Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
Bob,I see what you mean and it's not picking nits at all.
I think I've been stuck in 'multiplicative' mode.Once a value is in the calculator I just carry it through.Lazy huh?
Is '3X' a more accurate representation of the Cd comparison? Before we get too far into this it would be nice to have clarity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to your bike,Hoerner posted Cd 0.90 for un-faired MCs.Ouch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Phil, both can be correct. I think mixing the two forms risks confusion so sticking to one is best. I think 3X is clear.
Thanks for the bike Cd data point. While 0.9 is high, frontal area is so low I still enjoy 90+ mpg without any aero mods whatsoever. And it is a bike after all. Knees in the breeze is a big part of it.
Rock on!