View Single Post
Old 12-16-2011, 10:55 AM   #75 (permalink)
99metro
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Briggsdale, Colorado
Posts: 296

Wildfire - '96 Ford Bronco XL
90 day: 14.88 mpg (US)

Blackford - '96 Ford Bronco XLT
90 day: 20.26 mpg (US)

Y2k - '00 Honda Insight
Gen-1 Insights
Team Honda
90 day: 73.98 mpg (US)

Redford V10 - '01 Ford F250 Lariat
90 day: 15.64 mpg (US)

FireFly - '00 Honda Insight DX
90 day: 69.43 mpg (US)

LittleRed - '00 Honda Insight
Thanks: 3
Thanked 31 Times in 14 Posts
The following is just my opinion and to be taken as just that.

I understand the extreme limitations of this program. I can basically use a cardboard cutout, non-3D version of something and get a jist of what's going on. Just a sliver down the middle. There are lots of dynamics with flow from so many angles that this program can't show that would greatly affect this sliver of a flow. But I think I can use this as a tool along with independent experiments to help visualize a path to take.

Tuft testing is great for near-car wind flow dynamics, but this program makes me realize even more the importance of flow going on 10 feet or more behind me. Tuft testing with 10 foot streamers behind the vehicle ought to be added to any aero experiments along with near-car tuft testing. It would sure be cool to see if the aero experiment resulted in even flow past the vehicle or if it resulted in a worse situation.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to 99metro For This Useful Post:
Sven7 (12-16-2011)