Quote:
Originally Posted by Cd
I remember there was a long drawn out, confusing discussion here on how the EV-1 could have a .19 Cd, yet be so far off of the template.
Aerohead, I think you mentioned something about the tumblehome playing a large part in keeping flow attached once the rear glass goes out of the curve of the template.
Did I understand correctly ?
Gary Eaker is one of the people that worked at G.M. on the E.V.-1 aerodynamics.
I have suggested in the past that some of you here might could invite him to the forum as a guest.
No one seemed interested.
I would invite him here myself, but I'm a "no-body" .
Aerodynamics is just a hobby that fascinates me, and I can't even do basic math.
Rather than argue back and forth, how about let's invite some other experts to the forum.
I'd love to have a guest on the forum that could answer some of the questions here.
I have Gary's contact information if anyone is interested.
|
* According to General Motors, the EV1 was Cd 0.197. As an 'ICE' vehicle, we'd be looking at around Cd 0.232.
* When I did the initial profile comparison, all I had was the AST-1, which is probably best suited to shooting-brake type vehicles of long rooflines.
* Out of respect for Julian Edgar I'm re-visiting some vehicles with eight different templates. Just using the AST-II makes a remarkable difference in interpretation.
* I've not yet done a second dimensional analysis of EV1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Gary Eaker would be great to bring onboard. I've planned to write him for a long time now, and hope to complete the Spirit of EcoModder project one day at the A2 wind tunnel.
* A peer-review jury would be awesome!
* I did investigate the HOT ROD Magazine Camaro land speed record car, which I believe Gary Eaker consulted on. The 'Bonneville' rear spoiler on that car happens to match the AST-II perfectly.