbs/hp ratio. Then I’ll gut it, cage it, and race whatever dumb series will have me. But I’ve got 8 years of wringing the snot out the stock engine, and I’m not at all disappointed with that.

I daresay I’m forming an emotional attachment to this car! It’s the amalgamation of so many cars I wanted and never bought: It’s the Honda CRX I pined for in college, but modernized and powerful; It’s the later CR-Z with double the power and nearly the economy; It’s the 3-door cousin of a MINI Clubman JCW, but with better aerodynamics; It’s as weird as the M Coupe “clown shoe” I nearly bought, but easier to live with.

And it’s so much fun! I love tossing the car into an early apex, forcing it into a four-wheel drift, and then digging it out with the front wheels. It’s Miata like, in its combination of economy and ability to bruise egos everywhere it goes. If you have a BMW M car, Corvette, or Porsche, you’d better be a decent driver, because the hurt machine is coming though!

This is probably the last car I buy that isn’t an electric self-driving killjoy mistake, and so I’m going to continue to modify it for more fun. I’ve already removed the rear seats and put in a flat cargo floor. Next I’ll install a harness bar and race seat. Sometime this winter I’ll figure out a DRS dual wing, because hitting a button on the straights is a plus one to fun. And maybe I’ll hook that up to an adjustable splitter as well. Let’s see what happens in 2025.

As if the car needed more space.

Car Wing Comparisons

Updated 8/2023 to add Benzing wings and correct an assumption about the Douglas LA203A from Wingmen Aerodynamics.

Airfoil Tools is an amazing website, and was once the primary way I researched wings. When I look at wings, the most important factor to me is the coefficient of lift (Cl); I’m only interested in airfoils that have a Cl 1.5 or higher.

I also look at the efficiency of the wing, which is the coefficient of lift divided by the coefficient of drag (Cl/Cd). Wing efficiency is less important than downforce, because the only thing that matters is the efficiency of the vehicle, and that is typically achieved by using a wing with the greatest downforce. Even if wing efficiency isn’t that important, I wouldn’t use a really draggy wing, so I look for a Cl/Cd of 100 or higher.

So, lift should be at least 1.5, and efficiency should be at least 100. Those are nice round numbers, and easy to remember. I look at these two values at a Reynolds number (Re) of 500,000, because that represents a normal-sized wing at a realistic car speed. For a 9″ wing, 500k Re is 73 mph. For low speeds (or small wings) I’ll look at Re 200k, and for huge wings or really fast speeds, I’ll look at 1 million. But there’s really no reason to look outside of the 200k-1M Reynolds numbers and 500k is a happy medium.

I also set the turbulence value to Ncrit=5 because Airfoil Tools doesn’t allow me to set it any lower (in some cases there’s data for lower Ncrit numbers, but it’s rare.) The default setting in Airfoil Tools is Ncrit=9, and that replicates what the wing would experience in a wind tunnel, and doesn’t represent the turbulent nature of air flowing over a car, nor what’s happening in a race, behind other cars, with cross winds, open windows, and other factors.

The next important factor I look at is how the wing deals with stalling at high angles of attack. I look at this for two reasons. 1) Most cars will go faster with the wing set to maximum downforce rather than maximum efficiency, and 2) car roofs are often cambered and this means air hits the wing at different angles across its length.

For example, on my Miata, if I mount the wing at roof height, the ends of the wing are at 0 degrees, but the angle changes from -5 to -7 degrees along the roofline. If I mount the wing closer to the trunk, that angle increases to nearly 15 degrees. You can read about that and see a video Visualizing Airflow.

Given that air hits a wing at different angles of attack across the wing, at some point along its length, a wing may be stalling. When wings stall, they lose downforce and gain drag. Some wings do this gracefully, with a very gradual falloff in downforce, and others stall dramatically, with downforce crashing and drag spiking way up.

An obvious way around this is to use a wing with a 3D profile, so that air hits the wing at the same angle across the entire wing. You can read about that in my article on 3D wings.

Airfoil Comparisons

Now that you know my criteria for looking at wings, in the rest of this post I examine different wing profiles and give my thoughts on them. I’ve ordered these by Cl, which is how much downforce they make, At the end of this post I’ve included a table with summary values and some parting thoughts.

With all of that front matter and grey matter out of the way, let’s check out some wings!

Clark Y

The Clark Y airfoil (airfoil tools, wikipedia) is distinguished by a flat bottom, or when used upside down on a car, a flat top. Most wings are cambered on both sides, but the flat surface can make it easier to manufacture, and for an airplane, it’s good for training because it has gentle stall characteristics. But as a car wing, the flat top means more drag and less downforce than a wing with a cambered topside. As such, the Clark Y doesn’t quite meet my downforce threshold of 1.5 Cl at 500k, and the efficiency (Cl/Cd) is below 100 as well. Personally, I wouldn’t use this wing, but it would be easy to build.

Clark Y flat top.

NACA 6412

MacBeath often cites the NACA profiles as examples in his books, and for good reason, they are easy to understand. The first number in 6412 means percent of camber relative to chord (6%), the second number is where the camber occurs (4 means 40% of the chord), and the third number is thickness (12%). NACA 6412 meets my criteria for a good car wing with a Cl over 1.5 and a Cl/Cd over 100.

NACA 6412 looks good.

I like NACA profiles for another reason: they allow me to change the variables and see what happens to lift, drag, and efficiency at different Reynolds numbers and angles of attack. For example, I’ve read that maximum lift on single-element wings occurs at 12% thickness, and after experimenting with different NACA profiles that are identical in other respects, I know this to be true.

You can also use the NACA 4-digit generator to create your own wing profiles. For example, this is a NACA 9512. I’ve maxed the camber allowed in the tool (9.5%), set the camber further rearward (50%) to increase lift, and used the max lift thickness of 12%. I’m certain this would be a good car wing.

NACA 9512 looks great.

Cambered Plates

Probably the easiest way to make a wing is to cut a metal pipe lengthwise into strips, and then lay two of the curved pieces on top of each other. Put a semi-circular nose on it and weld the three pieces together. This is a cheap and easy way to make blades for small wind turbines, I don’t see why you couldn’t do the same for a car wing. It’s so DIY I want to make one for 24 Hours of Lemons.

The simplest of wings, two cambered plates connected together.

You can make these wings in different thicknesses, and at 12%, it has a high Cl of 1.7. However, this wing has a lot of drag and so the efficiency is quite miserable, less than half of my threshold value of 100. Still, for a low-speed wing where drag is inconsequential (autocross), this would totally work. And for 24 Hours of Lemons, it’s better than a snowboard, skateboard, angled plywood, etc.

LNV109A – NASCAR COT Wing

NASCAR flirted briefly with car wings, but after 93 races went back to spoilers.

The airfoil they chose was the Douglas/Liebeck LNV109A high lift airfoil. I don’t know what decisions went into that choice, but the numbers don’t excite me. I mean, it would be cool to have one for historical reasons, but I’m not actively searching eBay for one.

If you look at the Cl vs Alpha chart (which you can think of as how much downforce the wing makes at different angles of attack), you can see the wing has a max Cl of 1.7. Downforce peaks at 12 degrees and then falls off drastically. Compare this to the Clark Y above to see what I mean.

Next, take a look at the efficiency of the wing. Most wings have a bell-shaped curve with maximum efficiency in the middle of the range (say 5 degrees). What’s interesting here is that max efficiency occurs at 10 degrees, with a Cl/Cd is 117. Maybe that’s why NASCAR chose this airfoil shape? If you want a wing that creates close racing at high speed, this would be a good choice. But if your agenda is low lap times, I think there are better choices.

FX 72-MS-150A

I have three different made-in-China wings, one came as a double wing, the other two are single wings. They are fun for experimenting with, cheap, and disposable. Whoever designed them chose a similar profile for all of them, which is akin to the Wortmann FX 72-MS-150A.

Made in China wings.

Some of these wings are sold as “universal” and so they are flat on the bottom with two mounting rails underneath. I modify these by adding wood to the bottom and rounding it.

MIC wing modified.

By the numbers, this is a decent airfoil for a car, it makes a lot of lift (1.8) and is very efficient (121). The only drawback is when this wing stalls, it falls out of the sky. This isn’t a wing that you want to set for maximum downforce. Make sure you take into account the downwash angle on the roof.

Douglas LA203A – Wingmen Aerodynamics

Wingmen Aerodynamics makes a wing based on this profile. I originally thought it was a Clark Y, but was corrected in the comments section. I’ve seen this wing at a couple different races, and I was immediately impressed with the build quality. It looks very light and feels stiff and strong.

Wingmen Aerodynamics. Sweet.

With a max thickness of 15.7%, the wing is on the thicker side, but oddly, it also has less topside camber than most motorsports wings. At around 1.75 Cl, the LA203A, doesn’t make the most downforce, but it’s the second most efficient wing in this article. It also has a very gentle stall characteristic, and should work well behind a cambered roof line, or lower on the trunk lid where the center and ends of the wing are at very different angles of attack. Nice choice, Wingmen.

Very efficient.

GOE 464

This is a very thin airfoil, almost potato chip in profile. The only reason I find this aIrfoil interesting is because APR makes a carbon fiber wing using a similar profile. APR’s GTC-300 wing has more camber, but the GOE 464 is close enough to look at some numbers.

Potato chip profile.

The GOE 464 has a max Cl of 1.85, which is a lot of downforce, and the efficiency at 500k almost reaches 100. It’s an interesting wing, but the numbers aren’t blowing me away. Also, it’s so thin that it would be difficult for me to build and make rigid enough, and I feel there are better choices.

GTC-300 is not unlike GOE 464

Better airfoils

The previous airfoils were all interesting in one way or another, and some can be bought or made pretty cheaply. But all of the following airfoils have superior numbers, and I feel would be better choices for a car wing. Choosing between them is difficult, as there’s always a trade off between lift, drag, and stall. Each airfoil has a niche where it outperforms the others, and I’d be happy with any of them.

Church Hollinger CH10

Any wing that makes around Cl 2.0 is in the category of ultra high lift. The most efficient of these is the Church Hollinger CH10. At 500k, this wing has a Cl/Cd of 132, which blows away the others.

Get thee to church. Church Hollinger, that is.

If you look at the data, peak downforce is around 10 degrees. Max efficiency (Cl/Cd) occurs at around 3 degrees, which is where I’d set the wing on a Miata. This would put the angle of attack at 8-10 degrees over the roof, and 3 degrees at the wing ends. Perfect.

I believe that the Wing Logic extruded aluminum wing is a CH10, and if you think it looks a lot like the 9 Lives Racing wing, it’s because they are close cousins in shape. Both airfoils have their maximum thickness at 30% of chord, and their max camber at 50% of chord (measured from the nose of the wing). The difference between them is the 9LR wing has two degrees more camber and 2% more thickness.

GOE 652

The first thing you notice about this wing is the thickness of the leading edge. It carries that thickness over much of the wing, and the 17% chord thickness is unusually phat. The purpose of that (I think) is to keep air attached at steep angles of attack.

She thicc.

The 652 has a very gradual stall, and should tolerate being set at too steep of an angle. For this reason, I believe this wing would be a good for a car with a highly cambered roofline, or where you have to mount the wing closer to the trunk. In both cases, there are large changes in apparent wind angle across the wing, and this wing won’t care as much as other wings.

This isn’t a particularly efficient wing, and even though it exceeds my threshold value of 100, it does that at a very low angle of attack. However, the high lift of Cl 2.0 puts this wing into elite company. I’d wager this would make a good upper element for a dual-element wing, not just the because of the shape, but because the added thickness would make it stiffer in a smaller chord. I’m definitely making one of these someday.

Eppler 420

The Eppler 420 isn’t as efficient as the CH10, but has slightly more downforce and a gradual stall. It’s a good all-purpose shape, and because it’s thicker, would be a strong contender for either element in a dual-element wing. As an all-purpose wing, it’s hard to choose between the CH10 and E420. The former is more efficient, the latter makes more downforce.

Eppler 420 is a solid all-around choice.

It’s also a pretty good wing for low Reynolds (low speed or small wing). The Porsche Cayman R has a tiny rear wing, and it’s probably not a coincidence that the profile looks a lot like the Eppler 420.

Porshe Cayman R wing looks like an Eppler 420 at 5 degrees.

Wortmann FX 74-CL5-140

This airfoil wasn’t on my radar, but in writing this article I looked at every airfoil on the Airfoil Tools site. Glad I did, this one is a keeper! With a Cl that’s nearly the same as the Selig wings, and an efficiency closer to the CH10, this wing sits in rarefied air.

It’s nice, I like.

You don’t get something for nothing, and the tradeoff is a steep drop when it stalls. If you want to go after maximum lift with this airfoil, mount it high where the angle of wind doesn’t change much. I’m not sure what’s happening around zero degrees, but I wouldn’t set it there anyway.

I have more to say about this wing after reviewing the next wings. I’m tempted to build one, so stay tuned on that.

Selig 1223 and 1223 RTL

The Selig 1223 and the Selig 1223 RTL are Downforce Royalty. The RTL version is slightly thicker, which results in higher lift and drag. The RTL can be set to 15+ degrees and approaches a Cl of 2.5. That’s huge.

Selig 1223 (red) and 1223 RTL (green).

Both airfoils make a lot of downforce, but also a lot of drag, and their Cl/Cd efficiency is less than 100 at all angles. Ergo, I would use this airfoil for low speed or for a car with a lot of power. Those are also usecases for a dual element wing, which might be a better choice if your racing rules allow that.

AeroDesign wing from Australia appears to be Selig-ish.

Let’s compare the two Selig wings to the FX74. These graphs are from Re 1M because I plan to use these for a larger chord wing. In the comparisons you can see how the S1223 wings are clear winners in downforce, but the FX74 is far more efficient at Cl 2.25 and below. I’ve drawn a blue dashed line at 2.25 Cl, and you can see that the FX74 has a sweet spot where’s it’s making a lot of downforce without much drag.

Re 1M, Ncrit=5

This is how five of the airfoils stack up at 500k Re. I didn’t include the RTL because that’s in the previous charts. I’ve pointed out a few areas that differentiate one wing from another.

How the players stack up at 500k Re.

Motorsports wings

All of the previous airfoils are aviation wings that have been adapted to motorsports use. Cars don’t (or shouldn’t) fly, and they have much lower Reynolds numbers, and so it makes sense that car-specific wings would be shaped differently.

Indeed, Enrico Benzing did a bunch of research and came up with a lot of different designs specifically for motorsports use. None of these would be particularly good at flying, but they are better choices on cars.

Similar to the NACA wings, the Be-series of numbers tell you about the shape:

  • The first two digits are the thickness of the wing, relative to the chord. Aviation wings make maximum downforce around 12% thickness, but cars wings are often thicker.
  • The next number is the location of the thickness. Many of Benzings wings have the maximum thickness at 20-30% of the chord. This is supposed to add more downforce.
  • The first two numbers after the dash are how much camber the wing has. If you use the Airfoil Tools NACA generator to make your own airfoil shapes, you can’t enter anything higher than 9.5%, and Benzing’s wings are all more than that.
  • The final number is the position of the maximum camber, in tenths. More rearward camber generally means more downforce.

Be 183-176 – TCR Wing

As I stated in the NACA wing details, downforce typically increases as you increase thickness, up to about 12%, at which point that trend reverses. But that’s not true for motorsports wings, but even so, this is a very thick wing, the chubbiest in the Be series. This is also extreme camber, I haven’t seen an airfoil with this much.

The TCR regulations state this wing must be 1380mm x 250mm (54.3″ x 9.8″) and you’re not allowed to use a Gurney flap. From the wind tunnel testing I’ve done, I can tell you that a wicker would absolutely help this wing, maybe to the point where it works.

Make your own wing using these coordinates.

Knowing what I know about wings, I wouldn’t use this one unless I was forced to. Unfortunately, like the LNV109A was with NASCAR, this wing is a homologated part, and all the TCR cars are forced to use it. Worse still, you need to mount it (including brackets and endplates) below the roofline. On a hatchback.

My buddy Josh and I inspected one of the hatchbacks at a wet Grid Life race, and the water left streaks that were like flow-vis paint. You could clearly see where the air was separating on the back third the wing. In my opinion, this airfoil is too thick, it has too much camber, and air can’t stay attached along the entire surface, causing a loss of downforce and increased drag. I could be totally wrong about the TCR wing, and may have to eat my words. One day I’ll test one in a wind tunnel to be sure.

I wrote some additional comments about this wing in my Grid Life recap, and I’ll copy the most salient one here. “Leave it to the people that fucked our asses with diesel-gate to bugger a racing series with a wing that stinks of shit.”

Be 123-125 – 9 Lives Racing Big Wang

Probably the most popular motorsports wing is the 9 Lives “Big Wang”. The shape is essentially a Be 123-125, but with a modification to the rear geometry to support a Gurney flap. The shape is conservative compared to other Benzing wings, and measures in with numbers closer to aviation wings. Never mind that, because it’s a fantastic motorsports wing.

Big Wang with Gurney flap slot cut off for experimentation with chord.

In my wind tunnel testing the Big Wang was second best to the MSHD, and outperformed my S1223. This surprised me considering the amount of research I’d read on low-Reynolds high-lift airfoils; I predicted the S1223 would be a clear winner. Nostradamus I ain’t.

In a research paper on multi-element wings, this shape (or rather a very close cousin of this shape, the 122-125 with thickness 10% further forward) was the best performing main element. So if you are looking at a dual-element wing, this is the best off-the-shelf choice. Or even if you’re looking for a single element wing, it’s pretty hard to beat this on performance.

Be 183-155 – Procar Innvoations

Procar Innovations makes a wing that looks like the TCR, but it has less chord and is less extreme. I measure it up at 183-155, meaning it’s just as thick as the TCR wing, but it has less camber and the location of the camber is 10% further forward.

PCI makes a fine wing.

I tested this wing in the wind tunnel and it was really good, on par with the 9 Lives Racing wing. The end plates fasten with two 8mm bolts instead of four 5mm bolts, and could easily support a double element. The PCI wing doesn’t have a slot for a Gurney flap, but I would rivet on a wicker. My wind tunnel testing confirms that wings with a lot of camber really like a wicker, and this one gained 165% downforce with a 1/2″ piece of angle aluminum taped on top.

MSHD

I didn’t know about this airfoil until recently, as it doesn’t show up in Airfoil Tools, Bigfoil, Enrico Benzing’s Wings, or any other text I own. Because of that, I can’t display the same charts, but I can describe some of the advantages.

There’s a scientific paper on this airfoil making a direct comparison to the S1223 for use in low-speed motorsports applications. The main advantages of the MSHD over the S1223 is an even higher Cl value, softer stall characteristics, and a large range of AoA. To my present knowledge, this airfoil makes the most downforce of any wing listed here. If the Selig wings are the royalty in a deck of cars, then the MSHD is the ace of spades.

Familiar S1223
NKOTB MSHD

Shape-wise, the airfoils are not that much different, but the MSHD has more camber. It almost looks like someone took the S1223 and kept pushing the middle downward until they got flow separation. To plot the wing you can use the values in the spreadsheet.

In my wind tunnel testing this wing produced the best numbers. It also did very well with a Gurney flap. It was fairly easy to build in foam and fiberglas, and I did a DIY writeup on that in another article, but it was hard to get the exact shape because of the thickness of the fiberglass.

Update: An aluminum extruded MSHD is now available from Wing Logic. See my article here. This is the wing to get!

Summary Data

Here are all the wings sorted by cL. For each wing, I’ve also listed the max efficiency, and the angle where that occurs. Note that the fastest way around the track is often right around max downforce, not max efficiency. But efficiency is somehow important for marketing, even if that doesn’t really matter.

WingMax cLMax cL/cDNotes
Clark Y1.4590.2 at α=4°Clark why?
NACA 64121.6111.3 @ 6.25°Good reference
Cambered plate1.742.5 @ 5.75°24 hrs of Lemons
NASCAR COT1.75113.7 @ 10°Wing of yesterday
Douglas LA203A1.75127.7 at α=6.5°Wingmen of today
MIC FX 721.8121.1 at α=6.75°MIC-Wing
GOE 4641.8597 at α=7.5°Potato chip
CH101.95132.4 at α=3.25°Effin efficient
GOE 6522.05102.8 at α=2.25°She thicc
Eppler 4202.1106.1 @ 6.25°Dude, 420
Wortmann FX 742.25115.5 at α=6.75°Warts and all
s12232.397.4 at α=5.75°DF Queen
s1223 RTL2.3585.4 at α=5.5°DF King
BE 183-176?TBDTCR shite
Be 123-125>2.35TBD9LR
Be 183-155>2.35TBDPCI
MSHD>2.35TBDAce in the hole
cL and cD at Re 500k, Ncrit=5

Wind tunnel testing

This article is theoretical in nature, and lacks real-world testing results. Back when I wrote this article, I hadn’t done any wind tunnel testing. Since that time, I’ve tested many different wings in the wind tunnel, and the results have been… unexpected. For example, I’ve tested the exact same wing on three different cars and have had lift/drag ratios that range from around 3.5:1 to 25:1. So there’s obviously a lot going on here other than just the shape of the airfoil.

The wings tests span two wind tunnel reports, because a Miata and a Veloster N are quite different. Click the button, fill out the form, and you’ll get a link where you can download the reports.