Date:         Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:31:54 -0500
Reply-To:     mcneely4@COX.NET
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@COX.NET>
Subject:      Re: van aerodynamics, was Re: BenT's dream vanagon now for sale
Comments: To: BenT Syncro <syncro@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; delsp=no

Granted that common sense fails often on many fronts.  But I'd like to
know, if indeed it is the case, how the vehicle with a pop top but no
luggage rack would be more aerodynamic than the more typical camper.  If
the airflow is smoother over that top, I'd be surprised.  But I've been
surprised before.  In this case, I'd just like an explanation, so I'd
understand better.  David


On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:51 AM, BenT Syncro wrote:

> On Jan 20, 2010, at 8:09 AM, Dave Mcneely  wrote:
>
>> Oh, I have no question that it is a drag, more than a bit.  But the
>> pictured vehicle, with the poptop but no luggage rack, it seems
>> would be
>> worse.  There is no picture in the link you referenced that would
>> shed
>> any light (or wind) regarding this.  I'm not an engineer, I'll leave
>> the
>> analysis to others.  Just going on common sense.  David
>
> Aerodynamics is one area where common sense can fail. Take DH's former
> Porsche 928. Sleek looking landshark nose with seemingly dolphin-like
> smooth exterior. Common sense would have indicated that it is more
> aerodynamic than the brick-like Golf/Rabbit of the same era. IIRC, the
> truth is completely the opposite.
>
>
> BenT