Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Aerodynamics
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-09-2012, 05:56 PM   #11 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
A roof top addition such as OP described will present more "frontal" area to an x-wind than it will to a straight-on wind (which is exceedingly rare) because of the length of the roof and his stated intention to run it full length if not moreso.

__________________


  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 02-09-2012, 06:12 PM   #12 (permalink)
EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Central Alabama
Posts: 572

Big Salsa - '04 Toyota Sienna LE

Silver - '10 Toyota Prius III
Thanks: 110
Thanked 123 Times in 71 Posts
Let's just say he has aweful attachment on the top of his vehicle, and has to raise the roof 9" to get attached flow. Let's say the length of the roof is 9'. Total additional cross wind area is going to be on the order of 3.25 square feet. This is much less than the area that is added by raising the roof on a van (which is common, and those don't tip over in cross winds), and the edges running back will no doubt be rounded over for sideways attached flow thus mitigating much of the poor handling you are hinting at.
I added a 4' long SedanKamm partial boat tail to my little car and drove it that way for over 3 months. I experienced 60mph crosswinds and saw no ill effects. Jim has added a boat tail to his Insight and driven in 60mph crosswinds with no ill effects (actually improved his cross wind handling). How big is Aerohead's bed cover when viewed from the side? I contend, it is not an issue that makes it not worth pursuing.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2012, 06:27 PM   #13 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 355

The Truck - '02 Nissan GU Patrol ST
Thanks: 5
Thanked 76 Times in 50 Posts
Good to see some interesting discussion,
The vehicle shape is much as per post #7, but mine is the previous model, so is even less streamlined.
From what I have seen in various images and discussions, the windscreen angle is likely a bit steep, so I believe that there is most likely seperation at the windscreen roof junction, but haven't done any flow testing myself.
To improve this, I was thinking a 2 stage process.
1 / build up the bonnet area a bit infront of the windscreen, this would minimise the turbulance around the wipers as well as raise the airflow stream.
2 / add a bit of curvature to the roof as mentioned in the OP
then look at the issues at the rear and adjust to suit.
I think these type of vehicles are ideal candidates for improvements, because they are so bad aerodynamically.
I am also looking at rear wheel arch covers, skirts & partial underbody lining, there is also a small airdam at the front and I may look at this area a bit too, but possibilities are limited as I do go off road a bit and approach angle & clearance are important.
So in conclusion, without appropriate testing the proposal could go either way, which is what I was thinking myself, but I do lean towards a positive result, even with the increase in the frontal area, because it lays good foundations for major improvements in the rear.
Thanks again for all the comments.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2012, 06:34 PM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 355

The Truck - '02 Nissan GU Patrol ST
Thanks: 5
Thanked 76 Times in 50 Posts
Just to add to the crosswinds issue, I was also planning to have curvature from the sides, so there would not be any large flat areas exposed for major crosswinds. From experience weight on the roof is a much bigger issue than crosswinds.
I suppose to put it in context, the vehicle stands about 7ft high x 7ft wide at base and about 5ft wide on the roof, so as a percentage adding say 7" to the roof height is really not very much as a percentage, whether viewed from the front or side.
Only just occured to me, what I'm thinking of is virtually an upturned boat on the roof, just a very shallow one, maybe thats what I should be looking at as a design guide??
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2012, 06:59 PM   #15 (permalink)
Cd
Ultimate Fail
 
Cd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin,Texas
Posts: 3,585
Thanks: 2,872
Thanked 1,121 Times in 679 Posts
I say go for it !
How easy is this to test eh !
Just slap some thin sheet plywood or other flexible sheeting to the roof, close up the gaps, and test it.

If nothing good comes from it, just remove it.

Easy !

It won't even look all that silly either. Other drivers will just think you have something on you roof rack.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2012, 07:01 PM   #16 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyatt View Post
Let's just say he has aweful attachment on the top of his vehicle, and has to raise the roof 9" to get attached flow. Let's say the length of the roof is 9'. Total additional cross wind area is going to be on the order of 3.25 square feet. This is much less than the area that is added by raising the roof on a van (which is common, and those don't tip over in cross winds), and the edges running back will no doubt be rounded over for sideways attached flow thus mitigating much of the poor handling you are hinting at.
I added a 4' long SedanKamm partial boat tail to my little car and drove it that way for over 3 months. I experienced 60mph crosswinds and saw no ill effects. Jim has added a boat tail to his Insight and driven in 60mph crosswinds with no ill effects (actually improved his cross wind handling). How big is Aerohead's bed cover when viewed from the side? I contend, it is not an issue that makes it not worth pursuing.
If the roof is 5w x 9l and the peak of the addition is 9", it could have 3.75 sq ft frontal area and just about anything for side area depending on the ascending and descending geometry... likely guess puts side area at about the same as frontal.

I did not even so much as hint about handling. I was talking about the simple addition of more "frontal" area in yaw, and unlike off the back, we don't have the opportunity to boattail that.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 12:20 AM   #17 (permalink)
EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Central Alabama
Posts: 572

Big Salsa - '04 Toyota Sienna LE

Silver - '10 Toyota Prius III
Thanks: 110
Thanked 123 Times in 71 Posts
Before spending time and money on the roof, PLEASE take the time to tape some tufts to the roof and video tape the results. If it turns out that you have poor separation, start out by getting a good baseline by doing some coast down tests as ChazInMT had suggested, that way you will know more definitively if what you have done is worth while.
My friend has a van and we tested it out (he wanted to do much the same thing) and we found that he actually had very good attachment on the roof, and extrapolating from Hucho's findings, we figured we were best off to leave well enough alone. We have tried several varients of boat tails and trailing wake tests on his van. There is much fruit to be had if you will take the time/care to test.
@FrankLee: I think I see what you are saying, the cross wind comment threw me off. And yes, frontal area is a given, but according to Hucho's findings, Cd can be measurably lowered on a sedan by raising the profile of the roof, which could mean that there is larger fruit to be had on a vehicle with a longer roof (especially if it has detached flow). Naturally, Cd and CdA are two different beasts... My friend and I found it to not be worth pursuing in his case.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wyatt For This Useful Post:
PaleMelanesian (02-10-2012), Sven7 (02-10-2012)
Old 02-10-2012, 03:38 AM   #18 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 355

The Truck - '02 Nissan GU Patrol ST
Thanks: 5
Thanked 76 Times in 50 Posts
Think I'm starting to concur with the general opinion, that it may not be worthwile, will do the tuft test down the track. Took the spirit level out today and ran it over the roof, even though it looks flat, it does have a curve over it, not much, probably 1-1.5", but as said that may be enough to hold the airflow attached.
Working from the front at the moment, have sealed the grill, leaving 2 holes, 2x5" open for radiator. still a couple of small gaps to seal & smooth out.
I have had a variety of under bonnet (hood) temp gauges in place for a while, the ex radiator coolant temp has increased to 60C from 30C, but engine bay temps still the same, so the hot air is still being drawn out effectively under the car.
Once I finalise the front area, including tuft test on the top of the bonnet to determine if there is any value in adjusting bonnet profile, then I will look at the roof again.
Thanks for all the input, much appreciated and it made me think more deeply on all the relevant issues.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 06:09 PM   #19 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
euromodder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4,683

The SCUD - '15 Fiat Scudo L2
Thanks: 178
Thanked 652 Times in 516 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
A roof top addition such as OP described will present more "frontal" area to an x-wind than it will to a straight-on wind (which is exceedingly rare) because of the length of the roof and his stated intention to run it full length if not moreso.
Straight-on wind will be just as rare in the UK, yet Don-Bur get good results on their bulged trailers.

Properly executed, the idea certainly has merit.
Invest a bit (frontal area) to gain in Cd, and end up on the positive side.
Make the increase in area too large, and it will wash out the positive effect.
__________________
Strayed to the Dark Diesel Side

  Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 06:28 PM   #20 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
skyking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tacoma WA
Posts: 1,399

Woody - '96 Dodge Ram 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 23.82 mpg (US)

Avion and Woody - '96 Dodge/Avion Ram 2500/5th wheel combo
90 day: 15.1 mpg (US)

TD eye eye eye - '03 Volkswagen Beetle GLS
90 day: 49.05 mpg (US)

Mule - '07 Dodge Ram 3500 ST
Thanks: 743
Thanked 528 Times in 344 Posts
as far as drag reduction the math is pretty simple.
For example:
Lets say frontal of 34
Cd of 0.45
Cda of 15.3
after modding, frontal of 37.5
dividing 37.5 into 15.3, we'd need to reduce the Cd below 0.408 to break even.
If it is well done, and then extended into a super smooth short boat tail transition, I think the Cd would be much lower than that. I see money!
Frank, I understand your concerns. Consider this though:
This top will allow for some optimized radii along the sides that will Improve
crosswind performance!

__________________




2007 Dodge Ram 3500 SRW 4x4 with 6MT
2003 TDI Beetle
2002 TDI Beetle

currently parked - 1996 Dodge 2500 Cummins Turbodiesel
Custom cab, auto, 3.55 gears
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com