Meet the Schloerwagen! (and a question for aeroheads)

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by aerohead

From later research,it appears that there is a distinct advantage to cutting as much airflow off as possible to the underside. Even with a perfect belly pan.

Thank you for giving that scanned book image some context.

The said advantage of cutting airflow to the underside most likely applies to drag alone, and not complete vehicle dynamics of trying to keep a car planted at speed.

Air will get under there no matter what, and you have to manage it.

Air management of the underside beyond that of a smooth belly pan will bear this out with ground effects in mind.

I'm also guessing that reducing the amount of air under the vehicle and as tested did not include increasing the frontal area, otherwise the results would have been tainted and perhaps opposite of desired.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Thank you for giving that scanned book image some context.

The said advantage of cutting airflow to the underside most likely applies to drag alone, and not complete vehicle dynamics of trying to keep a car planted at speed.

Air will get under there no matter what, and you have to manage it.

Air management of the underside beyond that of a smooth belly pan will bear this out with ground effects in mind.

I'm also guessing that reducing the amount of air under the vehicle and as tested did not include increasing the frontal area, otherwise the results would have been tainted and perhaps opposite of desired.

*As far as directional stability goes,the concept cars were designed for generic posted speed limits.Electronic governors would prevent someone jockeying for a Darwin-moment from doing themselves in.
*Front airdams are the first thing to deploy with the active suite.
*Then the nose comes down,actually cloaking a bit of front and rear tire.
*Finally,the tail rises a smidgeon to acquire the ideal rake for low drag.
*They're skipping all ground-effects tunnels as they carry an induced-drag penalty.
*Since 1976,lift and stability aren't an issue after the work of Alberto Morelli demonstrated the 'banana' car.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Alberto Morelli demonstrated the 'banana' car.

I cannot find good images of this car, only the profile as posted in this forum and of the Aptera.

[basjoos]

The Pininfarina CNR-PF is his "banana car".
Concept Car of the Week: Pininfarina CNR-PF (1978) - Car Design News

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by basjoos

The Pininfarina CNR-PF is his "banana car".
Concept Car of the Week: Pininfarina CNR-PF (1978) - Car Design News

I just posted that link in the; interesting-aerodynamic-cars-mike-vetters-etv thread.

I wasn't sure that was the one.

Somehow thought I was looking for something older, earlier.

[NeilBlanchard]

1978 CNR - Pininfarina -

Concept Car of the Week: Pininfarina CNR-PF (1978) - Car Design News

There is a Popular Science article as a PDF out there somewhere...

[Cd]

Schlrwagen mit Mini-Cw-Wert: Aerodynamik-Test des DLR - AUTO BILD KLASSIK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIpfTmHzOqM

Surely this has been posted, yes ? I had never seen a video of the aero test on the car.

[aerohead]

This is my first look at it.Thanks!
Someone showed it 'backwards' before.Not much value that way.
This is good,as at 22-seconds you can see the flow separation off the roof due to the steep contour.
At Cd 0.186 it's nothing to laugh at,but Kamm would have said to relax the roofline,gain some interior volume,then chop it off like a loaf of bread at the same length.
Here's the other shot.You can see how the smoke is not following the roof.

Here the Volkhart Sagitta is doing the same thing,separating right where the tangent angle has hit 22-degrees

Here,Kamm/Fachsenfeld have relaxed the pseudo-Jaray contour,going full-'Template' for lowest drag.(This FKFS model has no edge radii,nor tumblehome,critical to a fastbacks top performance),so we have to settle for Cd 0.21).

Here,the 'Template' anticipates unstable aft-body flow

http://www.prototyp-hamburg.de/newsl.../Windkanal.jpg

[kach22i]

UPDATE 09/23/15

Not sure if this excellent drawing of the Pillbug has been posted in here before.

The Bizarre German Car That Was Ultra-Aerodynamic—And Totally Impractical | WIRED

[freebeard]

I've always liked WiReD, but I really take exception to their characterization: Ultra-aerodynamic—but totally impractical.

So why didn’t this wind-breaking wonder become the new template for cars everywhere? Schlör’s focus on aerodynamics came at the cost of other considerations. For example, the car is remarkably sleek head-on and moves through the wind almost effortlessly, but the car is so tall that a stiff crosswind could send it careening to the side.
...
While a fascinating historical relic, the Schlörwagen doesn’t have much to teach us about automotive design, Livingstone says. It was simply too singular in purpose, with little concession to the other things we want from our cars. “Clearly, modern cars must essentially embrace a form inherently less aerodynamic to afford a decent ‘package’ for the cabin space, and also deliver good visibility, crash performance and engine cooling.”

The problem is people will conflate 'was' and 'is'. All I see is the lack of chance for proper development. A lot of things never made it out of the turmoil that enveloped that time and place.

Visibility —external video monitors
Crash performance —wut?
Engine cooling —magnetic drive
Cross-wind performance. So what is it? Does it yaw into the wind like a Dymaxion, roll downwind, lift? What?

They didn't even mention changing the front tire (TPMS), or those 30s style door cut-lines. I say bring it on.
____________

What's really weird though is that plan drawing. The lightening holes in the floor-pan are very specifically sized and spaced to offer an evenly supported rim around that central hole. It's like it was designed to load onto a turret, not support a floor and seats. What the what?
____________

Every one of their objections is answered by the Volkhart-Sagitta. At least for small people.