10-18-2009, 10:42 AM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Batman Junior
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,914
Thanks: 239
Thanked 847 Times in 471 Posts
|
Mythbusters "tests" efficiency of dimples vs. smooth, and clean vs. muddy car
Admin note: 2 threads were started on this topic. The other one is here: Mythbusters tests "golf ball" dimples
---
I don't watch the show regularly, but this one might be worth tuning in for the entertainment factor.
Also.. don't they have it backward? Isn't the common myth that the clean car gets better mileage?
|
|
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
|
|
10-18-2009, 11:50 AM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
aero guerrilla
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 2,708
Thanks: 622
Thanked 323 Times in 205 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG
Also.. don't they have it backward? Isn't the common myth that the clean car gets better mileage?
|
Hmm, I can imagine having enough mud buildup in the wheelwells to reduce the distance between them and the wheels. Or mud sticking to the rear of the car, drying and hardening, layer on layer, in the shape of a Kammback extension. But by the time either of these would have a noticeable aero effect, the weight penalty would start to be a pain.
__________________
e·co·mod·ding: the art of turning vehicles into what they should be
What matters is where you're going, not how fast.
"... we humans tend to screw up everything that's good enough as it is...or everything that we're attracted to, we love to go and defile it." - Chris Cornell
Piwoslaw's Peugeot 307sw modding thread
|
|
|
|
|
10-18-2009, 02:53 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 369
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
I will be watching it. I love mythbusters even tho they seem to be obsesed with explosions.
|
|
|
|
|
10-18-2009, 03:50 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
Ecomod noob
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Tooele, UT
Posts: 382
ZJ - '95 Grand Cherokee Laredo Upcountry 90 day: 20.57 mpg (US) Neon - '03 Neon SE 90 day: 36.28 mpg (US) S'Crew - '02 F150 Supercrew XLT 90 day: 16.4 mpg (US) EX - '94 Explorer 90 day: 19.58 mpg (US) Ranger - '90 Ranger Last 3: 28.02 mpg (US)
Thanks: 5
Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by igo
I will be watching it. I love mythbusters even tho they seem to be obsesed with explosions.
|
I love Mythbusters BECAUSE they seem to be obsesed with explosions... hehehee
__________________
When it comes to Heroes, RENEGADES are mine!
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to zjrog For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
10-18-2009, 04:04 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
|
marcusmodder
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 1,122
Thanks: 70
Thanked 198 Times in 110 Posts
|
I think the muddy/clean thing is like the golfball dimple theory. Sometimes rough is better than smooth. I'm actually looking forward to this one...
If it works you could cover your car with rocker guard or ceiling texture and paint over it. Might look kind of cool.
|
|
|
|
|
10-18-2009, 05:04 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Madison AL
Posts: 1,121
Thanks: 28
Thanked 37 Times in 34 Posts
|
They are supposed to be "dimpling" a car, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
10-18-2009, 05:11 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
|
...beats walking...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,036
Thanks: 51
Thanked 266 Times in 204 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonMPG
They are supposed to be "dimpling" a car, I think.
|
...so instead of " Body by Fisher" it'd be " Body by Top-Flite" (ha,ha)!
__________________
• 2011 Chevrolet Cruze LTZ 1.4LT 6A
• 2009 Pontiac Vibe 1.8L/SIDI 4A
• 2004 Pontiac Vibe 1.8L/MFI 4A
• 2003 Ford Focus ZX5 2.0L/Zetec 4A
• 1971 Dodge Charger 318 3A
• 1970½ Plymouth AAR 'Cuda 340/6BBL 4M
• 1968 Dodge Charger 383 3A
• 1967 Plymouth Barracuda Formula S 383 4M
• 1965 Plymouth Barracuda Formula S 273 4M
|
|
|
|
|
10-18-2009, 05:32 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
|
marcusmodder
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 1,122
Thanks: 70
Thanked 198 Times in 110 Posts
|
I could just see them firing golf balls at a car to get the dimples.
|
|
|
|
|
10-18-2009, 05:35 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
EcoModding Apprentice
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 141
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
|
SOunds like a hail storm car to me! 
Dave |
|
|
|
|
10-18-2009, 09:46 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
|
Left Lane Ecodriver
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 2,232
Thanks: 79
Thanked 236 Times in 172 Posts
|
I'm sure it'll be entertaining and worth watching.
I predict their conclusion will be "we can not detect a fuel economy difference between these two cars".
It would take a pretty extreme setup to do aerodynamic testing sensitive enough to detect mud. A wind tunnel would do it, but they wouldn't take a car to a wind tunnel for a simple myth like this. Short of that, you'd need high speed bidirectional coastdown testing on a totally windless day. Even if you accounted for airspeed, small crosswinds would skew your results beyond utility.
As to the effects of mud: It tends to increase the car's frontal area, obviously. Cakes of mud on streamlined surfaces will increase your Cd, while cakes of mud in your eddies will tend to decrease your Cd. A muddy truck with its panel gaps and hood cowl filled with mud will probably get better gas mileage, but unless your aeromodded Metro gets a teardrop-shaped tail made of mud, it's likely to get slightly worse gas mileage when muddy.
|
|
|
|
|
(10-18-2009), 
