Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG
Thread moved at maczo's request (from Success to EcoModding Central).
|
Thanks!
Ironically, after today's refill I can say that it's now officially a success story
The refill of 24.02 litres after 366 kms means that the avg. fuel consumption was equal to 6.56 L/100km (35.8mpgUS)
Versus the previous numbers of around 7.7 (30.5 mpgUS) that's roughly a 15% improvement. I don't want to know what the avg. speed was compared to my driving-before-hypermiling though
. The GF used to complain about me driving too fast... not going to happen any time soon, I guess
I tried to do tuft testing of the aero mods, but didn't have the proper material - the string that I had was too stiff and it would show attached flow when the car was stationary
I found a better one but had to leave by then, and so the testing is delayed once more.
I did have time to compare the Kamm'ed 'cento to The Template. I'm not sure the photo is good enough for template matching, but I decided to apply the template to the nearer edge of the car (as it stands in the picture, this would be the left edge). Actually the shape of the 'cento was pretty good to start with, my Kamm is a bit too steep though. So I attempted to measure what the angle between the Kamm and the roof is. The measurement isn't very accurate, but it is around 10 deg. I have to note that somehow the pictures don't do the Kamm justice, it always looks like it's steeper than in reality.
Sooo... is around 10 deg deviation from the roofline an acceptable amount? I recall a paper on pick-up bed caps that suggested optimum angles around 12 degrees. Am I totally in the dark or might the Kamm actually be of some potential value here?