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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-03-2009, 10:08 PM   #21 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lebanon, OR
Posts: 90

Stickers - '91 Ford Tempo GL
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Send a message via AIM to Hermie Send a message via MSN to Hermie Send a message via Yahoo to Hermie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
Tempos weigh about 2500 lbs empty. Add two guys in the front seats at 200+ lbs each and 15 gallons of gas at about 90 pounds and you have a 3000 lb unit for a typical load. Then know that 2/3 the weight of Tempos is on the front wheels and you have 1000 lbs on each front wheel, and 500 lbs on each back wheel.


I've been a gearhead since before you were swimming around in your Dad's shorts, ya punk. Put your car on a scale and get back to us.
I weigh 150, and drive solo. Try again, jackass.


Neil: Explain your fixation on drag.

Madison: An Audi TT has enough rear lift to kill someone from spinning out of control at about 120 MPH. Your exaggerations either show a lack of maturity or IQ.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 12-03-2009, 10:10 PM   #22 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
The language was brought up in the other thread that you created this one from... I think it's probably in our best interests to relax a bit, guys.
__________________
"¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Christ For This Useful Post:
MetroMPG (12-03-2009)
Old 12-03-2009, 10:15 PM   #23 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lebanon, OR
Posts: 90

Stickers - '91 Ford Tempo GL
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Send a message via AIM to Hermie Send a message via MSN to Hermie Send a message via Yahoo to Hermie
If Frank would stop being so immature and jumping to insults, we wouldn't have this problem. But apparently, he has nothing intellegent to say, so he resorts to the only thing he knows.

I merely act as a mirror and return what is given. Remember the golden rule?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2009, 10:20 PM   #24 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,515

Blackfly - '98 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Last 3: 70.09 mpg (US)

MPGiata - '90 Mazda Miata
90 day: 52.71 mpg (US)

Even Fancier Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 70.75 mpg (US)

Appliance car - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage ES (base)
90 day: 52.48 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4,062
Thanked 6,960 Times in 3,604 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the examples posted so far, I'm only seeing lift becoming an issue at vehicle speeds that none of us who really care about fuel economy ever drive at. Speeds like 120, 110, 100 mph.

Hucho has a quote about design choices vs. lift in ordinary passenger cars, but I loaned my copy to Ben so can't look it up.
__________________
Project MPGiata! Mods for getting 50+ MPG from a 1990 Miata
Honda mods: Ecomodding my $800 Honda Fit 5-speed beater
Mitsu mods: 70 MPG in my ecomodded, dirt cheap, 3-cylinder Mirage.
Ecodriving test: Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown



EcoModder
has launched a forum for the efficient new Mitsubishi Mirage
www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2009, 10:21 PM   #25 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,515

Blackfly - '98 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Last 3: 70.09 mpg (US)

MPGiata - '90 Mazda Miata
90 day: 52.71 mpg (US)

Even Fancier Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 70.75 mpg (US)

Appliance car - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage ES (base)
90 day: 52.48 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4,062
Thanked 6,960 Times in 3,604 Posts
Also, yes everyone please: at least be civil.
__________________
Project MPGiata! Mods for getting 50+ MPG from a 1990 Miata
Honda mods: Ecomodding my $800 Honda Fit 5-speed beater
Mitsu mods: 70 MPG in my ecomodded, dirt cheap, 3-cylinder Mirage.
Ecodriving test: Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown



EcoModder
has launched a forum for the efficient new Mitsubishi Mirage
www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2009, 10:24 PM   #26 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,024 Times in 1,304 Posts
I am not Frank and have no real care about lift, or super wide tires, or driving at speeds where lift becomes any issue.

Where do you drive for best mileage where you have to worry about your car becoming airborne?

Seems like you just don't like to see someone post a different opinion from your own.

Since lift manifests itself in the vehicle rising up above it's normal ride height, maybe you could rig a camera that would show me that your car is in danger of becoming airborne at posted national speed limits.

Does lift exist? Certainly.

Do aerodynamic improvements, with measurable increases in mileage exacerbate the effects of lift?

Good question----my opinion is if the total aero drag is reduced then the increase in mileage would be mitigated by any increase in lift.

regards
Mech
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2009, 10:27 PM   #27 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lebanon, OR
Posts: 90

Stickers - '91 Ford Tempo GL
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Send a message via AIM to Hermie Send a message via MSN to Hermie Send a message via Yahoo to Hermie
Here's some more info:

"But why is lift so bad? You'd be right in assuming that no car produces such a dramatic amount of lift to be dangerous to drive. But lift does negatively affect performance in two ways. First, lift reduces the load acting on the tires. Since the maximum amount of traction available from each tire is a function of the load acting upon it, a reduced load means less available traction. Lift also causes extra drag called "induced drag," which is a good percentage of the overall drag on the car."

Car Aerodynamics Diagrams - Sport Compact Car Magazine




I didn't join here because I want to squeeze every drop of gas I can. I came here because it seemed like a wealth of information for DIY modifications. My interests lie in eliminating lift and reducing drag at the same time, so when I'm going 70 down the freeway, I know I have all the control I need to avoid accidents, and less drag so I'm paying less at the pump.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2009, 10:35 PM   #28 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,024 Times in 1,304 Posts
If there is sufficient lift to affect traction then it would also reduce rolling resistance and improve gas mileage.

Answer me one question?

What speeds are we talking about?

I seldom if ever go over 65 MPH. Most cars have down force on the front and lift on the rear. You can also get lift if the bottom of the front of your car has a valence panel like the early Z cars which was a major contributor to the front end lift on that model.

Many cars had lower front valences that created lift, and air dams cured that poor design a long time ago.

regards
Mech
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2009, 10:47 PM   #29 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lebanon, OR
Posts: 90

Stickers - '91 Ford Tempo GL
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Send a message via AIM to Hermie Send a message via MSN to Hermie Send a message via Yahoo to Hermie
Actually, almost all cars have a degree of front-end lift, unless they're well-designed high-end sports cars. As ncs posted on page 2, even the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution and Subaru Impreza WRX STI have front-end lift.

I'm talking about speeds of 65-80 MPH, the common speed of highways and freeways, which I drive on daily.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2009, 10:49 PM   #30 (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
Michael has been all over the internets with this **** for at least 4 months now... not finding too many buyers either.

So... where's the data? Where's the figures? Where's anything that adds up to anything- in your posts that is?

__________________


  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Aerodynamic Heavy-Duty Truck Trailer Cuts Fuel Consumption and Emissions By Up to 15% SVOboy Aerodynamics 11 12-27-2011 07:18 AM
Sources of Aerodynamic Drag in Automobiles and Possible Solutions SVOboy Aerodynamics 12 02-17-2010 02:09 PM
Modern Rolls Royce Phantom vs Aerodynamic Coupe Unheard Aerodynamics 2 06-19-2009 10:19 PM
How to create lift using the underside of your car trikkonceptz Aerodynamics 24 03-13-2009 11:10 AM
[article] 5 Real DIY Aerodynamic Mods Detroit Can Add for MPGs in '09 SVOboy Aerodynamics 15 07-01-2008 01:57 PM



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