Aerodynamic Streamlining Template: Part-C

[Sven7]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I'll try and get a couple of images up which illustrate the impact 'gaps' can have with respect to drag coefficient.
For the stock cars drafting,the cars in solo have Cd 0.315.
For the buses,they have a solo Cd 0.50.
I'm still working on the railroad materials but have been swamped with other duties.

link

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

I'd say that the first one is lower drag, and here's why: the shape of the front accelerates the air out and around the high point on the roof, and this creates a localized high pressure, which then help the air "spring" back and it helps maintain attached flow. So, it adds to the atmospheric pressure and this improves the air flow a bit.

If the rear of the shape is most important, then the front is next most important -- it matters less, but it matters. At the very least the second one has more surface drag.

A Fluid Dynamics professor would say that the forebody takes air at rest,and high static pressure,and accelerates it to its highest velocity pressure and lowest static pressure.Then the aft-body provides a gentle deceleration ramp in which the kinetic energy of the velocity pressure can be converted to the original ambient atmospheric pressure of the original air at rest.
The air always wants to be at a peaceful equilibrium and uniform pressure.
Streamlining allows to car to transit through a given volume of air,gently displacing it,then allowing it to gather itself back together as if you were never there.
Walter Lay's research proved that a perfect boat tail is useless if the nose isn't good enough,so the nose is not unimportant.But no amount of perfect nose can lead to low drag if the tail is wrong.
Reading last night about the EZ-HOOK 295 mph motorcycle streamliner of Cd 0.103,the Cal Tech guys reiterated that a round front is all that's necessary.The Devil's at the back.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by cfg83

Frank -



I want aerohead to chime in. Years ago he told me that I couldn't slide the template back on my wagon to "fit the template".



I knew someone would point that out. I think that the spoiler is deliberately sticking out to "trip the flow" (not the right term?).

CarloSW2

There must have been a specific context for telling you not to move the template.Don't remember,sorry!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by euromodder

But its length/diameter ratio is better, which should be lowering drag again.

It's true that the fineness ratio is increased, which is good, but when Hucho and others speak of only being able to lower a cars drag by further lengthening,I interpret that to mean that as the body is extended,the cross-section continues to reduce in the process.
This would be a good experiment,as I myself have remarked at times that for utility,a body might be stretched in constant section to guarantee some interior headroom which is what airliners do and submarines.
The one bus model goes to Cd 0.13 even with all its length and the Cal Tech GALCIT E-Z HOOK streamliner kinda takes Sam Whittingham's VARNA Diablo and stretches it out beyond 13-feet in length,and still pulls off Cd 0.103.
It would be nice to have $2,500/day to test the theory in Cal Tech's tunnel.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I'm glad we have more clarification on it. Looks to me like you have the top nailed.

Now I'll throw a small wrench in it and say it looks like the template could be split horizontally so that the belly line can be moved forward...

I think it's okay.The slide would allow a quick check of ground clearance for belly,fairings,diffuser.
And your point about shifting things for a best fit without chopping parts away but rather, adding to, is very important,as we want to make streamlining as painless as possible.

[MN Driver]

Thanks for showing the pictures of the trucks and busses. It reminds me of Car and Driver's response to the challenge for magazine publishers to get the best gas mileage with the 1st Gen Insight. They modified an SUV and tailgated the SUV getting 150mpg at 55mph.

The part about trucks reminds me of Luigi Colani's truck designs. No info about cD and only focuses on front aero but it would be better than the bricks that drive down the road today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMC4PlaR69w

[aerohead]

Colani hauled 7 of his creations to Bonneville for testing inside one of his rigs.In a photo of the tractor he had the Cd posted on its side.It was under 0.5.I'll look.

[ERTW]

fwiw, I just picked up an i5-3550 quad core, 3.30 GHz cpu, MSI motherboard, and 8 GB of 1600 MHz RAM $440 out the door, and $400 with rebates. I hope it cuts my sim time by at least 75%.

[SvdM]

I made this in SW, but I have no idea how to test it. It was for a recent competition on the GrabCAD site. I used the template for the most part of the roofline and the side intakes.
(The chassis and rollcage was given and participants had to design the body, so many dimensions can not be changed much.)

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by aerohead

A Fluid Dynamics professor would say that the forebody takes air at rest, and high static pressure, and accelerates it to its highest velocity pressure and lowest static pressure.

I'm having issues placing in my brain what you wrote.

Perhaps because it different than my typical thoughts which surrounds hovercraft lift and thrust systems.

In those systems I tend to think:

High air velocity = Low pressure

Low air velocity = High pressure

Still trying to get my head around the statement;
highest velocity pressure and lowest static pressure