10-16-2015, 02:14 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 447
Thanks: 277
Thanked 231 Times in 105 Posts
|
Aerodynamics should benefit BOTH Top Speed and MPG, right?
Hey guys, just wanted to make sure my line of thinking was correct. By improving the aerodynamics of the vehicle to get better MPG, we should in theory be able to have a higher top speed as well, right?
Are there other variables that I'm not considering?
__________________
|
|
|
|
 Today
|
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
|
|
10-16-2015, 02:49 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 811 Times in 594 Posts
|
Not necessarily. If you have a really overpowered vehicle, the top speed is limited by the engine redline and gearing.
|
|
|
|
|
10-16-2015, 05:50 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
|
Hypermiler
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,321
Thanks: 611
Thanked 434 Times in 284 Posts
|
But even in that case it will improve the time to reach top speed.
__________________
11-mile commute: 100 mpg - - - Tank: 90.2 mpg / 1191 miles
|
|
|
|
|
10-16-2015, 06:17 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,024 Times in 1,304 Posts
|
Reducing the aero drag will increase top speed and mpg, all other factors being equal.
regards
mech
|
|
|
|
|
10-16-2015, 09:25 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 692
Thanks: 371
Thanked 227 Times in 140 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatmaycome14
Are there other variables that I'm not considering?
|
Lift
F1 cars intentionally use additional aerodynamic drag in order to produce negative lift .. ie keep the car pressed firmly down against the road .. In that case reduced aerodynamic drag would reduce the aerodynamic down force they normally design into the the vehicle .. soo they have to compromise between desire for less wind resistance to move forward against ... vs .. also the desire for more down force pressing the car against the road.
(plus everything everyone else already said as well)
As they say ... use the right tool for the job .. sometimes .. in some contexts .. intentionally designed increased aerodynamic drag can be a net performance benefit .. but it isn't always so in all contexts.
- - - - -
Also for 'other variables' ... is there any 'cost' to reducing the aerodynamic drag ?... like increasing the weight , etc .. That will depend on the method used to reduce the aerodynamic drag .. A boat tail will add weight for example ... + & - ... if more + it's a net benefit.
__________________
Life Long Energy Efficiency Enthusiast
2000 Honda Insight - LiFePO4 PHEV - Solar
2020 Inmotion V11 PEV ~30miles/kwh
|
|
|
|
|
10-16-2015, 11:44 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
EcoModding Apprentice
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Thanks: 2
Thanked 48 Times in 38 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan
Lift
F1 cars intentionally use additional aerodynamic drag in order to produce negative lift .. ie keep the car pressed firmly down against the road .. In that case reduced aerodynamic drag would reduce the aerodynamic down force they normally design into the the vehicle .. soo they have to compromise between desire for less wind resistance to move forward against ... vs .. also the desire for more down force pressing the car against the road.
(plus everything everyone else already said as well)
As they say ... use the right tool for the job .. sometimes .. in some contexts .. intentionally designed increased aerodynamic drag can be a net performance benefit .. but it isn't always so in all contexts.
.
|
right. gotta keep it stable at speed or you crash like this land speed record Insight
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...mph-27588.html |
|
|
|
|
10-17-2015, 02:11 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
|
Not banned yet
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Texas Coast, close to Houston
Posts: 907
Blue - '03 Chevy S-10, LS
Thanks: 423
Thanked 265 Times in 212 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan
Lift
F1 cars intentionally .....
|
I seriously doubt he will be trading his car for an F1. speeds above a certain part play into "lift" but normal cars needn't worry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thenorm
right. gotta keep it stable at speed
|
again, highly doubtful speeds will reach 190.
I am pretty sure he is asking about a passenger car at highway speeds.
__________________
2003 S-10, 2.2L, 5 speed, ext cab long bed.
So far: DRL delete, remove bed mount toolbox.
|
|
|
|
|
10-17-2015, 02:32 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 811 Times in 594 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by deejaaa
I am pretty sure he is asking about a passenger car at highway speeds.
|
No, the OP specifically asked about TOP speed. I don't think there are many modern (say the last 40-50 years) that don't have top speeds well in excess of highway speeds - German autobahns excluded, of course :-) |
|
|
|
|
10-17-2015, 03:13 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 16,268
Thanks: 24,393
Thanked 7,360 Times in 4,760 Posts
|
top speed / mpg
If you have an actual drag-limited top speed,where the engine is actually at redline,then,with proper gearing,according to Hucho,a 30% drag reduction will equate to about a 10% increase in top speed at redline.
If re-geared,my T-100 would have done 111-mph.
Now,with the streamlining package she's good for 125-mph.
And + 9-mpg on the highway.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
10-17-2015, 09:04 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Phillips, WI
Posts: 1,017
Thanks: 192
Thanked 467 Times in 287 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatmaycome14
Hey guys, just wanted to make sure my line of thinking was correct. By improving the aerodynamics of the vehicle to get better MPG, we should in theory be able to have a higher top speed as well, right?
|
Short answer: yes.
AND you improve acceleration at higher speeds.
AND you improve speed and acceleration when driving into a strong headwind.
__________________
06 Canyon: The vacuum gauge plus wheel covers helped increase summer 2015 mileage to 38.5 MPG, while summer 2016 mileage was 38.6 MPG without the wheel covers. Drove 33,021 miles 2016-2018 at 35.00 MPG.
22 Maverick: Summer 2022 burned 62.74 gallons in 3145.1 miles for 50.1 MPG. Winter 2023-2024 - 2416.7 miles, 58.66 gallons for 41 MPG.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JRMichler For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
