Quote:
Originally Posted by Vman455
This is an odd statement to make. Scibor-Rylski developed a streamlined body with a contoured underside in the City University of London wind tunnel in the 1970s that came in at cD = 0.07 in ground proximity. It looks very different from the "template." Why shouldn't we all build to that form as a "first approximation"?
I disagree. Testing should be the first attack, to find out what is actually going on. I could have spents hours building up the rear glass on my Prius to conform to the "template." It would have been a complete waste of time, since a simple tuft test showed it already had attached flow. So, why not use the 3rd generation Prius profile as a template?
|
1) It would be great if we could see this form.
2) Morelli's shape bottomed out around Cd 0.05. As a more carlike body, it came in at Cd 0.161 without wheels. Adding wheels pushed it to Cd 0.35. Then ,after 'integrating' the wheels into the body, they ended up with Cd 0.201.
3) Rolf Buchheim et al.'s VW Flow Body Long-tail was Cd 0.091 without wheels. Cd 0.14 with.
4) 'Baby-template' came in at Cd 0.1209, implying that there's something to be said about Goro Tamai's wheel integration at M.I.T..
5) 2013 CUER came in at Cd 0.11 in the Airbus wind tunnel.