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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-09-2020, 04:43 PM   #11 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 11,529
Thanks: 18,542
Thanked 6,038 Times in 3,687 Posts
how much lower

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vman455 View Post
I really think you've put yourself at a disadvantage working from such an old copy of the book. I have the 4th edition (1998), which isn't even the newest but is the last edition edited by Hucho.

On p. 53, under the heading 1.4 Aerodynamics and Design, Hucho writes:


You can go ahead and think that car design is all some sort of conspiracy, and that aerodynamicists have no say or are blinded somehow by corporate culture into producing shapes that have much higher drag than the lowest-drag experimental models or concept cars. But the reality is they work under constraints: people, who are motivated by cultural norms, buy cars; people buy cars for practical reasons and emotional ones; exterior design is dictated by both stylistic considerations (4 wheels, a standard-ish dimensional footprint, proportional wheels, aggressive faces, etc.) and technical ones (crash test performance, NVH, fuel economy, handling and performance, etc.).

The reason we don't have cars that look like tadpoles is simple: hardly anyone would buy one. Why? They look "abnormal." With a long tail, they won't fit in a standard garage, and if you make them small enough to do that they end up being tiny inside. They compromise packaging, interior volume, sightlines, and practicality.

Probably the best example of this so far is the original Honda Insight. That car is as close to a no-compromise car as have ever been brought to market. It had low drag and low weight. Consequently, it was a sales flop. People didn't want a two-seat car that didn't have an insane amount of power. People didn't want to pay extra for an all-aluminum body. People didn't want a tiny car with wheel skirts that looked different than every other car at their local Honda dealership.

It's stupid, yes, and buyers consistently buy impractical cars with feeble justifications--but this is not because of some conspiracy preventing their rational behavior. It's because we're irrational already.

We're seeing this start to change, as low-drag design becomes a premium feature, with cars like the Model S and 3, Taycan, and now S-class returning lower drag coefficients without significant changes to exterior design features. It remains to be seen how much lower they can go.
Cd 0.09.

__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 09-09-2020, 05:28 PM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: California
Posts: 371

Tahoe 2020 - '08 Chevy Tahoe H
90 day: 20.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 82 Times in 76 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vman455 View Post
I really think you've put yourself at a disadvantage working from such an old copy of the book. I have the 4th edition (1998), which isn't even the newest but is the last edition edited by Hucho.

On p. 53, under the heading 1.4 Aerodynamics and Design, Hucho writes:


You can go ahead and think that car design is all some sort of conspiracy, and that aerodynamicists have no say or are blinded somehow by corporate culture into producing shapes that have much higher drag than the lowest-drag experimental models or concept cars. But the reality is they work under constraints: people, who are motivated by cultural norms, buy cars; people buy cars for practical reasons and emotional ones; exterior design is dictated by both stylistic considerations (4 wheels, a standard-ish dimensional footprint, proportional wheels, aggressive faces, etc.) and technical ones (crash test performance, NVH, fuel economy, handling and performance, etc.).

The reason we don't have cars that look like tadpoles is simple: hardly anyone would buy one. Why? They look "abnormal." With a long tail, they won't fit in a standard garage, and if you make them small enough to do that they end up being tiny inside. They compromise packaging, interior volume, sightlines, and practicality.

Probably the best example of this so far is the original Honda Insight. That car is as close to a no-compromise car as have ever been brought to market. It had low drag and low weight. Consequently, it was a sales flop. People didn't want a two-seat car that didn't have an insane amount of power. People didn't want to pay extra for an all-aluminum body. People didn't want a tiny car with wheel skirts that looked different than every other car at their local Honda dealership.

It's stupid, yes, and buyers consistently buy impractical cars with feeble justifications--but this is not because of some conspiracy preventing their rational behavior. It's because we're irrational already.

We're seeing this start to change, as low-drag design becomes a premium feature, with cars like the Model S and 3, Taycan, and now S-class returning lower drag coefficients without significant changes to exterior design features. It remains to be seen how much lower they can go.
it's cooling system limitations as well ICE requires a bigger cooling system then a EV
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Tahoe_Hybrid For This Useful Post:
aerohead (09-16-2020)
Old 09-10-2020, 02:02 PM   #13 (permalink)
Tyrant-at-large
 
Vman455's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 1,641

Little Red - retired - '05 Honda Civic EX
90 day: 49.03 mpg (US)

Pope Pious the Prius - '13 Toyota Prius Two
Team Toyota
SUV
90 day: 59.03 mpg (US)
Thanks: 176
Thanked 1,436 Times in 755 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
Cd 0.09.
Will never happen in a production car. Hucho doesn't think so, either--I asked him, and he wrote, "Now, more than 40 years later, cD = 0.20 seems to be possible for cars manufactured in large volume. And thatís it."

You can go on wishing for unicorns to become real. Or...you can be happy we have horses and look for the best horse possible.
__________________

  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vman455 For This Useful Post:
aerohead (09-11-2020), ksa8907 (09-10-2020)
Old 09-10-2020, 06:39 PM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: California
Posts: 371

Tahoe 2020 - '08 Chevy Tahoe H
90 day: 20.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 82 Times in 76 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vman455 View Post
I really think you've put yourself at a disadvantage working from such an old copy of the book. I have the 4th edition (1998), which isn't even the newest but is the last edition edited by Hucho.

On p. 53, under the heading 1.4 Aerodynamics and Design, Hucho writes:


You can go ahead and think that car design is all some sort of conspiracy, and that aerodynamicists have no say or are blinded somehow by corporate culture into producing shapes that have much higher drag than the lowest-drag experimental models or concept cars. But the reality is they work under constraints: people, who are motivated by cultural norms, buy cars; people buy cars for practical reasons and emotional ones; exterior design is dictated by both stylistic considerations (4 wheels, a standard-ish dimensional footprint, proportional wheels, aggressive faces, etc.) and technical ones (crash test performance, NVH, fuel economy, handling and performance, etc.).

The reason we don't have cars that look like tadpoles is simple: hardly anyone would buy one. Why? They look "abnormal." With a long tail, they won't fit in a standard garage, and if you make them small enough to do that they end up being tiny inside. They compromise packaging, interior volume, sightlines, and practicality.

Probably the best example of this so far is the original Honda Insight. That car is as close to a no-compromise car as have ever been brought to market. It had low drag and low weight. Consequently, it was a sales flop. People didn't want a two-seat car that didn't have an insane amount of power. People didn't want to pay extra for an all-aluminum body. People didn't want a tiny car with wheel skirts that looked different than every other car at their local Honda dealership.

It's stupid, yes, and buyers consistently buy impractical cars with feeble justifications--but this is not because of some conspiracy preventing their rational behavior. It's because we're irrational already.

We're seeing this start to change, as low-drag design becomes a premium feature, with cars like the Model S and 3, Taycan, and now S-class returning lower drag coefficients without significant changes to exterior design features. It remains to be seen how much lower they can go.
the average car is 185inches long(i.e 2020 civic, corolla ) you can fit a Chevy suburban 225" in the average garage
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Tahoe_Hybrid For This Useful Post:
aerohead (09-16-2020)
Old 09-10-2020, 08:26 PM   #15 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,552

Volt, gas only - '12 Chevrolet Volt Premium
90 day: 38.02 mpg (US)

Volt, electric only - '12 Chevrolet Volt Premium
90 day: 132.26 mpg (US)

Yukon Denali Hybrid - '12 GMC Yukon Denali Hybrid
90 day: 21.48 mpg (US)
Thanks: 168
Thanked 343 Times in 238 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vman455 View Post
Will never happen in a production car. Hucho doesn't think so, either--I asked him, and he wrote, "Now, more than 40 years later, cD = 0.20 seems to be possible for cars manufactured in large volume. And thatís it."

You can go on wishing for unicorns to become real. Or...you can be happy we have horses and look for the best horse possible.
I've skipped through a lot of this thread but I 100% agree with the above. "The juice has to be worth the squeeze."

At some point it is not worth the small increase in efficiency to lose comfort, capability, style, safety, etc.
__________________




  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ksa8907 For This Useful Post:
aerohead (09-11-2020)
Old 09-12-2020, 06:51 AM   #16 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 773
Thanks: 53
Thanked 742 Times in 465 Posts
The law of diminishing returns is obvious.

Someone asked me the other day what aero drag improvements I would recommend on a Tesla Model S.

I said: "None that I'd be confident with."

That was in the context of Rab Palin (Tesla aerodynamicist on the Model S) telling me he'd been having discussions with an aftermarket company developing Tesla Model S bits to - purportedly - reduce drag. Ones he said, that would not do so.

And hell, who would better know than he?

But still leaves us many billions of vehicles where it's easy to reduce drag (and/or lift)...
__________________
Modifying the Aerodynamics of Your Road Car

"Your book is unique! It was high time that someone covered vehicle aerodynamics through the practical eyes of someone like you."

- Dr Wolf-Heinrich Hucho, the founder of modern vehicle aerodynamics
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JulianEdgar For This Useful Post:
aerohead (09-16-2020)
Old 09-12-2020, 05:13 PM   #17 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
skyking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tacoma WA
Posts: 1,338

Woody - '96 Dodge Ram 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 23.82 mpg (US)

Avion and Woody - '96 Dodge/Avion Ram 2500/5th wheel combo
90 day: 15.1 mpg (US)

TD eye eye eye - '03 Volkswagen Beetle GLS
90 day: 49.05 mpg (US)

Mule - '07 Dodge Ram 3500 ST
Thanks: 658
Thanked 487 Times in 316 Posts
Your'e obsessed with posting about lift. Is it because you've got the instrumentation to measure it?
In the realm of economic driving, the destabilizing effects lift are not an issue. Neither is adding downforce.
What we care about here is drag. We do indeed measure it with adding mods, then doing tuft testing, A-B-A testing, coast down tests. Long term gathering of data over the same ground, day after day.
We don't have many million dollar wind tunnels.
In the speed ranges in question, measuring lift is a roundabout way of measuring a component of drag. It is by no means the source of all drag. Not even close.
I suggest you climb down off your well beaten dead high horse and try participating in a civil manner.
You have a great deal to add here. Try adding it and not contesting every other thing you see.
__________________




2007 Dodge Ram 3500 SRW 4x4 with 6MT
2003 TDI Beetle
2002 TDI Beetle

currently parked - 1996 Dodge 2500 Cummins Turbodiesel
Custom cab, auto, 3.55 gears
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2020, 07:13 PM   #18 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 773
Thanks: 53
Thanked 742 Times in 465 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking View Post
Your'e obsessed with posting about lift. Is it because you've got the instrumentation to measure it?
I can measure changes in drag and panel pressures too, and I often write about those as well.

Quote:
In the realm of economic driving, the destabilizing effects lift are not an issue. Neither is adding downforce.
Unless you never exceed 80 km/h, not true.

Quote:
What we care about here is drag. We do indeed measure it with adding mods, then doing tuft testing, A-B-A testing, coast down tests. Long term gathering of data over the same ground, day after day.
Well, any coast down testing that you can perform on a normal road is quite invalid - it's one of the things that Aerohead states here that is right. I am not sure what your point is with your other tests - they're great!

Quote:
We don't have many million dollar wind tunnels.
Neither do I - I am not sure of your point.

Quote:
In the speed ranges in question, measuring lift is a roundabout way of measuring a component of drag.
That does not appear to be the case. An example is the Porsche Taycan that has lower drag at higher lift (ie spoiler down).

Quote:
It is by no means the source of all drag. Not even close.
I've never suggested that is the case

Quote:
I suggest you climb down off your well beaten dead high horse and try participating in a civil manner.
Well, the 'civil manner' of the group has allowed complete misconceptions and erroneous advice about car aerodynamics to flourish for a long time. Might be a bit better if BS is called out and not brushed under the carpet.

Quote:
You have a great deal to add here. Try adding it and not contesting every other thing you see.
I contest only misconceptions, errors and misleading advice. Unfortunately, there is a lot of it.
__________________
Modifying the Aerodynamics of Your Road Car

"Your book is unique! It was high time that someone covered vehicle aerodynamics through the practical eyes of someone like you."

- Dr Wolf-Heinrich Hucho, the founder of modern vehicle aerodynamics
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JulianEdgar For This Useful Post:
aerohead (09-16-2020)
Old 09-12-2020, 08:14 PM   #19 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 16,653
Thanks: 4,409
Thanked 5,604 Times in 4,467 Posts
Quote:
I contest only misconceptions, errors and misleading advice. Unfortunately, there is a lot of it.
We learned in the sixties and forgot this again: To fight is to feed it. Counter bad speech with good speech.

Propose a template framework for a first approximation across a range of use cases for airflow management.

Something like Morelli's Urban Car.
__________________
.

Change my, you know, the thing.

_________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2020, 08:29 PM   #20 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 773
Thanks: 53
Thanked 742 Times in 465 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard View Post
Propose a template framework for a first approximation across a range of use cases for airflow management.

Something like Morelli's Urban Car.
Why? For car modification, I think it is the completely wrong approach.

__________________
Modifying the Aerodynamics of Your Road Car

"Your book is unique! It was high time that someone covered vehicle aerodynamics through the practical eyes of someone like you."

- Dr Wolf-Heinrich Hucho, the founder of modern vehicle aerodynamics
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com