Wake size and overall drag - Page 2 - Fuelly Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-10-2007, 06:23 AM   #11
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 313
Country: United States
I've always wondered if drag factors for various vehicles were constants. To me it seems possible that as speeds get higher, certain laminar flows that don't interfere with each other at say 60 mph could possibly create havoc with one another at say 80 mph.
__________________

__________________
2TonJellyBean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 03:21 PM   #12
Registered Member
 
oneinchsidehop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 165
Country: United States
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
Or as viewed from the rear, since it's projected area.

Would it be? I thought the purpose of a kamback or boat tail was to keep the flow attached as the projected area was reduced (approx a 5:1 or 7% slope), the reduction of the low pressure system statisticly diminishing when the reduction reached 50%, hence the abrupt chop off in a true kamback.

__________________

__________________
Mike
_______________________________________________

"If you want to save gas I suggest you permanently remove the drivers seat and steering wheel. That seems to help." -Oscar Halverson

oneinchsidehop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 05:20 PM   #13
Registered Member
 
trebuchet03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 812
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to trebuchet03
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneinchsidehop View Post
Would it be? I thought the purpose of a kamback or boat tail was to keep the flow attached as the projected area was reduced (approx a 5:1 or 7% slope), the reduction of the low pressure system statisticly diminishing when the reduction reached 50%, hence the abrupt chop off in a true kamback.

That is the projected area at a specific region of the vehicle. To calculate aero resistance, you only need the max cross section. This is because the cD already takes into consideration all of the aero features (such as a kammback).
__________________
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all its students.


Bike Miles (Begin Aug. 20 - '07): ~433.2 miles

11/12
trebuchet03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2007, 03:32 AM   #14
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 191
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
Or as viewed from the rear, since it's projected area.
You bring up an important point. The effective area is that which is orthogonal to the resultant wind vector. Since there always is some sort of crosswind, paying attention to to what the frontal area looks like, not only from straight on, but also from partial angles to the left and right, is also important.

.... gives me a whole new perspective on wheel skirts :-)
lca13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2007, 07:02 PM   #15
Registered Member
 
brucepick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 722
Country: United States
Location: Connecticut
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2TonJellyBean View Post
I've always wondered if drag factors for various vehicles were constants. To me it seems possible that as speeds get higher, certain laminar flows that don't interfere with each other at say 60 mph could possibly create havoc with one another at say 80 mph.
True that speed makes a difference.
From the little reading I did on aerodynamics (wikipedia mostly), I managed to learn that the formulas and calculations are slightly different for subsonic vs. supersonic speeds. Probably different for automotive speeds vs. small prop plane speeds.

If you're going to talk 60 mph vs. 80 mph, I don't know. I don't think the order of magnitude change is big enough to make much difference in the basic calculations and formulas used. But the simple fact of increasing from 60-80 mph alone is enough to increase the total drag considerably.
__________________

__________________
Currently getting +/- 50 mpg in fall weather. EPA is 31/39 so not too shabby. WAI, fuel cutoff switch, full belly pan, smooth wheel covers.

Now driving '97 Civic HX; tires ~ 50 psi. '89 Volvo 240 = semi-retired.
brucepick 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


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:25 AM.


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