Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertSmalls
I took the time to watch the videos. They left me wanting to hear more technical details. Specifically, what is the drag coefficient and frontal area of the car? You can't tell from the first two videos, but the top half looks very low drag. I can't see the bottom half very clearly, nor do we know where the wheels go yet.
The Suzuki 1.0L 3cyl is not a bad power plant, but I absolutely love Honda's lean-burn capable 1.0L 3 cylinder, which comes with regenerative braking and electric assist. A donor Insight will also provide you with dozens of lightweight components you can use, breathable seats, electric power steering, LRR tires, a futuristic gauge cluster, and maybe some ideas about how to improve efficiency.
I like the location of the taillights. As long as the leading surfaces follow streamlines, they should contribute only a little drag. You could eliminate the leading surfaces for better aero at the expense of aesthetics. I wonder if narrow rear wheels on outriggers, with lights mounted on them, would be a viable solution for a car with a narrow body and a wide track.
I share Frank's cynicism regarding the fuel economy of the car. I completely doubt you will double the thermodynamic efficiency of an engine where Suzuki's engineering teams failed to do so.
The problem of achieving maximum engine output per unit fuel is one completely seperate from that of building an efficient body. If you have a cost-effective design with amazing efficiency, prove it on a bench dyno and sell it for tens of millions.
As for the amount of energy required to move the car a mile, well, as Frank said, tell us your CdA and Crr, and I'll tell you your mpg @ any given BSFC. Let's see some numbers and measurements to back up those wild claims!
|
Jah.
My take on the frontal area situation is: It appears to me the cockpit is basically the same as the donor i.e. cowl height the same, windshield the same, inner door skins and window frames the same. The windshield does not appear to have been narrowed, chopped, lowered, or laid back. It follows, then, that it is highly unlikely that the frontal area is less than that of the donor car and if my info is correct the donor car has 20 sq ft while 17 sq ft is claimed for the trike.
BUT WAIT! There's more! It also appears to me that the drivetrain is stock i.e. the front track is stock, not narrowed. In order to enclose the front wheels with non-articulating skirts the fenders have ballooned out far beyond the stock fenders, and that can also be seen in the additional thickness of the doorskins, all added to the exterior. That means the greenhouse has the same frontal area as the donor car while below the greenhouse is GREATER than the donor car. So my WAG places frontal area at 24-26 sq ft, a substantial increase over the donor car. Even though it's likely to have a Cd advantage, it's handicapped with a larger area and not only that, less useable interior volume. That doesn't match my definition of efficiency.
Anyone that's run at Bonneville should be keen to that.
The claims for drivetrain efficiency provide even less to go on than Palmear or Truck Trends. In the absence of ANYTHING convincing, logic dictates that we assume no drivetrain improvements over that of the stock donor car. So I'm predicting it would still be in the sub 60 mpg range. That is, if it ever moves under it's own power,
ever, for as I'm told, nothing much is going to happen from here on out without a massive cash infusion, right?