Search the archive:
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
 
   
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
Drag Coefficient (Read 558 times)
Apr 9th, 2006 at 11:02pm

Bubblehead   Offline
Colonel
Clear the bridge
San Diego, California USA

Gender: male
Posts: 696
*****
 
According to the reports by aerodynamic engineers, the drag coefficient (Cd) of automobiles plays a very important role in the gas efficiency of the vehicles. Most modern automobiles have a Cd of .3 while vans, SUVs and trucks have Cd of .7. What this translates to is that according to these engineers,  flat fronted vehicles such as most trucks and SUVs when running at high speed (70 MPH+) consume as much as 60% of its energy in tackling wind resistance. Big rigs normally install a streamlining devices over its cabs to reduce Cd. But their flat rear ends cause a lot of turbulence contributing to higher Cd. There is not much owners can do regarding the shape of their cars citing the Honda Element, the Scion and Humvees as examples. Remember the old Cadillac "Torpedo", its rear shaped like the trailing edge of an airplane? But to sacrfice the trunk space will never fly. Anyone know of a device that breaks up rear turbulence when traveling at high speeds? Racing cars do.

Bubblehead
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #1 - Apr 10th, 2006 at 5:04am

Omag 2.0   Offline
Colonel
No badger comes close!
Somewhere, Belgium

Gender: male
Posts: 11985
*****
 
I do rememer that back in the days the Cd playes an important role in designing a car. I remember my dad's Opel Omega as beeing one of the cars with the best value around bach then.

Nowaydays, it's all about design... everything else isn't as important anymore...

And don't get me started on SUV's... They are to big, to polluting, to dangerous when colliding with pedestrians or normal cars and they don't add anything to driving, as most of them have the off-road ability of a F1-racer. It's just another blatant form of beeing selfcentered! Honestly... which mum really "needs" a BMW X5 to drive her kiddies to school... Let's get serious people...

Rant over!  Grin
 

&&...&&&&Check my aviation-photo's at www.airliners.be&&&&Or go straight to Omag's Album
IP Logged
 
Reply #2 - Apr 10th, 2006 at 5:12am

Craig.   Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender: male
Posts: 18590
*****
 
If you take a close look at a modern F1 car, you'll see they have many small little wings attached to various parts of the car, from the engine cooling inlet all the way to the rear wing itself. Thats the sort of thing that would reduce it. Nothing like that would work though on a road car. They are designed to either be as efficient as possible or as stylish as possible.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #3 - Apr 10th, 2006 at 6:29am

Woodlouse2002   Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender: male
Posts: 12574
*****
 
Quote:
Honestly... which mum really "needs" a BMW X5 to drive her kiddies to school... Let's get serious people...

Rant over!  Grin

My boss things that obviously all schools are situated in the middle of deserts or marshland hence the need for a 4x4 to pick the kids up. Therefore going on that logic when ever he has to collect his children he takes his Unimog! Grin
 

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!
IP Logged
 
Reply #4 - Apr 10th, 2006 at 9:44am

Omag 2.0   Offline
Colonel
No badger comes close!
Somewhere, Belgium

Gender: male
Posts: 11985
*****
 
Do we really want those massive machines around all those vulnerable children and pedestrians? I only see one advantage, when they do run over someone, their car won't be damaged...  Roll Eyes
 

&&...&&&&Check my aviation-photo's at www.airliners.be&&&&Or go straight to Omag's Album
IP Logged
 
Reply #5 - Apr 10th, 2006 at 9:52am

Crumbso   Offline
Colonel
The Sea Vixen - You aint'
never seen such a fox!!!
West Sussex, England

Gender: male
Posts: 1794
*****
 
But this saftey excuse still doesn't work, they are twice as likely to roll and cause even more damage to both the people inside and out.

Specially if you have seen the way some people drive them Wink
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #6 - Apr 10th, 2006 at 12:01pm

Bubblehead   Offline
Colonel
Clear the bridge
San Diego, California USA

Gender: male
Posts: 696
*****
 
I don't have an SUV. My wife drives an Acura 3.2TL and I drive a Ford Ranger P/U with a cab. The subject on rear end turbulence which create a drag on the vehicle most notably in high flat rear ended models, if there is a way to reduce that, it sure will make a difference in the gas mileage. That's why you see NASCAR racers tail gating one another to reduce fuel consumption. I'm going on a thousand mile trip next month and with the price of gas nowadays, I'd like to experiment fuel conserving. First of, I'd lower my speed to the posted  limit 65-70 MPH.  Make sure my tire pressure is up and I'll use cruise control whenever possible. with a Lear cab, my rear end is a flat surface resulting in back turbulence during high speed. I'll lift the back window open about 45 degrees which reduce the low pressure bubble substantially, I think. You think it will make a difference? It should on the basis that aircraft and racing automobiles have small trailing edges.

Bubblehead
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #7 - Apr 10th, 2006 at 12:23pm

Craig.   Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender: male
Posts: 18590
*****
 
Dont try to create little wings yourself. They dont work unless designed correctly. Best bet is to not use the air conditioning. keep windows closed where possible and to use only the essential electronics. Believe it or not things like the lights the heater and electric chairs/windows and sunroof all use up fuel. If I remember correctly you also get better fuel mileage if you dont use cruise control but I might be wrong on that.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #8 - Apr 21st, 2006 at 1:22pm

Bubblehead   Offline
Colonel
Clear the bridge
San Diego, California USA

Gender: male
Posts: 696
*****
 
FYI:

Got this from aerodynamic engineers in their website:

Total Load = A + B x v(to the second power) + C x v(to the third power) where,

A (constant) is the vehicle weight.
B (varies with RPM) is from friction.
C (constant) is the drag coefficient

v (variable) is the velocity

Considering that at the lower speed you will be driving twice as long, if you increase your driving speed from 35MPH to 70MPH, your load factor increases five (5) times. According to the eningeers the most economical speed is between 40 & 60 MPH and the most inefficient is 0MPH (idling).


Bubblehead
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #9 - May 27th, 2006 at 12:25am

Mushroom_Farmer   Offline
Colonel
To the Sooper-Coop Fred
Indiana, USA

Gender: male
Posts: 1976
*****
 
Use of undertray diffusers and strategicaly placed vortex generators could have a positive effect on mileage. This would be a good project for some whipper-snapper college whiz to work out.  Grin
 

...&&&&"We're just sitting here trying to put our PCjrs in a pile and burn them. And the damn things won't burn. That's the only thing IBM did right with it - they made it flameproof." &&  Spinnaker Software chairman William Bowman, 1985
IP Logged
 
Reply #10 - May 27th, 2006 at 1:47pm

Jared   Offline
Colonel
I'd rather be flying...
Uniontown, Ohio

Gender: male
Posts: 12621
*****
 
my car has a drag coefficent of .379  Tongue Kiss
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #11 - May 27th, 2006 at 4:56pm

expat   Offline
Colonel
Deep behind enemy lines!

Gender: male
Posts: 8499
*****
 
No idea what mine is, all I know is that if I want to, I can do 140mph without having to watch out for a blue light in my rear view mirror  Grin Grin

Matt
 

PETA ... People Eating Tasty Animals.

B1 Boeing 737-800 and Dash8 Q-400
IP Logged
 
Reply #12 - May 28th, 2006 at 2:12am

SkyNoz   Offline
Colonel
Project Kfir!

Gender: male
Posts: 1720
*****
 
Quote:
FYI:

Got this from aerodynamic engineers in their website:

Total Load = A + B x v(to the second power) + C x v(to the third power) where,

A (constant) is the vehicle weight.
B (varies with RPM) is from friction.
C (constant) is the drag coefficient

v (variable) is the velocity

Considering that at the lower speed you will be driving twice as long, if you increase your driving speed from 35MPH to 70MPH, your load factor increases five (5) times. According to the eningeers the most economical speed is between 40 & 60 MPH and the most inefficient is 0MPH (idling).


Bubblehead



lol, i dont understand "B (varies with RPM) is from friction." how is this represented, Speed? Gets kinda confusing when you dont take into account specicfically all drag factors, or limitations. Smiley
 

Project Kfir!&&...&&My Gmax page&&Aircraft modeler/Aircarft painter&&&&Aye the key!&&[GeneralEngineData]&&//0=Piston, 1=Jet, 2=None, 3=Helo-Turbine, 4=Rocket, 5=Turboprop
IP Logged
 
Reply #13 - May 28th, 2006 at 2:26am

Mushroom_Farmer   Offline
Colonel
To the Sooper-Coop Fred
Indiana, USA

Gender: male
Posts: 1976
*****
 
Quote:
lol, i dont understand "B (varies with RPM) is from friction." how is this represented, Speed? Gets kinda confusing when you dont take into account specicfically all drag factors, or limitations. Smiley


It's strange ain't it? I'm assuming they're talking engine friction's effect on power output?. Unless they mean B=friction is the friction caused by air against the surface of the body, but that should be drag. Velocity(Speed?) is represented by "v", which I assume is vehicle velocity? Also A=(constant) vehicle weight seems off. Vehicle weight at different velocities should change depending on airflow over/under the vehicle, shouldn't it?
 

...&&&&"We're just sitting here trying to put our PCjrs in a pile and burn them. And the damn things won't burn. That's the only thing IBM did right with it - they made it flameproof." &&  Spinnaker Software chairman William Bowman, 1985
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print