Date:         Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:47:35 -0500
Reply-To:     Al and Sue Brase <albeeee@MCHSI.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Al and Sue Brase <albeeee@MCHSI.COM>
Subject:      Re: aerodynamics, was: 101 MPH Vanagon!
Comments: To: Steven Dodson <steven@EPOCHDESIGN.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <008601c4b477$0f012e20$8c90fea9@epoch77>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

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.
>>
>>
>
>
>