VANAGON archives -- October 2004, week 3 (#273)

Date:         Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:14:20 -0400
Reply-To:     tmiller <tmiller@VCMAILS.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         tmiller <tmiller@VCMAILS.COM>
Subject:      Re: aerodynamics, was: 101 MPH Vanagon!
Comments: To: Doug in Calif <vanagon@ASTOUND.NET>
In-Reply-To:  <002001c4b4b4$238f8de0$e1d2ea42@ttower17>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Interesting.&nbsp; I wonder if a spoiler on the rear roof that directs air
down over the rear window and some type of spoiler for the luggage rack
(or a canvas cover) would make any improvements?<br>
TEMiller<br>
<br>
Doug in Calif wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
 cite="mid002001c4b4b4$238f8de0$e1d2ea42@ttower17">
  <pre wrap="">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&amp;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" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:albeeee@MCHSI.COM">&lt;albeeee@MCHSI.COM&gt;</a>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM">&lt;vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM&gt;</a>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: aerodynamics, was: 101 MPH Vanagon!

  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">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
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->drag.
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Al Brase

Steven Dodson wrote:

    </pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">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
      </pre>
    </blockquote>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->air
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">behind the Vanagon would improve it's Cd. The skirts will only work well
      </pre>
    </blockquote>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->if
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">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

      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">Date:    Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:05:59 -0700
From:    Mike Miller <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mwmiller@CWNET.COM">&lt;mwmiller@CWNET.COM&gt;</a>
Subject: Re: aerodynamics, was: 101 MPH Vanagon!

        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">

      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">As I understood it way back in the day my Renault R -10 had a better Cx
        </pre>
      </blockquote>
    </blockquote>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->and
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">Ct than the Alfa Romeo spyder.  Weird if true.

        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">

      </pre>
    </blockquote>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->

  </pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

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.