Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (October 2011, week 4)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:17:53 -0700
Reply-To:     Poppie Jagersand <poppie.jagersand@YAHOO.CA>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Poppie Jagersand <poppie.jagersand@YAHOO.CA>
Subject:      Re: Aerodynamics related to fuel consumption (for an 84 tin top)
Comments: To: Alistair Bell <albell@SHAW.CA>
In-Reply-To:  <1108CD19-3641-47A4-8957-554E61771C0C@shaw.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Both the front and the rear matter for air drag. The Westy luggage rack is a big culprit on campers as shown in wind tunnel testing is here: http://www.t3-infos.de/images/Luftwiderstand_1.jpg Partial English translation: http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/jag/vw/gen/pops/popsT3.htm An experimentally identified mathematical model for drag: http://gerry.vanagon.com/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind9812E&L=vanagon&P=R3587 Martin ________________________________ From: Alistair Bell <albell@SHAW.CA> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:27:24 PM Subject: Re: Aerodynamics related to fuel consumption (for an 84 tin top) It is not the frontal area that kills the aerodynamics of the van, it is the big low pressure area at the rear. Don 't get me wrong, reducing frontal area would improve things, but fairing the rear would work wonders :) I think my improvement in gas milage with canoe on top (which increases frontal area) is that the canoe modifies the airflow at the rear. alistair On 2011-10-24, at 6:09 PM, Richard Koerner wrote: > Thanks Don, very good info.  I've been thinking about building my own Quick-N-Easy roof rack for my 85 tin top and wanted to factor in aerodynamics into the decision.  Of course, it might "blow" off all the empirical data by making a (sortof) aerodynamic box (maybe 10" tall or something) to hold lightweight floppy things like inflateable kayaks and paddles and even camp chairs and whatever.  Maybe the large Vanagon frontal area pushes the slipstream high enough above the roofline and potential homemade "Rocket Box" or whatever they call them....hence no apparent decline in mileage.  Anyway, it's not a huge outlay of cash and effort to give it a try for extended cross-country expeditions.  Would be bummed by a -5 MPG result, but a couple MPG reduction would be acceptable.  Still thinking about my design....rounded frontal end on my "box" seems appropriate.  Also a factor is garageability with the higher roof. > > Any perceptable increase in wind noise? Whistling and that sort of thing? > > Rich > San Diego > > --- On Mon, 10/24/11, Don Hanson <dhanson928@GMAIL.COM> wrote: > > From: Don Hanson <dhanson928@GMAIL.COM> > Subject: Aerodynamics related to fuel consumption (for an 84 tin top) > To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM > Date: Monday, October 24, 2011, 5:29 PM > >  For appx. 3 weeks I ran with my Quick-N-Easy roof rack on my vanagon, > having to carry some long stuff.  It's a full width two-bar rack, with the > cross bars made from Alaskan yellow cedar, appx. 2x4" and just a little > narrower, side to side, than my stock mirrors.  The 'bars' have large radius > corners.  I was working about 60mi round trip from home, but otherwise > driving in the same area and at the same speeds I do in 'real life' (when I > am doing what I want, not working for pay) > >  My vanagon is a 5sp with a 2.0 liter Jetta inline gas motor and I've > always kept track of my fuel mileage, every tank for about 4 years now. > I've averaged ~23mpg really consistently.  If I use premium fuel without > corn, I get almost 2 mpg more.  If I drive at 75 all day, I get a few mpg > less.  On my 4 or 5 fill-ups while sporting that roof rack, my gas mileage > declined by almost 2 miles per gallon. > >  Then, two tanks ago I took the rack off...it is Quick and Easy, so why > not, plus I'm out of work again so no need...The gas consumption again is > 22.++ or 23 and 'small change'....  So there it is, a statistical sample of > one, but it is accurate.  I fill at the same pump, letting the same auto > shut off stop the flow (and spew some backwash out on the station's > driveway) each time.  I fill at about 275 miles run.  I had the same weight > load aboard.  I only carried a long ladder one time (30 miles) on the roof. > >  In case anyone is interested in how aerodynamic drag sucks down the gas...


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.