Hi Bob,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bicycle Bob
Is there a handy link to a story about the prop-driven experiment?
For stability issues, it is a pity that a front-engined chassis was not chosen, but that was part of the learning curve. Streamlining was slow to catch on even for racing because it often caused lift, and unevenly at that.
|
I think the prop experiment is to test the props themselves -- look at the cable restraining the movement of the car. I think the Schlörwagen merely provided a good platform for this.
I agree that the rear drive Mercedes 170H chassis was a flawed choice, but it doesn't negate the brilliant basic design.
A lot of the width comes from the need to cover the front wheels without doing anything "active". If the front wheels were covered by articulated skirts or pivoting shrouds, then the side overhand could have been reduced by 25-33% overall -- and this would have necessitated the rear wheel track to be narrowed; which would have meant that they could not use an "off-the-shelf" chassis.
Along with improvements like wheel strakes and fixing the turbulence around the rear wheels (broadening and flattening the tail?), I bet the Cd could be at least as good as the 0.13, maybe as low as 0.1 or 0.11, and the CdA could be well under 3 sq ft.