lol, don't take it so seriously .... doesn't suit your avatar
as this is the internet its simply a discussion old fruit, nothing more.
noted on your comments but a gt3 spec car and or f1 car have absolutely zero in common with this exercise (apart from having holes) so i really wouldn't reference those against this lol. seeing its a purely cosmetic exercise and as such wont have even been near a wind tunnel development - as that's the expensive bit - you dont need to play aerodynamicist to draw a fair assumption about drag
lots of people like big wings that do not much in particular apart from slow their car down, good luck to them. you pay your money you take your choice....
Taking it lightly, I'll add this fruit:
Edit and note: Speed is straight-line speed -- not lap times -- in these discussions.
GT3 cars are often slower than their street counterparts, because they cap the power and add downforce via wings, dive planes and other bits. Downforce rarely comes free of charge (it almost always costs speed).
F1 cars can sometimes find downforce that is not at the cost of speed, because of rake that vanished under speed, flows that attach and break at different speeds, blown wings working at certain speeds, and countless other tricks that look like ass but work. If you find downforce at no cost to speed, you are an F1 engineering god.
Any discussion of aero usually runs counter to what the eye sees, and sometime what the eye can't see, such as the fast moving air over a smooth undercarriage, which is probably the most significant form of minimally disruptive downforce.
Also, sometimes you just throw away 5-8 mph on a straight, because the ROI of of a bunch of clunky looking aero bits provide faster lap times, because more time is gained by braking late and carrying speed through corners.