Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (June 2004, week 2)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:43:05 -0600
Reply-To:     Simon Reinhardt <simon@FARRSIDE.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Simon Reinhardt <simon@FARRSIDE.NET>
Subject:      Re: Was: Why are campers higher at the rear?  NOW: Westy air drag
Comments: To: "Chris S." <MrPolak@YAHOO.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <54326.216.253.218.250.1086957223.squirrel@www.spam-manager.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

Yes, but what about when the load is not just behind the rear seat, and what if a driver and passenger are going to get in? Now the fronts need to handle a load as well! Jeez, it's depressing, but maybe this is all boiling down to craptastic quality control wherever Vanagon springs were made... Anyway, I get what you're saying about load handling, but I'm saying that a spring can be stiff w/out being tall. Take the sport springs in the Cabby I'm selling (shameless plug!). They're lower AND stiffer than stock, and I can still carry a full load of people and their junk. I'm curious- did the load rating of the Van decrease when it got the shorter Carat springs later on? Anyone know? I've been thinking about a big piece of aluminum that would attach to the cargo cleats. Then we have to get access to a wind tunnel... Actually, looking at the turbulence, maybe a flat panel AND a mid-roof spoiler would be the way to go. We just need to smooth out that turbulence somehow! Anyone ready to rice out your Van?

-SImon

On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:33 AM, Chris S. wrote:

>> "But Simon, the rears are stiffer than the fronts because of the >> engine's weight!"- No, stiffness and height are not necessarily >> entwined. > > May I remind you of the Vanagon's 50/50 front-to-rear weight > distribution? > Yes, there's an engine back there but the total weight pressing down > on > the rear springs is same as the front. Rear springs are stiffer to > handle > more when the van is loaded. > >> >> http://www.farrside.net/vanagon/windtests.jpg >> > > Stock Vanagon CD (coefficient of drag): .44 > Flat pop-top: .45 > Westfalia pop-top: .51 <--- that sucks > High-top: .40 > Camper-back: .46 <---- still better than the Westfalia pop-top > > Based on the picture my presumptions that carrying a flat, wide load, > such > as a cargo box, in the top luggage would reduce turbulence thus > decreasing > CD. Putting a plastic lid on the rack that slightly bulges out would > have > an even better effect and save fuel when on the road. Project, anyone? > Any fiberglass masters out there? > > > > > Chris S. > '85 Wolfsburg Westy "Camel" > http://www.knology.net/~vw/dadada.jpg >


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.