Brilliant way to visualise/see air/fluid flow

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

...if you follow the recipe; it's difficult to respect ingress/egress, breakover angles and worst of all, rear view mirror requirements.

1) If you're talking about headroom, then, 'solutions' have been available for that for a long time.
2) Approach, breakover, and departure angles are a nothing burger.
3) I had a CDL for a dozen years and never relied on a center rear-view mirror in commercial vehicles. Current 'synthetic' vision is superior to optical systems, personally, I don't see an issue.

[freebeard]

Current 'synthetic' vision is superior to optical systems, personally, I don't see an issue.

How'a about legally?

[Piotrsko]

To my limited knowledge, I have not seen a minimum size required in rear view mirrors in any jurisdiction...... In Cali, dental mirrirs have been used for decades. Couple that with a camera/monitor system, should be golden.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

How'a about legally?

Everyone's waiting on the DOT to move the dial.

[j-c-c]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

The difference between black arts and engineering is advanced mathematics

But still conceding both have the potential of achieving positive outcomes?
I like to remember the example of giving an engineer a dimpled plastic-coated sphere a little over 1.5" in diameter and ask for the calculations of what forces, angles, etc are needed to place it within 2ft? of a 4" round hole 180 yards away, or just hand the same ball to Tiger and see in done in approx 90 seconds.

[j-c-c]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Makes my head hurt. The only good teardrop is a dead teardrop?

It would be interesting to put a balance beam in an aero/hydrodynamic tunnel trailing scale models of equal frontal area. I'd start with a teardrop and a Cybertruck. Or an old Beetle?

Or a teardrop with a 4% radius on the edges.

In my world, calling 4% a teardrop anything is how the public gets misled by marketing.

[freebeard]

....calling 4% a teardrop anything....

Teardrops don't have edges?

[j-c-c]

Nor does a golf ball.

[freebeard]

Hard to put doors on a golf ball.

I like to remember the example of giving an engineer a dimpled plastic-coated sphere a little over 1.5" in diameter and ask for the calculations of what forces, angles, etc are needed to place it within 2ft? of a 4" round hole 180 yards away, or just hand the same ball to Tiger and see in done in approx 90 seconds.

The reduction to practice would a 37 mm adaptoer for the AR-15 Can Cannon (normally 67 mm). 90 seconds vs subsonic.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Teardrops don't have edges?

Only a 'half-body', based on a 'teardrop' ( streamline body of revolution ) would have 'edges'; at its lower interface with the underbody.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ' 4% ' radii may be from Hucho's reporting on the R&D of the Volkswagen Vanagon, for which they discovered that forebody drag reduction hit 'saturation' with leading edge radii = 4% of body width.
Any additional 'softening' of the corners was rewarded with 'zero' additional drag reduction, hence 'saturated.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 'trailers', some use the square-root of the frontal area to use in the calculation, instead of width or height ( they're just creating an 'square -rectangular' cylinder of equal height and width, to simplify an averaging dimension ).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I use it in the dimensional analysis of each vehicle, reducing them to a rectangular cylinder, for which to create the bar-graph from which the comparisons can simply be made.
( the one car associated with the 'shortest' cylinder, compared to all of those from those associated with the same drag coefficient, is, by 'default', the 'optimum' , most 'efficient' body shape for the entire field.
It would be your 'template' for modifications.