Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
1) the published drag coefficient is Cd 0.32.
2) the published frontal area is Af 24.5-sq-ft ( 85.078% of gross area )
3) a scaled comparison to the template suggests perfectly attached flow at the decklid spoiler.
4) at 100-mph, the car generates 30.6-pounds of rear lift, retaining 98.3 % of it's static wheel loading.
5) EPA test weight of the car is 4298-pounds.
6) 48 % of weight is borne by the rear axles ( 2063-pounds )
7) at 172-mph, rear lift is 90.52-pounds, compared to 207-pounds for a 1969 Volkswagen 1600 Squareback.
8) Hucho stated, in his 2nd-Edition, that if the car's aft-body trailing edge was simply raised to the elevation of the production spoiler, both lift and drag characteristics would be improved. One can infer what they wish.
9) the fastest posted speed limit in the United States is 85-mph.
10) rear lift on the Cadillac at this velocity is statistically meaningless.
11) it would be less with the template. By default.
|
1) OK, so now you can work out the front and rear coefficients of lift for us - based on frontal area and not the deceptive plan view as you did before.
2) and 3) Seriously, you're still applying the template to guess where airflow goes? Even when I have run multiple tuft pics showing the airflow not following the template at all?! That's just very odd.
4), 5) and 6) Yes, what is your point? We're not expecting the car to fly. Maybe read pages 180 and 181 of my book that reference the SAE papers showing how small a lift force needs to occur before it impacts car stability?
7) Yes, lift coefficients have dropped considerably since 1969. What is your point?
8) Page reference please for that specific statement? I am not aware of any such statement in the book.
9) and 10) See above.
11) Lift would in fact be more with the template - repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true.