Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
Frontal area trumps Cd, right?
|
That's the thing we need to remind ourselves of. For instance if some car has an average Cd number but is lower and narrower than most it's CdA or actual drag may still be well below average.
Going to the rear area of the car we may have a similar situation, that being the path there may be great, but still leaves a big hole compared to a pseudo-Kammback of lesser rear area.
There must be a chart involving rear area and Cd as well as one with frontal area and Cd. Getting the best balance of the two should net the best results over just focusing on one or the other end of the car. Just an idea, think about it.
EDIT: I'm trying to put in context the meaning of this passage..........any takers?
Aerodynamics
Quote:
|
It is, in particular, important to know whether the results stated were obtained with a full-scale car, rather than with a 1/5 scale model (whose aerodynamic results are generally about 20% better), but also whether the car was a real one, and loaded.
|
On this one, I think they mean "longer body", not larger.
Quote:
|
In 1980, with the introduction of the GSA, Citroën were building the most aerodynamic 5 door saloon on the market. Audi matched the 0,31 Cx of this car with the much larger 4 door Audi 100 - it is much easier to achieve good aerodynamic results with a large vehicle than with a small one.
|
If CxS = CdA (
think this might be a translated article) then this the first time read of a rear wing increasing mpg.
Quote:
|
The spoiler improves the CxS by 2.7 %, the aerofoil by 7.5 %. Both together improve the CxS by 10 % and reduce petrol consumption by 7.5 % at 120 km/h (74.6 mph).
|
Quote:
|
This article originally appeared in Double Chevron #59 © Automobiles Citroën 1980
|