View Single Post
Old 11-17-2011, 04:04 PM   #6 (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
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc2dave View Post
the concept, is for the second one to block some of the air that does not get blocked by the first airdam.the third might not even work.does this concept still elude you?
Yes it does.

I can picture how they could be mounted and how they might look; that isn't the issue. The issue is, airdams (in the front anyway) work not because they are sleek, but because they direct air flow from draggy areas to less draggy areas. So for instance if I were to put one in front of the rear axle on my pickup, what exactly would it do? The "flow" under there is already a complete turbulent mess... it would shield that axle though... directing air up above, like to the floor of the box and all that nasty chassis stuff wouldn't help so a before axle dam would have to go up as far as it can? And/or be angled such that it tries to direct air down to the road? Or out to the sides?

And then there is the idea of one on the back. The very back? Where we are trying to make the wake zone smaller? I guess I can kind of imagine where trapping a rolling wave similar to why it is said that pickups are better with the gate up are better... but.... eh, I don't think the flow situation is the same down there next to the road.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
Sven7 (11-18-2011)