📐 Wing Placement Matters: A CFD-Based Look at Downforce, Balance & Tuning
When it comes to race car aerodynamics, wing location isn't just about squeezing out a few extra pounds of downforce — it's about setting up a balanced and predictable car. In our latest round of testing with TotalSim, we dove deep into how changing rear wing position affects downforce, balance, and overall vehicle dynamics.
Here’s what we learned.
🧪 Test Overview
We ran Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations with the help of TotalSim, a group we've worked with on multiple validated aero projects. The subject car? A BMW E36, known for its boxy shape — something that plays a surprising role in how air interacts with the wing.
We tested three wing positions:
-
High Mount – Elevated well above roofline.
-
Standard Mount – Typical roof-height mount (our baseline).
-
Far-Rear Mount – Pushed as far rearward as practical.
And for good measure, we later tested all three wings mounted at once.
🔬 The Results
📈 1. High Wing Placement
-
+55 lbs of downforce compared to standard location.
-
Same raw gain as the rearward wing, but with a big tradeoff: center of gravity (CG).
-
High wings raise the vehicle's CG, which can negatively affect handling — especially during rapid transitions and cornering loads.
-
Roof-height mount is still our go-to because it complies with many racing rulebooks and strikes a better balance between performance and practicality.
🔁 2. Far-Rear Wing Placement
-
+50 lbs of downforce again, but the real story is balance.
-
The aero balance shifted 30% rearward, which is huge.
-
That shift may sound appealing to rear grip lovers, but it comes at a cost — a front end that may no longer communicate clearly under high-speed cornering.
-
Interestingly, this gain wasn’t about rear placement alone. On the E36, the wing gets further from the turbulent wake off the car’s boxy roof. Cleaner flow = better performance.
📊 Note: Similar wing position changes on Corvettes and Miatas showed no significant gain, suggesting the E36 roof geometry is the key factor here.
⚖️ The Real Takeaway: Wing Location = Balance Tool
Too often, racers chase wing placement as a way to trick the aero system — thinking a magic placement will unlock hidden downforce. This test confirms what we’ve learned over years of testing: wing location is primarily a balance-setting tool, not a cheat code.
That’s why no two pylon setups from Nine Lives Racing are the same. Each one is tailored to the chassis, setup, and use-case of the car. The goal is a confident balance front-to-rear, not just a number on a scale.
🌀 When We Got Wild: All Three Wings
Just for fun (and science), we ran all three wings together — stacked downforce:
-
+600 lbs of additional downforce over a single-wing setup.
-
+1,200 lbs compared to a no-wing configuration.
That’s astonishing. But there’s a caveat...
⚠️ Aero Balance Disaster
With all that downforce out back, the front aero was completely overwhelmed:
-
Front aero balance dropped to 0.6.
-
For reference, a balanced race car often targets ~45–55% front.
-
At 0.6, the car wouldn’t turn at any speed above 40 mph.
-
Totally undrivable — but a great visual and data showcase of how aero imbalance can ruin a car, even with big numbers on paper.
🧠 Final Thoughts
-
Wing placement matters, but not for the reasons many think.
-
More rear = more rear grip, less front turn-in.
-
High mounts gain some downforce, but affect CG and legality.
-
Far-rear mounts may gain on certain body styles, but risk rear-heavy balance.
-
More isn’t always better — especially without front-end aero to match.
So next time you move your wing back “for more downforce,” remember — it might be better to move it back for balance, and not expect big gains in peak numbers. That’s how professionals tune, and why smart aero setups always look at the car as a whole.
all the data from this run is downloadable here
🏁 Want to dial in your aero with CFD data like this?
Check out our aerodynamic consultation packages or grab a Nine Lives Racing wing kit — engineered in the USA, proven on track, and backed by hard data.