Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
Thanks,aerohead, that's awesome.
The MacLaren mirror reminded me of the funnels on the decks of old steamships.
So the 39% improvement was from the simulation? Maybe that would be supported or improved with some fine-scale refinement:
I'm wondering about a blown or molded clear plastic cap on a 3" peep mirror. It needs more testing in the second configuration.
Edit: Nope, I checked. The swan-necked swivel mount would have to go. An annular ring might replace it, swiveling in a fixed mount. |
*The wind tunnel numbers did not correlate at all with the CFD results.
*The difference in drag between CFD and wind tunnel did fit.
*One observation:the body of the mirror is investigated without its attachment structure.
*The second observation:The mirror is investigated divorced from the host vehicle and no 'interference drag' investigation is presented.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*For us,only meaningful data would have been provided if all testing were done with the mirror/car combination.
*We're left to speculate on what might happen when the passive-jet mirror is 'ON' the car.
*Also,since the jet is annular,the mirror mount cannot intrude within the mirrors main body,otherwise it corrupts the internal flow.Any adjusting mechanism,or turn signal electricals would not be permitted within the cavity.
*And since the mirror WILL be mounted 'somehow' to the car,the mount itself will affect the jet behind it.
*This being the case,the internal ducting and flow may need to be asymmetrical and 'tuned' such that the emerging jet functions as in the isolated flow study.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I really like what they've done,but another,deeper investigation needs to be made,investigating the technology as an aerodynamic 'system' of mirror and host vehicle together.