View Single Post
Old 01-17-2012, 10:05 AM   #33 (permalink)
COcyclist
Aero Wannabe
 
COcyclist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NW Colo
Posts: 738

TDi - '04 VW Golf
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 53.2 mpg (US)
Thanks: 705
Thanked 218 Times in 169 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
With respect to the SM,I think that Hucho would predict attachment down the centerline of the backlight,but attached longitudinal vortices on the C-pillars.Anything over 23-degrees (Hucho) [22-degrees(Mair)] would be considered a pseudo-Jaray 'fastback',notorious for vortices and their drag.
And it might take smoke to discern the vortices,as they would be 'flying' a bit above the bodywork and might not show with tufts.
So is it safe to say that we cannot always rely on the tufts, at least as far as the back of the vehicle is concerned? I recall a thread on here about the aerodynamics of the New Beetle and people wondering about why the drag numbers were so bad, even though it had attached flow down to the bumper?? That is why we have the template, right? Exceed its angles at your own peril.
__________________
60 mpg hwy highest, 50+mpg lifetime
TDi=fast frugal fun
https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...tml#post621801


Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard View Post
The power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. Mechanical friction increases as the square, so increasing speed requires progressively more power.
  Reply With Quote