01-21-2019, 05:48 PM
|
#101 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 28,703
Thanks: 8,147
Thanked 8,925 Times in 7,368 Posts
|
Thinking of the rear undertray, I have a front-wheel drive vehicle with a box-beam rear axle. The axle is quite visible under the rear bumper. Would it be better to have the undertray below the axle[s travel] or above it with a teardrop profile added to the axle?
__________________
.
.Without freedom of speech we wouldn't know who all the idiots are. -- anonymous poster
____________________
.
.Three conspiracy theorists walk into a bar --You can't say that is a coincidence.
|
|
|
|
 Today
|
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
|
|
01-21-2019, 06:09 PM
|
#102 (permalink)
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,060
Thanks: 107
Thanked 1,605 Times in 1,136 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
Thinking of the rear undertray, I have a front-wheel drive vehicle with a box-beam rear axle. The axle is quite visible under the rear bumper. Would it be better to have the undertray below the axle[s travel] or above it with a teardrop profile added to the axle?
|
Sounds like my Insight - torsion beam rear axle. I went under the axle with the undertray (pic in video), using a steel frame to support the ABS sheet. In the case of the Insight, that also allowed me to incorporate a diffuser. |
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JulianEdgar For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
01-24-2019, 03:13 PM
|
#103 (permalink)
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,060
Thanks: 107
Thanked 1,605 Times in 1,136 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to JulianEdgar For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
01-26-2019, 03:41 PM
|
#104 (permalink)
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,060
Thanks: 107
Thanked 1,605 Times in 1,136 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to JulianEdgar For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
01-26-2019, 05:51 PM
|
#105 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 28,703
Thanks: 8,147
Thanked 8,925 Times in 7,368 Posts
|
The car shown in my profile pic lost 5mph of top speed after the ad hoc repairs after a collision. I think it was mostly from the elephant-ear fenders, not the always-popped-up headlights. That left headlight was like sighting down a laser pointer driving at night, but the whole nose from the A-pillar forward was replaced eventually.
Since we have OP and aerohead together in the thread, what do you think of this? It's the Theoretical Template, truncated with an exponential bell for a difusser.
The thinking is that the curved bottom edge would form vortexes that implode the wake compared to a straight edge.
The thinking on the Dasher was to put a kick-up in the undertray and have a wing on the axle that would apply to unsprung weight directly, but it's too complicated by the exhaust and gas tank. 
__________________
.
.Without freedom of speech we wouldn't know who all the idiots are. -- anonymous poster
____________________
.
.Three conspiracy theorists walk into a bar --You can't say that is a coincidence.
|
|
|
|
|
01-26-2019, 07:17 PM
|
#106 (permalink)
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,060
Thanks: 107
Thanked 1,605 Times in 1,136 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
Since we have OP and aerohead together in the thread, what do you think of this? It's the Theoretical Template, truncated with an exponential bell for a difusser.
( |
To be honest, I wouldn't know. The more I researched the subject, the less that I think people can tell just by looking. I read paper after paper where the engineers were surprised by the test results - whether that testing was in a wind tunnel or on the road. Maybe CFD at this stage? (And then take that as a 'best guess' rather than a definitive answer.)
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JulianEdgar For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
01-27-2019, 09:20 PM
|
#107 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Phillips, WI
Posts: 1,018
Thanks: 192
Thanked 467 Times in 287 Posts
|
I just finished reading my copy of the book. Excellent job. This book could be more accurately titled "The Ecomodders Aerodynamic Bible".
I now know why my wheel covers did not affect the gas mileage.
My air dam also did not affect the gas mileage. I now know how to find out why, and then what to do about it. Full disclosure: The old air dam was made of brittle plastic and was in several pieces held together with Gorilla tape. There should be room for drag reduction.
My 100% grille block has never caused overheating, even on a long upgrade at 91 deg F with the AC running. I think I should look further into that also. There's room to further reduce drag.
He did miss one thing. The PNGV - Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, where GM, Ford, and Chrysler built full size cars capable of 72 to 80 MPG.
__________________
06 Canyon: The vacuum gauge plus wheel covers helped increase summer 2015 mileage to 38.5 MPG, while summer 2016 mileage was 38.6 MPG without the wheel covers. Drove 33,021 miles 2016-2018 at 35.00 MPG.
22 Maverick: Summer 2022 burned 62.74 gallons in 3145.1 miles for 50.1 MPG. Winter 2023-2024 - 2416.7 miles, 58.66 gallons for 41 MPG.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JRMichler For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
01-27-2019, 09:25 PM
|
#108 (permalink)
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,060
Thanks: 107
Thanked 1,605 Times in 1,136 Posts
|
Thanks for the praise.
He didn't miss the PNGV cars - he couldn't find any technical information on those cars' aerodynamics. (If there's any around, I'd love to see it.)
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to JulianEdgar For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
01-30-2019, 02:08 PM
|
#109 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 16,312
Thanks: 24,439
Thanked 7,386 Times in 4,783 Posts
|
Pngv
Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianEdgar
Thanks for the praise.
He didn't miss the PNGV cars - he couldn't find any technical information on those cars' aerodynamics. (If there's any around, I'd love to see it.)
|
The only thing I've seen was in a circa 1999 Mechanical Engineering magazine,from an engineering student at the University of New Mexico,Las Cruces' campus,Central Plant.
It covered the development of the General Motors 'Precept' PNGV concept.
This car was bench-marked against an EV 1 test mule(Cd 0.197 according to GM),and at full-scale,in the Warren,Michigan,full-scale wind tunnel,recorded Cd 0.168,or 0.163,I'll have to check.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
01-30-2019, 06:33 PM
|
#110 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 16,312
Thanks: 24,439
Thanked 7,386 Times in 4,783 Posts
|
GM PRECEPT and siblings
In my fanny pack I've got a small notepad,and in it found a note about the PRECEPT,listing Cd 0.163.
GM/AeroVironment had claimed Cd 0.19 for the 1987 IMPACT.
GM EV1 @ Cd 0.197.
GM EV1/Impact LSR,modified speed record car,Ft.Stockton,Texas,1993,@ Cd 0.14.
GM ULTRALITE concept,1991-2 @ Cd 0.192
GM CITATION-IV concept,1984,@ Cd 0.185 (running prototype)
GM CITATION-III concept,1983 @ Cd 0.14 (non-operative glider)
GM/AeroVironment SunRaycer (body only-no wheels) @ Cd 0.089
GM SunRaycer,World Solar Challenge,1987,@ Cd 0.125 (original claim)
GM SunRaycer as per Bob Boniface,@ Cd 0.143 (perhaps crosswind averaged Cd)
GM 'EPCOT' car (EPCOT CENTER Florida),@ Cd 0.23
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
