kiwiev said:
Hey Toecutter
with the Hilux ute I am thinking of getting a fibreglass hard cover do you think some sort of rear spoiler would help ????
Thanks Kiwi
A pickup truck is a different shape and has different requirements for drag reduction. Check the following article out and feast your eye's on Phil Knox's aeromodded Toyota pickup for inspiration:
http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=870
From the article:
Phil Knox's streamlined 1994 Toyota Tacoma pickup saw its fuel economy go from 25 mpg to 32 mpg at 70 mph just by improving its aerodynamics, reducing its Cd from 0.44 to 0.25, the same as the Honda Insight gasoline-electric hybrid.
Phil Knox also posts on the ecomodder forums as "aerohead" if you have any questions to ask him. About 9 years ago, the aeroshell was destroyed by a herd of goats, FYI.
liveforphysics said:
In practice, OEM's tend to just make up whatever number marketing thinks sounds nice for Cd figures.
https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/the-slipperiest-car-on-the-road.pdf
As an example, Honda claims insight is 0.25 Cd, it measures at 0.30-0.31.
Mercedes claims CLA 250 is 0.23 Cd, it measured 0.30
EV1 was claimed 0.19 Cd, from a handful of rare tests it was at least >0.25 Cd.
Tesla Model S claims 0.24 Cd, which isn't a very impressive claim, but unlike all the other OEM's, they actually measure in a wind-tunnel at 0.24Cd, making it more slippery than pretty much everything else.
There's also the issue of wind tunnel calibration. The Society of Automotive Engineers had to revise the standard by which drag coefficient is measured because of inconsistent test results from wind tunnel to wind tunnel.
I once did some calculations to estimate the Wh/mi of the EV1 at 60 mph and was off of GM's published figure by 30 Wh/mi. My estimate was lower than the figure GM came up with. The published 0.19 figure being false would certainly explain that...
With that being said, in 1979 Volkswagen put a 1921 Rumpler Tropfenwagen in a wind tunnel and it came out to a 0.27-0.28 depending on test. Not bad for an open-wheeled design... it exemplifies that fuel economy really hasn't ever been much of a concern in automotive design, which is a shame.
http://www.treehugger.com/cars/its-...are-not-as-aerodynamic-as-a-1921-rumpler.html
With proper attention to detail, we could potentially have had 150-200 mile range EVs using flooded lead acid golf cart batteries 30+ years ago(think of a car with a Cd in the sub 0.2 range and a ton of batteries).
The odds your beetle will duck under 0.35 Cd measured is extremely unlikely,
That all depends on what he does to it. I'm confident that one could get an old Beetle into the upper 0.2 range if they knew what they were doing. Full undertray, rear diffuser, rear roof extension/spoiler, rear wheel skirts, Bonneville salt flats style hubcaps, removal of front/rear bumpers, side skirts, front air dam, vortex generators, wheel spats, and a bunch of other pieces could be made to manage the airflow around the car and keep it laminar. It won't look anything like it does stock though...
I suspect that most of its turbulence is generated in the rear, so cleaning that up as much as possible would yield the most gains. The rear angle of the roof of a stock Beetle is roughly such that it will generate the most possible drag. I don't have a copy of "The Aerodyanmics of Road Vehicles" by Wolf-Heinrich Hucho handy to reference its tables, but I remember referencing a table for rear roof angle versus Cd value, and both the Beetle and my Triumph GT6 were at the worst possible angles.