Quote:
Originally Posted by kach22i
Aerodynamics: The best value of all current Porsche models
https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/prod...ics-18554.html
I wonder if falling short of the aero-template provides additional opportunity to make the rear adjustable spoiler more effective for additional down-force.
VIDEO (different model)
|
I'll take a stab at this, as I've spent a week thinking about the patented Ford bi-wing spoiler on the Sierra / Scorpio.
Although Ford clearly knew that a streamlined roof would produce lower drag and lift, their specification for interior cargo space and reward vision precluded it use.
They ended up with separation-induced drag and lift.
Just adding the rear spoiler did not address a very low pressure, locked vortex, circulating over the first 1/3rd of the spoiler. Bad for drag and lift.
The wing, forward of, and above the spoiler, helped scavenge out the vortex, raise pressure over the boot, reduce lift, and drag, with a 'larger' however higher pressure wake, for total overall drag and lift reduction.
The bi-wing cut the Merkur XR4Ti from Cd 0.34, to Cd 0.32.
In 1988, Ford abandoned the bi-wing, raising the drag back up to Cd 0,34. They blamed lack of customer approval of the bi-wing aesthetic for it's demise.
It could be that the committee for the Taycan also had standards for rear vision which limited the rear contour. Just a guess.
If you buy one of Volkswagen Group's Lamborghinis, there's less interest in rearward vision. Same for Bugatti.