Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerys
...you are wrong...this is where you guys are getting confused...you guys are unclear...you are mistaken...your not fully grasping...you also do not understand...you think<snip>
|
Am I included in the "...you guys..." portion of this post? Do you disagree with my opinion that a car with a bit of lift has less drag than a car with zero lift? I think your AE schooling is more current than mine--heck, I don't even think we called anything "base drag" back then--so I'm sure willing to read and learn from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerys
while it sounds semantic in discussion mathmatically its a night and day difference.
|
I want to know because I'm designing a high mileage body for my car, and I can see there are different ways of looking at this (as my dad used to say, "Two plus two equals five, for very large values of two."), so if I concede that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerys
the produce of lift by the curved aero cover has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the reduction of drag by not letting it be formed by a blunt rear shape base drag.
they are UNRELATED.
|
...is a valid view, and that I "...do not understand how drag is effective and added up in the equation of overall drag...", can you tell me if the net effects of these unrelated strategies for minimizing a car's drag adds up to a force with a vector perpendicular to the ground plane, or as us laymen call it, lift? 'Cause right now I'm going by the books, Hoerner to Hucho, and it looks like this body is going to generate lift equal to about half its drag (Cd ~0.30, Cl ~0.15) and everything I'm considering to reduce lift appears it will increase drag. While in theory...
> OPTIMAL is zero drag
...and in that theoretical condition there'd be zero lift too, in the practical world where we're trying to reduce--not eliminate--aerodynamic drag, will we achieve our lowest drag with no lift or with some lift?