View Single Post
Old 08-31-2010, 03:15 PM   #22 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
The giant leading radius thing threw me off. My understanding of streamlining a brick (from Hucho) is that any radius above a certain minimum (that which allows "attached" flow down the sides) does no further aero good. I understand what you are saying about filling in over the tongue... just be careful with that, not only do trailers swing from side-to-side for turning, they pitch up and down over anything other than perfectly flat terrain. Figure out the maximum pitch difference tween truck and trailer ex. rear truck wheels in curbside gutter w/trailer going up a drive so that no contact occurs. For sure compromising a tad on aero is better than fixing damaged bodywork.

I'm aware of the trunciated tail panels... and this doesn't appear to be that. I still fail to see how it reduces drag in its current form; perhaps the side panels have good flow (are they angled in?) but the top and bottom are not interacting with the flow at all thus they'd do nothing. It's not about thwarting a vortex, it's about reducing the trailing wake area, and from the pic I don't see any of that.

If it truly does work then great, more power to him. We should send the case study to Hucho tho...
__________________



Last edited by Frank Lee; 08-31-2010 at 03:22 PM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
Cd (11-03-2010)