Quote:
Originally Posted by renault_megane_dci
Where I work (automotive) it is said that a lower front helps the Cd of a car. The side view of your car shows the opposite although it is not loaded.
......
What is the size of the rims ?
.... flat stainless wheel covers that would not look too badly out of place...
|
I have read a bit about this here and there. The travel height, or at least a part of it, is often included in the calculation of frontal area. A modern car with nice looking smooth body can often still have a terribly rought belly. The engine compartment is often partly covered with plastic but the rest can look truely terrible. If you reduce ride height and add an air dam you reduce the ammount of air that can be beaten by this nightmareish part of the car.
The good old Saab 96, designed by aircraft engineers, is almost perfectly smooth below with only the exhaust pipe hanging down. The exhaust is entirely in line with the car so the projected area is quite small. Wheels are narrow 165R15". There's a rectangular open box-shaped structure around the rear axle, but that can easily be covered with plastic.
The aircraft engineers of Saab must have known better than most other car designers at the time how bad the upper rear end is. The slope is way to steep, but that shape was almost standard in the late 1940's. The original Saab car prototype and the first production model "92" had what I guess was a bit better rear end shape than the later 96.
The rear is probably the worst part of these cars. The second worst is the fenders, entirely open below and with the wheels deep in from the sides. The rear fenders are quite easy to cover properly but the front fenders is a bit of a challenge... The front wheels are about 10 cm/4" in from the sides.
)
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
: 
