Date:         Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:02:52 +1300
Reply-To:     Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Subject:      Re: aerodynamics, was: 101 MPH Vanagon!
In-Reply-To:  <001e01c4b3c0$163373e0$764ae251@Calles>
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1

>ProjectZwo had some bolt-on stuff that was supposed to help
>Not sure if it was aerodynamic or just apperance help but anyway, a rear
>wing, side skirts and a deeper air dam
>But I guess the best thing to do to reduce drag would be shorter (lower)
>coilspring, smaller mirrors and narrow rims and tyres :-)
>And the Vanagon is not all bad, if you check Cw value and not bother about
>front area (Cw x A) itīs actually supposed to be better than a Jaguar E-Type
>!

The T2 bus was also better than the XKE Jag, and 
I'd bet (if anyone bothered to test one) the T1 
would be also.

I have grave doubts that Projektzwo's kit has 
been anywhere near a windtunnel, likewise the 
stock airdam.

Vans may be relatively aerodynamic, but they 
still have a large frontal area, which means that 
they still have to push all that air aside... 
which is why they start to gulp fuel as speed 
rises above ~100-110kmh.

What Calle says about reducing that frontal area 
is correct, but with such a large vehicle the 
effect would be minimal. A roof-chop, channel and 
perhaps narrowing the van... anyone good at 
PhotoShop?
--
Andrew Grebneff
Dunedin
New Zealand
Fossil preparator
<andrew.grebneff@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut