Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:53:57 -0500
Reply-To: Stan Wilder <wilden1-1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Stan Wilder <wilden1-1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Subject: Re: aerodynamics, was: 101 MPH Vanagon!
In-Reply-To: <002001c4b4b4$238f8de0$e1d2ea42@ttower17>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
With less than 100 hp the dream of 100 in a Vanagon is just a dream unless
you drive off cliff and read your airspeed indicator on the way down.
I think Bruce just dropped the hammer on his hybrid toy to see how
everything behaved and reached that 101 as part of the test but that brings
up the speedometer error that is about 10% and that means he was only doing
92 mph. Well within reasonable speeds for Texas Highways for all Pickup
trucks, SUVs, MPVs, 18 wheelers, and Rice Rockets of both the two and four
wheel varieties.
Stan Wilder
High Performance Ceramic Coatings
www.engineceramics.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
Doug in Calif
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 8:45 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: aerodynamics, was: 101 MPH Vanagon!
It is my understanding from reading some of the literature and documentation
that the vanagon far exceeds the previous (loaf) bus in aerodynamic
efficiency.
I have read it is also better than many passenger cars of its day.
The steep slope of the windshield and angled rear hatch glass makes a huge
difference in drag over the earlier 68-79 bus.
Extensive modern wind tunnel tests were done on the vanagon that were not
done on the early bus.
The R&D costs on building the vanagon far exceeded any previous vw project.
One of my first impressions of the my 85 sunroof the day I bought it used in
97 and drove it home was how effortless it cruised at 70-75 compared to all
the
non vanagon busses I have owned and driven over the past 30 years.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al and Sue Brase" <albeeee@MCHSI.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: aerodynamics, was: 101 MPH Vanagon!
> Actually,
> Very early Porsches 356 and 356A were very good. Some Kamm tails of
> the 60's mad things better, too.
> Drag is actually a product obtained by multiplying 2 numbers:
> frontal area X Cx (coefficient of drag) to get a total drag number.
> So, a Vanagon DOES have a larger frontal area than a T2 and have more
drag.
> Al Brase
>
> Steven Dodson wrote:
>
> >This doesn't surprise me, seeing that convertibles have the worst
> >coefficient of drag of nearly any vehicle. The swept windscreen crates a
> >negative pressure behind it and the open cockpit creates tons of big
> >turbulence. The pointiest front means nothing if you don't deal with the
> >vortex in the rear. The Alfa Duetto Coupe with headlight covers would be
> >another story altogether; very aerodynamic. I can see how a wing forcing
air
> >behind the Vanagon would improve it's Cd. The skirts will only work well
if
> >you lowered the van and the skirts cover equally all around the van. Put
> >belly pans on the Vanagon and that would improve the Cd even more.
> >
> >-Steven Dodson
> >Kneeland, CA
> >"Inga" the 87 Syncro
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:05:59 -0700
> >>From: Mike Miller <mwmiller@CWNET.COM>
> >>Subject: Re: aerodynamics, was: 101 MPH Vanagon!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >>As I understood it way back in the day my Renault R -10 had a better Cx
and
> >>Ct than the Alfa Romeo spyder. Weird if true.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004