Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianEdgar
You didn't actually address any of the points I made. Maybe read them again? (I've numbered them so you can address each in turn, if you wish):
1. You said: Kamm's lowest drag car didn't survive the war.Let me put that a different way: The car that did in fact survive the war proved to have a very much higher drag coefficient than the pre-war tests showed. To assume, therefore, that the other pre-war data is correct is a bit simplistic.
2. I am not sure why you pursue this fable that all significant car aero happened in the 1920s and 1930s.
3. I can draw similar parallels with car suspension eg the work of Messrs Lanchester, Olley and Milliken. They are incredibly significant people, and what they discovered we use every day - but they don't dictate the suspension rates I chose on my Insight. They certainly help inform those decisions, though. And it's exactly the same with car aero. Great to know about what the heroes of the 1920s and 1930s discovered, but only within the context of today's knowledge.
|
1) shame Hucho didn't include that data point in his handling of the Langenburg Castle car. It would also have been of benefit had you mentioned it.
2) Cd 0.09 for a body was recorded in 1922. The same Cd 0.09 Hucho talked about in 1987, as a future target. That's pretty significant.
3) Buchheim's VW-Flow Body ( long-tail ) recorded Cd 0.14, not far from Jaray's Cd 0.13 for a similar form.
4) Buchheim's Flow Body sans wheels measured Cd 0.0913.
5) Jaray's 1922 half-body sans wheels measured Cd 0.90.
4) Buchheim et al, in 1981, measured an identical Cd 0.16 for Wolfgang Klemperer's 'minivan' basic body of 1922.
5) Hucho reproduced the Cd 0.16 for the 'Lange' car, as was measured in 1938 at the AVA.
6) Hucho measured Cd 0.15 in model, to the AVA's Cd 0.158 for the 1:1-scale Schl'o'rwagen of 1938.