[Cycle]

Originally Posted by aerohead

*Only in a wind tunnel can the CP/CG relationship be verified
*As the symmetrical section encounters yaw,the forward stagnation point will also move (affecting your ability to harvest ram air)

Could one instrument the bike with yaw and wind speed or pressure sensors to have the ability to data-log as one was riding? Sort of a real-time wind tunnel. It'd have to be cheaper than paying for wind tunnel time, and you'd get real-world data to work with.

Originally Posted by aerohead

*Only a rigid surface can overcome aeroelastic phenomena which occur as the angle of attack varies,and velocities/pressures with it

The surface would be rigid when pressed inward by the air, but flex or articulate outward so I can put my feet down. Unsure how to implement that, but there's gotta be a way. Just have to kick my brain into gear a bit and it'll come to me. That's the hard part. Heh.

Originally Posted by aerohead

*In crosswind,the windward stagnation point would be a moving target,and the leeward wake also,making it very challenging to vector your air discharge to control your roll moment.

It's already a moving target, isn't it, what with all the oddly shaped surfaces in the airstream? I'm merely proposing to try to clean that up and redirect some of that air to where it'll be more beneficial. It'll change the overall behavior of the bike to any given side wind loading, but once that behavior is known, it can be adjusted and if needed compensated for by the rider, just as is done on the bike now.

Originally Posted by aerohead

*Any air you rob introduces a transverse contamination to the boundary layer which will affect an otherwise favorable pressure gradient (if you're gonna try a laminar profile).Once you reach the 1st minimum pressure,your at your point of BL transition to TBL and maximum lift

Wait... I was under the impression that the *lower* the pressure gradient fore to aft on the bike, the better. So by grabbing that air up front (and low) on the bike and cleanly ducting it rearward (and high), it would act to lessen the effective frontal area and lessen the effect of the airstream upon the bike's dirty bits, while acting as a "longer lever" than the side wind hitting the other side of the bike, thus helping to counteract that side wind loading. Wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by aerohead

*If you'll spin your front wheel and observe its spin-down time profile,it will suggest it's ability as a prime mover/air handler.I believe that you'll be shocked at its inability to develop any meaningful static pressure.

My rims look like three-bladed fans. For such small wheels, they push a lot of air, and it's gotta be turbulent at highway speed. A very bad design. That's part of the reason I'll be getting solid disc rims. The other part is that a solid disc rim makes it easier to mount the sprag clutch in the rear rim.

Originally Posted by aerohead

*The scoop itself may trigger separation itself.
*In a crosswind environment,the leeward side of the front wheel will be in turbulence,offering no useful ram air to the scoop,and affecting the pressure of air entering on the windward side.

That'd be a *good* thing, wouldn't it? It would effectively be two scoops side-by-side, so the downwind side shouldn't be affected much by the upwind side. The port scoop would exhaust to starboard, the starboard scoop would exhaust to port. The leeward shielding of the front wheel would prevent as much air from entering that scoop, thus most of the air is routed to the leeward side of the bike, lessening the effect of the side wind loading by the combined effect of lessening the torque the side wind creates on the bike (on the windward side) and by a counteracting torque (on the leeward side).

Originally Posted by aerohead

*NACA submerged inlets will convert velocity pressure to static pressure if you have an undisturbed pathway leading to the inlet.
*A Baumann scoop (NHRA Pro-Comp hood scoop) can reach outside the boundary layer and harvest the inviscid flow,with very low drag penalty,but needs an unimpeded approach for the air.
*As to the extractors,I recommend you look at Professor Alberto Morelli of Turin,Italy who was instrumental in the high-tech ducting of the 1978 Pininfarina CNR 'banana' car.He got the cooling system air to blend into the outer flow with zero turbulence.
*You will see that a reversed-NACA inlet is NOT ideal as an extractor.

Ah, got it. As you can see, aerodynamics isn't my area of expertise. But I can learn, and experimentation trumps all, eventually.

Originally Posted by aerohead

*The walls should be as smooth as possible to delay TBL transition.After that we just pay the man for the surface friction.There's no avoiding it.

Got it. Thanks.

Originally Posted by aerohead

*The challenge is WHERE to cite the extractors,since you'll be riding in a fluid battlefield with the goal posts moving all the time.Georgia Tech has been battling this for decades now.
In the future we may have active morphing body capabilities in which active surface sensors talk to the CPU and alter the shape,or porosity to deal with transient pressure domains.

My thinking is that reintroducing the air smoothly high and rearward (just before where the air starts to detach from the body) should add energy to keep the air attached, thereby reducing the size of the wake and thus drag. But again, experimentation will be in order.

Originally Posted by aerohead

I think you'll get a lot out of the books.

Got lots of reading to do. Thank you.