Quote:
Originally Posted by jakobnev
Those don't look angled in the flow like VG's would be.
They look a bit like marketing and engineering had compromised on something that was intended to stabilize the flow.
|
... with
very strong input from marketing.
The angle may be getting almost close to VG, because the flow there is downward, (i.e., roughly parallel to the roof line) so their angle of attack might be 5-10 degrees.
Mercedes used to advertise their tailights that cleaned themselves aerodynamically. But then they dropped the design with the next
styling change. Hmmm. "We were only kidding... made a great story though, didn't it?"
I have "vortex generators" on the top of my proof concept prototype -- they look like little wings. They are actually the supports for the canopy when it is flipped open. They are streamlined mainly for fun, and as a conversation starter.
The other issue is that vortex generators are intended to energize flow over the surface of a vehicle (typically one that flies). Putting them at the very back of a vehicle makes no sense at all. The energy you have put into creating these supposed vorticies would be entirely lost.
Fins on late 50's cars had no real function at all, as proven by their elimination in the early 60's. But the manufacturer's (especially Chrysler) advertised them as stabilizing devices, rather than as the space-age-looking styling gimmicks that they were. They were positively huge as compared to these tiny bumps on the Prius taillights.
(Chevy: 1956: rounded fin sprouting; 1957: real fin; 58: no fin at all. 59: fin flopped over on it side; 60: flopped over fin with a corner. 61 fins gone for good, never to return.)
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
