Quote:
Originally Posted by MeteorGray
Interesting four-wheel alignment on that car, or is it the wide-angle lens distorting things?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by j-c-c
Not sure if your comparison has a strong merit to your original question here, but I'm also wondering, if its an aero concern, or something else at play regarding the thickness we observe on the "strakes".
|
Ah, I wish I added question marks at the end of the title but oh well.
Yes they are relevant because,, originally I was thinking I don't care where they go. But if they were to go in the front part of the car they'd be the clear "flexible" ones as I already have some airtabs on my spare tire belly pan. I guess I raved too hard about the new VGs I found so I was focusing there since Mr. Edgar was providing some tests results as well but I repeat, it is not limited to A pillar or hood. I don't care anywhere.
The airtabs i installed anywhere behind the rear wheel of my sedan(by that I just mean it's pretty downstream, rooftop, Cpillar, tail lamp, and undertray), OBD2 fuel consumption testing showed about up to ~0.5% fuel economy decrease PER PAIR of airtabs installed in repeated tests (1 to 6 pairs then back down to 1 and back up to 3 to confirm the numbers then I left it alone) so I was looking for options that will not trip vortices in relatively straight wind, but become VGs when wind blows sideways, like the plane engine nacelle strake. And the Toyota ones just came to my mind so yeah.
I might need to check the numbers it was several years back but the decrease in MPG was very small but they did stack.
When I said I don't care about FE, I meant when the VGs are in action, not ALL the time like the airtabs I run now for the time being.