Aerodynamics
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by wabmorgan
You are not stating known fact. Just your opionon.
I guess now you are telling me that GM did increase the windsheild rake in order to make Cd worse???
I think GM knows more than you do.
I guess now you are telling me that GM did increase the windsheild rake in order to make Cd worse???
I think GM knows more than you do.
I am stating known fact. Just not known to you. You don't like it, so you refuse to accept it. And that's fine, but just go about your buisness with your head in the sand. Arguing the way you are is proving your lack of understanding. Such as your second sentence. Apparently there is some reading comprehension issues here as well.
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,799
Likes: 1
From: USS Enterprise 1701
What ever.....
We disargee, just leave it at that.
Lt does have some good points. For one, side mirrors are horriable on Cd... on any car.
We disargee, just leave it at that.
Lt does have some good points. For one, side mirrors are horriable on Cd... on any car.
Last edited by wabmorgan; Mar 23, 2006 at 08:57 AM.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 607
Likes: 1
From: Anna, OH
Originally Posted by Stang's Bane
The cd. could be 45.7 and most of the public could care less as long as it looks good.
Still a nice car, though.
Originally Posted by LTSpeed
Yeah, look at the 300C. I'd love to see what the Cd is on that thing. The thing needs a hemi just to get on the highway. Still a nice car, though.
Still a nice car, though.http://www.e55amg.homestead.com/300C.html
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by SSCamaro99_3
It is amazing how deceiving shapes can be. It is not as bad as you might think.
http://www.e55amg.homestead.com/300C.html
http://www.e55amg.homestead.com/300C.html
i think that the Chrysler 300 proves a good point about cd. Cd is a lot like speed. If it takes 300 hp to go 100 mph in the quarter, then 600 hp would make you go 200 mph. WRONG. We all know this. The closer you get to the magic number the harder it is to make improvemements. E=mc squared. Ole Einstein may have been on to something here, huh.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
Originally Posted by Stang's Bane
One fact that everyone here knows is that drafting in Nascar can actually push the front car faster. Did the car in the front lose frontal area? No. Did it suddenly have more rake in the windshield? No. The reason it gains speed is that the turbulence at the rear of the car is reduced.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by wabmorgan
The "we" refered to you and I disagree. I think if you re-read some post you will find that not everyone agrees with you either.
I'll at least give you this, I don't disagree with everything you are sayng just some points of it.
I'll at least give you this, I don't disagree with everything you are sayng just some points of it.
Nobody else has disagreed with me anyway, but that's irrelevant.
You see, *you and I* don't disagree - YOU disagree. You disagree with facts. And you won't let it go. And I can't let you "get the last word" in that manner, because you are incorrect. I tried and tried to explain it to you but it was like talking to a wall. Like I said, you're free to think whatever you want, but you're not gonna get away with claiming to the world that you're correct - or more specifically, that I'm incorrect, when that is simply not true. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
If you really spent some time sutdying, even basic concepts, you'd see the errors in your thinking, and probably feel a little foolish over how hard you're fighting right now too.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 607
Likes: 1
From: Anna, OH
Originally Posted by Lost My License
Imagine if we could all drive F1 cars to work haha. How hot would that be?
BTW, a typical F1 car's Cd in racing form is over 0.8! If you trim it out (i.e., no downforce or lift), it would be as low as 0.15--right until it ran right off turn 1. (You'd likewise be amazed to see the F-15 also has a very high Cd, mainly because of the lift from the wings and (by design) high drag in the air intakes.)
Also, I was kidding about the 300C's drag, guys. That cab forward windshield and tapered roofline make a huge difference. The Magnum is the same idea taken to the extreme. Those DC designers are doing things pretty well.
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,799
Likes: 1
From: USS Enterprise 1701
Originally Posted by Lost My License
And of course our cars would not be more aerodynamic in reverse, thats like throwing a brick into hurricane winds...not gonna go anywhere.
.... but be prepared for some banter from someone on this thread. He's going to DISAGREE with you in a major way!!!!!!!!
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,799
Likes: 1
From: USS Enterprise 1701
Originally Posted by LTSpeed
That would be very cool. Of course, I'd have to move farther from work just to have time to enjoy it.
all the time!!!!!!!!!!! 
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Still interested in proving you don't understand the concepts wab? Why?
Everyone who knows anything about the subject knows that low pressure areas behind an object are the major drag producers. Many people here have explained this to you time and again, but you not only won't hear of it, you actually have the audacity (not to mention density) to tell them *they* don't know what they are talking about. You are rather conclusive evidence that the less one knows, the stonger their opinions are.
I told you you're not gonna get a last word in this manner, not after you had the gall to accuse me of your own ignorance.
You honestly beleive that a teardrop shape has less drag going point first. I suspected as much but really hoped it wasn't true. I see now that it is though. Has been apparent all along but I was desperately trying to give you more credit than that.
That is your whole stumbling point right there. Since you don't understand that, you can't understand anything else. You haven't done any sort of study, formal or otherwise on the subject, and it shows, badly. You really ought to stop preaching on it. Seriously. All you've managed to do at this point is derail an otherwise decent thread. You leave everyone with any knowledge of the subject 2 choices - leave because they can't get through that skull of yours, or go along for the ride as the thread runs off course.
I'm surprised you haven't tried to destroy the thread in the racers lounge on this subject. lol
Everyone who knows anything about the subject knows that low pressure areas behind an object are the major drag producers. Many people here have explained this to you time and again, but you not only won't hear of it, you actually have the audacity (not to mention density) to tell them *they* don't know what they are talking about. You are rather conclusive evidence that the less one knows, the stonger their opinions are.
I told you you're not gonna get a last word in this manner, not after you had the gall to accuse me of your own ignorance.
You honestly beleive that a teardrop shape has less drag going point first. I suspected as much but really hoped it wasn't true. I see now that it is though. Has been apparent all along but I was desperately trying to give you more credit than that.
That is your whole stumbling point right there. Since you don't understand that, you can't understand anything else. You haven't done any sort of study, formal or otherwise on the subject, and it shows, badly. You really ought to stop preaching on it. Seriously. All you've managed to do at this point is derail an otherwise decent thread. You leave everyone with any knowledge of the subject 2 choices - leave because they can't get through that skull of yours, or go along for the ride as the thread runs off course.
I'm surprised you haven't tried to destroy the thread in the racers lounge on this subject. lol
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
The "conical shape at the rear" you talk about is why cars are, in many cases, more aero backwards than forwards. You know, the very thing you refuse to accept? (well, one of the facts among many that you flat out refuse to accept lol)
Call them attacks if you wish, it doesn't change the fact that they are true - you don't understand this stuff. It's obvious.
I notice that you never botherd to answer the question someone else asked you directly, about your background. Instead you just accused him of attacking you as well. As if more evidence were actually needed.......
Call them attacks if you wish, it doesn't change the fact that they are true - you don't understand this stuff. It's obvious.
I notice that you never botherd to answer the question someone else asked you directly, about your background. Instead you just accused him of attacking you as well. As if more evidence were actually needed.......
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,799
Likes: 1
From: USS Enterprise 1701
OK.... but there is why I don't understand why a F-body would be more areodynamic backwards.... the back end of the car is like wall.... and the top sets high in the air... that is not the shape of that tear drop. It is more akindred to a tear drop that has had the ) cut offf. (If you see what I mean.) Also... as someone else pointed out.... the bottom of the rear end is on a upward slant / to the rear. Backwards.... this would allow a lot of air to swooped under the car rather than being channeled over or around the car.
Now take an older 70ish type car where the frount is like a brick to begin with and the rear has a flatish rear window.... I could see that being more areodynamic in reverse.
I did answer it.... I said I was no expert. You were quick to quip upon that as well.
As I pointed out I doubt anyone here is an areodynamics engineer. Additonally, even if your were, you would need windtunnel test in order to prove or disaprove anything beyond a simple theory.
If you don't really want to derail the thread.... let's try staying on topic and leave the personal
out of this.
Now take an older 70ish type car where the frount is like a brick to begin with and the rear has a flatish rear window.... I could see that being more areodynamic in reverse.
I did answer it.... I said I was no expert. You were quick to quip upon that as well.
As I pointed out I doubt anyone here is an areodynamics engineer. Additonally, even if your were, you would need windtunnel test in order to prove or disaprove anything beyond a simple theory.
If you don't really want to derail the thread.... let's try staying on topic and leave the personal
out of this. Last edited by wabmorgan; Mar 24, 2006 at 12:55 PM.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
You didn't answer the question of what your background was. You evaded it.
I don't need a wind tunnel to show what has been tested, discovered, calculated, and known for years.
You are the one derailing the thread because you continue to deny the facts, refused help, refuse to do any research, accused others of lacking knowledge due to your own ignorance, and simply won't give up. I told you, you're not getting the last word in that manner. You're wrong. You don't understand this stuff, and you had the gall to tell me that I don't when I was trying to help you. Now you call everything spam. This will stay OT as long as you insist on keeping it OT with your obstinance.
I don't need a wind tunnel to show what has been tested, discovered, calculated, and known for years.
You are the one derailing the thread because you continue to deny the facts, refused help, refuse to do any research, accused others of lacking knowledge due to your own ignorance, and simply won't give up. I told you, you're not getting the last word in that manner. You're wrong. You don't understand this stuff, and you had the gall to tell me that I don't when I was trying to help you. Now you call everything spam. This will stay OT as long as you insist on keeping it OT with your obstinance.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
lol You can't change facts. Calling it "spam" is itself spam due to it's lack of content or usefulness. lol
It's ok to accept that you don't understand something. It really is. And you'd actually get more respect for that, and be able to learn something in the process. It's a "2-fer". You're on a pointless quest. Just digging yourself deeper and deeper with each evasion and claiming truth is "spam".
It's ok to accept that you don't understand something. It really is. And you'd actually get more respect for that, and be able to learn something in the process. It's a "2-fer". You're on a pointless quest. Just digging yourself deeper and deeper with each evasion and claiming truth is "spam".