10-09-2011, 11:03 PM
|
#11 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Red Deer, AB
Posts: 421
Thanks: 39
Thanked 96 Times in 69 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arragonis
Not just head winds, side winds are pretty bad too.
|
A partial side wind can even be worse than a direct headwind because it is increasing the effective frontal area of the vehicle as well as the wind speed. There are some other threads which discuss this quite well.
__________________
Almost all my driving is done 1-5 miles at a time.
Best short trip: 2.4 l/100 km, 3.9 km
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
10-10-2011, 10:00 AM
|
#12 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 23
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 2 Posts
|
Thanks for the feedback so far but I do have a question for jakobnev
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakobnev
The force acting on the car is the same, but since speed is 50% grater in one example you need 50% more power! (P=V*F)
But the energy is the same, it's simply force times distance: W=F*D
So it's all down to what power lets the engine reach the better position on it's BSFC-chart.
|
jakobnev:
For the P=V*F formula, shouldn't the speed V be considered as the effective air speed not the ground speed. Here's my logic with this. So if you had a 50 mph tail wind and this helped sustain the car along at 30 mph without any engine power, and you then turned on the engine and just pushed the gas pedal ever so slightly to sustain 30.1 mph would it be incorrect to write this as P=30.1*F ?, would it be more correct to have something like P=0.1*F, with most of the power likely overcoming the rolling resistance (F). I suspect operators of chassis dynamometers would know a thing or two about the mpg at various speeds with the absence of air drag.
|
|
|
10-10-2011, 11:54 AM
|
#13 (permalink)
|
Eco-ventor
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: sweden
Posts: 1,645
Thanks: 76
Thanked 709 Times in 450 Posts
|
It would be P=30.1*F, but with very low F.
__________________
2016: 128.75L for 1875.00km => 6.87L/100km (34.3MPG US)
2017: 209.14L for 4244.00km => 4.93L/100km (47.7MPG US)
|
|
|
10-14-2011, 08:29 PM
|
#14 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Phillips, WI
Posts: 1,018
Thanks: 192
Thanked 467 Times in 287 Posts
|
Here's some data to play with. Today I drove straight west 80 miles against a direct headwind. The wind was 15 MPH gusting to 25, temperature 45 degrees, elevation same at both ends. Stayed long enough for the engine to cool off, then returned. Same route, same wind, temperature 48 degrees F. Same speed both ways - 55 MPH. No drafting either direction.
31.0 MPG going, 38.2 MPG return.
Engine efficiency was lower on the return, with much of the trip at only 6 to 7 PSI MAP. One more gear in the transmission would have been nice.
|
|
|
10-14-2011, 10:18 PM
|
#15 (permalink)
|
MPGuino Supporter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hungary
Posts: 1,808
iNXS - '10 Opel Zafira 111 Anniversary Suzi - '02 Suzuki Swift GL
Thanks: 831
Thanked 709 Times in 457 Posts
|
Indeed. I also travelled against a pretty strong headwind going into work today (WUnderGround.com says it was around 19 MPH coming from the west). I can normally get around 22 MPG coming into work. Today, I could be lucky I got 20.2 MPG. I figured that the truck encountered airspeeds of up to 90 MPH.
|
|
|
10-15-2011, 04:49 PM
|
#16 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 16,335
Thanks: 24,453
Thanked 7,394 Times in 4,789 Posts
|
EPA: wind effects
According to EPA,the following effects were measured for a passenger car traveling at 50-mph in an 18-mph wind
* headwind= 17% mpg loss
* crosswind= 2% mpg loss
* tailwind = 19% mpg gain
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-16-2011, 09:02 AM
|
#17 (permalink)
|
Recreation Engineer
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Somewhere USA
Posts: 525
Thanks: 333
Thanked 138 Times in 103 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
According to EPA,the following effects were measured for a passenger car traveling at 50-mph in an 18-mph wind
* headwind= 17% mpg loss
* crosswind= 2% mpg loss
* tailwind = 19% mpg gain
|
Interesting data - thanks.
Note: the gain and loss symmetry. -17% is 0.83x and its inverse, 1/0.83 equals 1.205x or +20.5 percent. Interesting indeed.
Last edited by KamperBob; 10-16-2011 at 09:03 AM..
Reason: typo
|
|
|
10-17-2011, 12:53 PM
|
#18 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 23
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 2 Posts
|
Interesting to see how much these EPA findings can be applied amongst the wide variety of car shapes. I've heard of some cars being more aerodynamic in reverse, which is not hard to believe because most people prefer a "pointy front design" to their cars.
|
|
|
|