Quote:
Originally Posted by wdb
|
Yes! Thanks.You'll want to click for the full report.
Based upon the 'simplicity' of the model,the Cd 0.48 that was generated must be taken within the context of what's omitted from the model's details.
If you add in the missing body curvature in side elevation,the missing forebody camber in plan view,the missing boat-tailing in plan view,and potential missing underbody inclination,there's a high probability that Cybertruck is incapable of producing any longitudinal vorticity,needed to create anything like Cd 0.48.
We know from investigations of Nuccio Bertone's Cybertruck-esque bodies of earlier,that the forebody is incapable of separated flow.The greenhouse flow is attached.The C-pillar/butresses have attached flow.Cybertruck's 'backlight' angle cannot produce vorticity for the reasons mentioned above.Cybertruck has the longest aftbody of any production vehicle,exceeding the Volkswagen XL1,Cd 0.189,and Volkswagen's research 'Flow' body,Cd 0.15.If you look at the cosine function of its attack and extractor jet geometry you'll find only very weak functions and intersections which have to be navigated by the turbulent boundary layer.Since streamlining is all about a vehicle's aft-body attached flow and minimum wake,low pressure drag,Cybertruck may demonstrate an industry-leading drag coefficient when the official numbers are finally published.The more I look at it,the more I marvel at what's hiding in plain view.
