Quote:
Originally Posted by KamperBob
Are you currently using a ScanGauge (et al)? I know you said you tightened the nut behind the wheel. I did too but the ScanGauge showed room for improvement I missed prior. Keeping the transmission torque converter clutch locked, for example, makes a big difference in fuel economy; even though ATF temperature is my first priority when towing. Real time metrics to predict when overdrive was okay versus preemptively locking drive helped immensely. Quantifying the costs of cruise control versus gaming the hills was beneficial too. All good.
|
I don't have a scangauge, or anything like it. I'm hesitant to buy one, since I'm planning to ditch this Tow Vehicle and go to a diesel manual when possible. I'm assuming the scangauge will not transfer to a diesel, but this might not be a good assumption. I've been doing my best to judge the load on the truck, whether or not to unlock the coverter ascending hills, etc. Transmission temp never seems to change much, perhaps because it has a giant cooler, and is a 3/4 ton to start with. I very rarely use cruise control, btw. It almost always throttles up, drops into 3rd and unlocks the converter when starting uphill, whereas I would rather not, unless it's a very long, steep hill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KamperBob
I smell a rookie mistake about terminology. Frontal area is a feature of end-on silhouette. Nothing added (fairings, etc) reduce it. Instead they reduce Cd. Drag area is the product of the two which can be decreased accordingly. Not trying to nit pick but this terminology it's pretty important to get clear and make sure you're having the same conversation and not risk talking past others.
|
Perhaps I'm not being clear on the way I'm approaching the problem. I'm considering 2 different thought paths: one of seperate truck and trailer bodies, and one with a connected truck and trailer.
If considering seperate truck and trailer, its seems a viable thought path to consider the trailer to have a Cd of near 1.0, but only be partially wetted, if that makes sense. If it this is simply an incorrect way of thinking, then that's acceptable, and I'll drop it. When adding a bed cap, you would effectively reduce the "effective" frontal area of the trailer.
Now, all that said, I've come to a realization: none of that makes sense. All vehicles have some gaps in them; even the truck has a gap b/w cab and bed. The seperate vehicles and effective frontal area approach does not follow accepted aerodynamic principles. I will indeed drop that thought path. Thanks for helping me get there!
SO, what I'm looking at are different ways to reduce the Cd of the entire rig, by smoothing the transition from one frontal area "block" to another. That makes more sense. Now, where's the smiley with a lightbulb?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KamperBob
I recently borrowed Hucho's compendium from my public library. They ordered it from a university. It took a couple weeks and reference desk staff had to use advanced search tools beyond patrons at kiosks. But it was worth the wait. Section 4.4.13 Car with Trailer will especially interest you regarding leading edge effects. Section 5.6.2 Road Tests has good work on cross winds. Several other sections offers piecemeal gems. I'm planning to buy a copy. It's that good.
|
My library is pathetic. "we don't have it." Is about all I'm getting. No response to "can you get it," "is a transfer possible," or any talk like that. They looked at me like I was completely out of line for suggesting such a thing. Perhaps I approached it from the wrong angle... time to send in the hot wife:-)
-Matt