coastdown hill - Page 3 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 06-12-2007, 08:25 AM   #21
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,138
Country: United States
I don't like terminal velocity tests because power increases as the cube of speed. So if you make a really good improvement, worth like 3%, then you terminal velocity only changes by 1%, which might be too small to see.
__________________

__________________
Bill in Houston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2007, 09:35 AM   #22
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
Excellent point, Bill.
__________________

MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2007, 12:46 PM   #23
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 191
Country: United States
yeah, agreed... terminal velocity margins of error are multiplied.

Force is only a squared factor though, and that is really the measure you are looking for.

Plus the RR, which is a large non-aero factor, weighs in.

What I am seeing in my measurements is a RR force about 30 lbs with a aero force at 60 mph of about 50 lbs... actually one should be able to get the margin of error from this:

let's say +- 1mph on speedo reading which is +2, -almost 2 lbs of aero force.

Cd change of +- 0.1 on my VX yields +-2lbs as well.

So a aero change of +- .02 is the best I could hope to measure.

Also forgetting wind variation... and I am not convinced RR is a constant.

Either way this gives an idea of what is possible.

I am playing with coast down testing a lot, using a video camera on a second clock and the speedo. When I review, I mark the timestamps for each 5 mph tick, the calculate the deltas between in 10mph increments. I average this approach of 5 or so runs. I think I can show that the margin of error is less for a couple of reasons:

the deltas are calculated and relative: ie if I get one reading high or low the next calculation delta will absorb that error.

the averages should take wind and road levelness out of the equation (although 10 runs might be better).
lca13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2007, 04:59 PM   #24
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,138
Country: United States
Yeah, I pretty much agree. I guess ideally we would do coast-downs from about 80 mph. :-)

Depending on your video software, you might be able to get times from the software/video rather than the clock, which would let you break it down to ~.04 second intervals.

Anyway, it sounds like you are doing great stuff.
__________________
Bill in Houston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2007, 05:31 PM   #25
ELF
Registered Member
 
ELF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 245
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post

PS - the difference in the 4 runs today was pretty big: the shortest was about 45 feet less than the longest.
Wow! that makes me wonder, how much shorter it would be in the winter? That may be a big factor in bad winter mpg. I have noticed cars don't seem to coast nearly as good in cold weather, could be a major cause of poor mpg in the cold.
__________________
ELF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2007, 07:57 PM   #26
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
ELF: definitely - for multiple reasons: more viscous lubricants; denser air; stiffer tires (more RR), etc.
MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2007, 08:06 PM   #27
Tuggin at the surly bonds
 
Silveredwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 839
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
ELF: definitely - for multiple reasons: more viscous lubricants; denser air; stiffer tires (more RR), etc.
...and snow.
__________________
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein
Silveredwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2007, 10:01 PM   #28
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 191
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill in Houston View Post
Depending on your video software, you might be able to get times from the software/video rather than the clock, which would let you break it down to ~.04 second intervals.
Great idea...

Also thinking a DMM hooked up the the speed sensor might give precise readings... if you could read 1/10's of a sec and get speed to 10th as well..
hmmm... wish that damn wind wasn;t there.... or the bumps in the road :-)
__________________

lca13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
more fuel up options slineaudi Fuelly Web Support and Community News 4 07-02-2010 03:11 AM
What have I gotten myself into? omgwtfbyobbq Motorcycles 7 07-18-2007 12:55 PM
Low Flow Shower head kickflipjr General Discussion (Off-Topic) 28 07-14-2007 08:26 AM
New in Fort Collins CO GasSavers_Steven Introduce Yourself - New member Welcome 5 04-12-2007 02:34 PM
Need addresses of recently upgraded members Matt Timion Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 04-10-2007 06:17 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.