View Single Post
Old 05-03-2020, 07:38 PM   #5 (permalink)
Ecomodding amateur
M_a_t_t's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Indiana
Posts: 639

The Van - '95 Chevy Astro Cl V8 Swapped
Team Chevy
90 day: 10.75 mpg (US)

The new bike - '17 Kawasaki Versys X 300 abs
90 day: 60.53 mpg (US)

The Mercury - '95 Mercury Tracer Trio
Team Ford
90 day: 38.5 mpg (US)
Thanks: 118
Thanked 234 Times in 168 Posts
Most of these methods are new to me, hopefully I have time to do some reading later. What method (or combination) would you suggest aeromods be tested with? Especially the ones that take awhile to make, such as boattails and the like. Currently the most common method for checking is based on coastdown testing. This provides some actual numbers for comparison, even if they might be skewed, to see if a mod works.

If tuft testing is not indicative of lower Cd, and coastdown testing not reliable* both of which are the least cost to do some testing what would be the next best bang for the buck?

*In one of your other threads you suggested you never had any luck with coast down testing. Could you expand on why you feel that way? I was just assuming unreliability in the data.
Originally Posted by JulianEdgar View Post
Coastdowns should never be done coming to a standstill, in my opinion. Why? Because you are then spending too long at speeds where aero drag is basically not relevant - but it potentially adds to the error.

But I have never had any luck with coast-downs - of any sort. And Rob Palin (ex Tesla aerodynamicist) was scathing about them in a recent email to me.
Věci získávají svou skutečnou krásu pouze ve vztahu k našemu životu
-Jiří Mucha (1915-1991), Publicist

1973 Fiat 124 Special
1975 Honda Civic CVCC 4spd
1981 Kawasaki KZ750E
1981 Kawasaki KZ650 CSR
1983 Kawasaki KZ1100-A3
1986 Nissan 300zx Turbo 5 spd
1995 Chevy Astro RWD (current project)
1995 Mercury Tracer
2004 Chevy Astro AWD
2017 Kawasaki VersysX 300
  Reply With Quote