Why aren't we using AirShaper to do aerodynamic testing ?
 

Hey guys, I'm just wondering why none of us have used AirShaper to do testing on our cars ?
Or any CFD for that matter.

When the guy from AirShaper came to the forum, you all just threw negative comments at him.

I just watched a video that they posted on the Rivian.
The tests were so accurate, that a non symetrical panel gap on one side of the vehicle was showing more turbulence than the other.
https://youtu.be/LxXCOT5ID20

[citation needed]

ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/airshaper-39560.html only has the usual suspects. I remember the guy but not the negative comments.

I’ve thought about it for my Ioniq but it’s pricey. Maybe they could do a free example with my car for my YouTube channel since they’ve done some free collabs with others.

CFD on Hyundai Ioniq
 

True, it's quite pricey to offer free runs, but the main challenge is to get a high quality 3D model. We've compared runs on public 3D models of a Tesla model 3 (free or available for just 100 USD or so) to real 3D scans and Cd can vary as much as 30% (even when the free model looks really good).

We have access to such models, but they're highly confidential (and highly expensive to purchase) so we can only share some insights via articles.

In case of the Ioniq, we actually did a collaboration with A2MAC1 (using such a detailed model):
autoevolution.com/news/hyundai-did-not-give-the-ioniq-5-a-rear-wiper-but-shouldn-t-it-165180.html

autoevolution.com/news/hyundai-ioniq-5-really-needs-a-rear-wiper-aerodynamic-studies-reveal-170529.html

Hope you like the content!!

I’m talking about the original Ioniq hybrid. Not the Ioniq 5 electric suv. Totally different cars. Hyundai is almost as bad as naming cars as Microsoft with x box one x series sx

The Ioniq hybrid already has a base cd of 0.24 and I’m trying to lower it to .20 or lower for my YouTube channel

Probably because it's not 30+ years old, obsolete, junk science, ect.

Less than $55 U.S. ( 50 Euros ) is not much at all to pay for a ballpark estimate for a design.
Even I can afford that, and I'm nearly "paycheck to paycheck poor ".
Not only do you get the cD values of the car, but you also get visual data on the problem areas where there is high drag on your design.
Even if the test results were WAY off, you could still benefit. Simply running the test twice ( A , B results ) after making a change would show you if drag was reduced
I can't understand how we are more content simply guessing at our designs.
I have a hard time learning 3d programs, and CFD just boggles my mind.
I'm currently trying to re-teach myself 3D modeling.
If I had a model of my design already created, I certainly would have tested it.
There are so many of you that are brilliant matematicians, i just can't understand why we aren't testing using CFD more often.

Me & AirShaper
 

1) I have no computer
2) I have no facility to perform 3D scans of body exterior, wheelhouses without wheels, interior sides of wheels, radiator, engine & accessories, transmission, driveshaft, suspension, etc., and stitch all the scans together to create a data cloud as a manufacturer would possess, in order to input that into a CFD package.
3) No facility for pre-processing or post-processing, as is required for some CFD packages.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) In 2021, the Ford F-150 was analyzed in AirShaper.
5) AirShaper generated a Cd 0.463 for the truck.
6) Ford Motor Company had published Cd 0.404 for that truck.
7) That's a 14.6% discrepancy between CFD and a 'ground-truthed' Ford wind tunnel/CFD value.
8) An EcoModder member, say, looking for results for a 'air-curtain' modification capable of delta-Cd 0.005 might be in trouble.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9) Don't get me wrong, I'm a 'fan' of AirShaper, and it's capable of discerning changes you'd never discover in a full-scale wind tunnel, whether qualitatively, or quantitatively.
10) I'll just never, personally, be within the demographic which could 'use', enjoy, and share the technology.
11) I'm stuck using aerodynamic research published since the 19th- Century to inform my modifications, as Dr. Hucho admonished us all to do so.

I used OpenFOAM to model my old car with vortex generators before its transmission sprung a leak. Like it has been said before the hardest thing is getting an accurate 3D model. Without an accurate model you are just blowing smoke. You also need to validate your simulation with known models.

That said OpenFOAM is free and open source and is used professionally. You just need to know Linux and be willing to endure a steep learning curve.

I bought a audi a2 3d model from the web to visualize my new bodykit. Looks really good, but dimensions are off almost everywhere. So cannot use it for cfd simulations with great accuracy at least.