Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
For the 55 mph numbers I just used what Honda had published for their 'conventional' car,and taking the R-R power directly off the curve and calculating the aerodynamic road load HP for the new CdA,I got the new 55 mph road load.Then using the Honda's 0.448 lbs per brake horsepower-hour BSFC and a simplified 6-lbs/gallon,it spit out 111 mpg allowing for the Chrysler/Gino Sovran/Wolf Hucho gear-matching.
|
my thinking is: you run a car at a certain speed, a certain rpm, and load (which determines bsfc). reducing aero load simply gives the same load at a higher speed - with the same rpm and load on the engine (with appropriate gearing). so your 32 mpg at 100 mph is not the issue.
mechanical friction increases with the square of the speed. Reduced wind drag means mechanical friction is the significant loss to accordingly higher speeds. Wind drag increases with the cube of the speed, so there is a definite benefit to higher speed/lower drag.
I'm interested in seeing those SAE standards. I was under the impression that the fuel economy curve is an inverted bathtub...so at best l'd expect the plateau to extend higher...not climb drastically as you state.
Now you'll have to police drivers without appropriate licenses - and more importantly, the necessary skill to handle the car. how many new licenses will it take before the state drops millions of dollars to build a special lane? How do you police drivers from out of state? Driver training would have to be raised in the entire north america (way too low a standard). Germany's standards seem appropriate - 18+, $3000, graduated licensing, yearly car inspections, regular recert, know how to change your oil, etc).