 |
|
EV WORLD EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE |

Phil Knox's streamlined 1994 Toyota Tacoma pickup saw its fuel economy go from 25 mpg to 32 mpg at 70 mph just by improving its aerodynamics, reducing its Cd from 0.44 to 0.25, the same as the Honda Insight gasoline-electric hybrid.
|
Your local home improvement store has what you need to significantly improve your fuel economy
Open Access Article Originally Published: June 29, 2005
While most Americans are paying more than ever to fuel up their cars, one Texas man has found a way to make gasoline out of thin air - by simply modifying the shape of his half-ton pickup truck.
Using the principles of aerodynamics, Phil Knox's recent additions of an aero-shell, under-belly pan, rear wheel skirts, wheel covers and grill block to his 1994 T-100 Toyota pickup improved his gas mileage by 28 percent over the original highway mileage.
Building, testing and educating the public about aerodynamics, is part of the mission of Knox's Independence Technological Works - IT works. "I'm trying to verify claims of aerodynamics going back 70 years," the Denton, Texas man said.
The passion for aerodynamics awakened in Knox back in 1973 during the Arab Oil Embargo, and after his Air Force tour-of-duty in Vietnam. In early 1974 after reading about the benefits of aerodynamics in Car & Driver Magazine Knox says he was smitten. "Technically, I never recovered from the first oil crisis," he said.
Using the GI Bill, Knox was educated in mechanical engineering technology at Texas Tech in Lubbock, Texas and soon streamlined his first vehicle - a Volkswagen Bus - with sound fluid dynamic principles. The bus achieved a 28 percent improvement in highway fuel economy just by changing its shape. "I've streamlined every vehicle I've ever owned," he said.
Typically, Knox can be found at gatherings such as an Earth Day celebration, handing out flyers and preaching the environmental gospel of aerodynamics, or out road testing his latest innovation. "When you go to a car lot - this isn't fertile ground for a conversation in aerodynamics with the sales people - they don't know the language," he says. The general terms of aerodynamics - drag co-efficient, airflow patterns, frontal area, aspect ratios, fluid dynamics - are not part of everyday conversation.
"I found out by accident," Knox says, "You live it everyday but you don't have the vocabulary to ever talk about it."
From a strictly Capitalist point-of-view, vehicles that are not aerodynamically efficient are losing money and not showing a good return-on-investment. "The business of America is to make money," Knox said, referring to the Horatio Alger quote. So Knox is compelled to urge people to stop buying gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs. "Stop the rags to riches trend these vehicles are setting for America," he advises. "Buy two fuel-efficient cars instead."
The worst offender is the Hummer, Knox said, which when compared to a hybrid car, is like losing 600 percent of a transportation investment. "It's like buying six dinners, eating one and leaving the other five," he said. "It's like stealing fuel from five families." What's worse, Knox says, is Hummers and large pickup trucks are eligible for up to $25,000 in tax break exemptions by being considered farm equipment, while the Environmental Protection Agency says these are the last kind of vehicles America needs on it‘s roads.
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 61163 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
A valid email address and confirmation is required before your comment can be posted. Comments not confirmed within
24 hours are automatically deleted.
99 comments so far...
14-Aug-2009
67680
| |
well the concept is good if you ask me, but i dont think if it is feasible to market. moreiver, we dont know the effects of this concept fuel to the car's performance parts. it might permanently damage it.
Posted by: Sarah Lewis
|
|
21-Nov-2006
37953
| |
Re: Phil Bailey's comment on aeroshell.Phil,appologise for very late response,as many,if not all have gone over to John Shelton's maxmpg site for fuel economy discussions.As to your querry about the deeper drop for the bedcover,going as low as the dropped tailgate,the "bottom" line is ,that its been tried,and it simply will not support boundary layer attachment.For a long bed pickup,a bending line of increasing curvature,from the top of the cab to the top of the tailgate is about all the air will allow,falling to about a 12-degree angle.Extending the sail area of the cab sides rearward will support flow up to included angles in the area of 7-degrees.Bellypan upsweeps behind the rear axle can sustain attached flow up to about 2 1/2-degrees.So the teardrop,as far as it can be considered in ground-effect must be stretched out to about twice the length it enjoys in "free-air" to maintain attached flow near the ground plane where we drive.If you can get over to maxmpg dscussions group,you'll find links to NASA boattail research photos which reveal the geometric limitations for aftbodies found to perform during research programs carried on by our gee-whiz rocket scientist buddies.Hope it helps,and thanks for the interest,and again,sorry for the very late reply,Phil.
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
02-Aug-2006
29978
| |
I'm just a little bit late to the party, but:
It always surprises me when a powerful idea like Phil Knox's idea DOESN'T immediately sweep the nation! How come you can't walk into a Pep Boys and buy a nice, custom, easy-to-bolt-on, belly-pan for your 90's P/U truck or SUV?
Posted by: Darryl Cronin
|
|
25-Sep-2006
33717
| |
I'm also late to this conversation. My loss. I had been thinking about pickup trucks and rain drop shapes lately and came across your project and Eiffel dropping ice cream cones off his tower. ...thought that was cute. Anyway, on a truck, I was thinking that the cowling over the bed would be flush with the cab roof, like your design, but would curve, like the back end of a tear drop and although I don't know the math and haven't worked out the engineering problems, it may have to change shape at different speeds to avoid detachment of the airflow (and probably a long-bed truck would be more suitable to this design). My thought was to drop it to the bed and flush it up with an open tailgate, as some have suggested, which would be redesigned to complete the tail of the teardrop. In cargo configuration, the teardrop cowling would just have to come off. Your underbody panels and wheel well treatments would complete the teardrop simulation.
However, at the tips of the tail (the lowered tailgate) and the tips of the gunnels (sides of the beds, don't know what else to call them), I would imagine that there would be some vortex problems caused by wind sheer, if there was a difference in pressure of airflows on each side. I have no idea how much of a problem this could be for a ground vehicle, but if you've ever seen Top Gun, you can actually see the vortex as fine wisps of condensation (water vapor coming out of compression) coming off the tips of the canards (just behind the cockpit) in a sharp turn at speed. Anyway, it's why airliners have those little winglets on the end of the wings...so it must be a big deal for them. I realize that we are not going to go 500 miles an hour in a pickup truck, well, not very often {;-) , but every little bit counts.
Anyway, thanks for letting me know that there are other people out there that realize that pickup trucks don't have to be gas guzzelers.
Posted by: Phil Bailey
|
|
24-Sep-2005
9772
| |
I kpee forgetting about the air coming around the sides of the cab. Maybe panels would work for an infinitely wide truck. How about a clear plastic bubble in the rear of the cab, and an inflatible tube tied to the rear of the tailgate to round out the end?
Have you covered the ventilation holes in your hubcaps for the rear wheels? The front brakes do most of the braking, so need the cooling holes, but the rears don't.
Posted by: Ray Leistner
|
|
26-Jul-2005
8525
| |
Wonderful to see someone working on real-world practical aerodynamic improvements!
Have you looked at small spoilers or vortice inducers at the trailing edge of your tapered cover? I have read that properly done, a controlled area of tubulance acts almost as an extention of the taper, as air flows (relatively) smoothly around the sort of bubble of turbulance.
My second question has to do with tuft tests. I have seen still photos of tufted areas but don't know how the tufts should behave in real time. In attached flow do they lay down with little or no flapping? Do they spin around a little? I would like to try a project or two, but don't know how to evaluate where the problem areas are.
Thanks for publishing what you have done. It helps me hope that we can make a significant difference."
Posted by: David Crabtree
|
|
27-Jul-2005
8551
| |
Dave,I have looked at the turbulators you mention,and for me,the jury is still out.Some guys at Bonneville were running them with extremely "fast" backlight angles to no avail.I've seen footage of the same cars at El Mirage Dry Lake in California,and dirt vacuumed into the cars wakes suggests that the turbulators have little effect on flow separation,however,may effect C-pillar vorticity and its attendent drag.Sorry,limited info on these appliances.Its true that a wake can be so configured as to act as a phantom boattail with low drag.Pininfarina verified in the 1980s what B-17 and B-24 crews of the 8th Air Force discovered in WW-2,that their aircraft could fly well,with a significant portion of the aft fuselage shot away.The important consideration is that flow is attached up to the point of seraration.This is what Dr.Wunibald Kamm found in his research and those tufts will help tell you what that flow is doing.Air will flow over a region of captured voticity,however,if it doesn't reattach before leaving the body,you'll have drag.If the tufts are parallel to sream,your there!If you have reattached flow after a region of attached turbulence your okay too.Trouble is that any vorticity or turbulence has got to be fuelled by the gasoline,diesel,batteries,hybrid system,super-capacitors,fuel-cell,etc..I'd cheat if I knew how,but like they say,if it sounds too good to be true,it probably is,turbulators included.Suctioned boundary control has been proven,however,once again,it requires additional horsepower to operate and if the pump goes down,your back to Drag City.Good luck on your project and let us know how things shake out"
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
27-Jul-2005
8554
| |
Phil, I'm very excited to see how your project has progressed.
I have a 1993 Honda Civic Hatchback ( DX Automatic )that I have been dreaming of streamlining for some time now.
An article in Road&Track stated that the .cd for the car was .31 and oddly enough .32 for the sedan.
( I would have thought the .cd would be lower on the -sedan- due to the smaller area of turbulent air behind the car. )
"
Posted by: Sean B
|
|
27-Jul-2005
8557
| |
Phil, I would love to see more info on your project.
Do you have any more pictures you could post ?
I am especially interested in the 'boat-tail' idea you used on your CRX, since I plan to do something similar on my Civic.
I planned to create a boat tailed extention for the tail end of the car out of plexiglass. I intended to have it create a boat tailed shape when seen from above.
The problem that I would run into there would be that it would make my liscense plates hard to see and also stick out from the car about three feet. This would cause legal problems.
Instead, I am thinking of creating 'blinder' style extentions for the sides of the hatch back and just extending the spoiler out a foot or so.
I plan to create a belly pan on my Civic using aluminium sheet metal, but had a few questions about how to do it.
How should I adhere it to the underneath side of the car ? I don't know how to weld.( And that might be a problem anyways since you are welding aluminium to steel.)
Another problem is heat. It looks like you covered your exaust up.
How do you keep your brake/transmission/fuel lines / gas tank safe from the heat ???
Do you have a problem with hydroplaning / instability ?
Thanks for any response. It's great to see your work.
"
Posted by: Sean B
|
|
14-Aug-2005
8864
| |
I would like to see how the aerodynamic improvements on the Karman Ghia turns out. Electrification would not be too difficult. Thank you phill for all the refrences. Something has finally come up for me, If the school principal agrees to it, I would be working with the local highschool kids on an EV. We are considering building one from scratch rather than modifying and existing vehicle. For optimum aerodynamics and interior space, the architecture would apply opposing seating arrangement for the front and rear passengers, so rear passengers are not deprived of headroom. Our targe is 0.19cd. This article has been a huge help in my decision making. "
Posted by: Tonami P
|
|
15-Aug-2005
8884
| |
All, I installed an electric cooling fan (a flex-a-lite 210 low profile) yesterday and filled up the tank to get a good baseline of the possible improvement in mileage. I have a class tonight after work so it will be tomorrow before I can update my website. Stand by for updates here and at my yahoo group....."
Posted by: John Shelton
|
|
15-Aug-2005
8887
| |
Tonami,good luck with the principle.The ev would be a great teaching tool for the students.I got to see the first leg of the North American Solar Challenge at Weatherford,Texas.Many cars with Cds of 0.12.Sweet!"
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
15-Aug-2005
8888
| |
John W.,yes I do plan to do aero to the Ghia.Off the boat from Germany they had a Cd of 0.39,not bad for 1955.I've taken the roof off.It will be a single seat,with jump seat capability,and plexiglas bubble canopy with a cd itself of 0.05.The frontal area goes down below 16 square feet and I'm targetting around Cd0.15 for the car.The air will see a square piece of plywood about 1.5 feet on a side coming at it.I will not do"performance".I don't think its the proper message in light of whats happenning in Iraq.Mechanicals will be pretty low-tech,along with batteries,as I watch developments and the market for advantages.The car performs well with 40bhp at the flywheel and I'm looking only for modest performance and range.Rooftop PV array to charge,limited commuting.The 3-wheel "DYMAXION" motorcycle will be for cross country."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
15-Aug-2005
8889
| |
John Westland,I would like to look at Norbye's article.Can you give us a source? Thanks for the mention."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
15-Aug-2005
8890
| |
You all have seen this right ?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050814/ap_on_hi_te/hybrid_tinkerers_12
Pass it on. More people need to know that this is a reality ( and those that are DOING something like this are 'ordinary Joes' - not the auto manufacturers.
( Greed is such a horrible thing !)
I'm just amazed that this did not get 'snuffed out' before it hit the popular media.
I'm elated to see this kind thing happening. "
Posted by: sean b
|
|
16-Aug-2005
8901
| |
It's not an article. It was an entire book written by Norbye back in 1977. The copy I once had an opportunity to look through was about 130 pages, but I don't own the book. You could probably find it at a used book store if you looked around. 'Streamlining and Car Aerodynamics' (Modern Sports Car Series) was the exact title. .39 Cd for the Ghia was exceptional back in 1955, but the Alfa Romeo Disco Volante(.26 Cd) and Alfa Romeo B.A.T. prototpye(.19 Cd) had it beat years earlier. Even as far back as 1935, Tatra's T77a achieved a .21 coefficient of drag.
Posted by: John Westlund
|
|
16-Aug-2005
8903
| |
John W.,Thanks for the info on Norbyes'book.I've not seen it,have caught some of his articles over the years.I've got advertisements for both the Tatra and Adler,both with Jaray bodies.It would be a hoot to see them rolling down American roads today,as they really do have low drag forms.Thanks for reminding me.
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
15-Nov-2005
10953
| |
I hate your page.
Why:
What appear to be normal hyperlink (Words in blue) to related items are links to nothing more than commercial banking services.
Congratulations on obtaining a new low in web scum-dom. You are an osshale. (just switch the vowels)
Posted by: Joe Rider
|
|
18-Nov-2005
11010
| |
great job,
i smoothed the body then made sheets of aluminum to install under my 3" lowered '64' ford 1/2 ton truck. i did this in the early 80's.
the truck averaged 20 mpg, with a high of 26 mpg highway. this was with a high output 10:1 compression small block v-8. and 3:73 gears.
if i build anouther custom truck, i'll improve the air flow better than the '64'.
cc
Posted by: Charles Cunningham
|
|
29-Jun-2005
8206
| |
The caption under the photograph of the truck says it is a 1994 Toyota Tacoma, this is incorrect. It is a 1994 Toyota T-100 half ton pick up truck. As the original owner I should know, I bought the truck brand new in 1994 from Hoy Fox in El Paso, TX. I sold the truck to Phil Knox two years ago with over 200K miles on it. Improving this truck from 25 mpg to 32 mpg on the highway through applied aerodynamics is a fantastic achievement. Congradulations Phil Knox! Given GM is now announcing bragging rights to a 10% improvement for trucks through their new Hybid design NFSY (not for sale yet)you can only imagine what a Phil Knox ITWORKS design aero shell and belly pan would do for GMs
hypothetical hybrid!"
Posted by: John Gilkison
|
|
29-Jun-2005
8207
| |
Great improvements from aerodynamics alone. What I've always wondered is why aerodynamics have not been taken seriously in pick-up trucks and some other huge vehicles. I think something like could be factory installed and then opened up when you really need to carry stuuf in the bed, providing a cover over the carried load would also help.
The problem with aerodynamics has always been the fact that its space intrusive. So why not make a car with and aerodynamically sloped roof than can pop -up to create room for the FEW times a passenger would ride in the back. "
Posted by: tonami P
|
|
29-Jun-2005
8211
| |
I'm applying these same principals to my Triumph GT6. I'm eventually going to build an EV out of it, but since money is lacking right now, I'm going to see how high I can get its fuel economy to go. Currently, fuel economy is about 28-32 miles per gallon, frontal area is 14.9 feet square, stock Cd is .32(Mine is probably about .36 or .37 due to peeling paint, cracked windshield, minor rust all which will affect this with added skin friction and projections), and tires are anything but low rolling resistance. Dry weight is 1,793 pounds. I'm going to replace the stock bonnet with a fiberglass LeMans style bonnet, build and install a full bellypan, install rear wheel well covers, seal the grill from the inside to cut turbulence, replace the stock driver's side mirror with a more aerodynamic one(already removed passenger mirror), remove the chrome vents, remove the chrome strips and seal the resulting indentations with bondo, tape up all seams, shave the door handles, remove the rain gutters, replace the dual windshield wipers with a single rally-style wiper, install fiberglass bumpers, install fiberglass rockers, lower the car an inch closer to the ground, install aluminum LeMans style rims, machine the brakes to be perfectly round, replace the wheel bearings to reduce friction, adjust alignment to 0 degrees camber, install Invitica GLR low rolling resistance tires, replace the transmission oil and use Redline MTL or some other low friction oil, install lighter weight seats(replacing stock seats with Miata ones would cut 50 pounds alone!), remove all sound deadener, replace wood panel dash with custom leather dash, install Lexan windows, install fiberglass doorskins, install smooth fiberglass hatch, remove radio antenna, install shaved hatch handle. Coefficient drag might be cut down to .24-.27, dry weight would be below 1,550 pounds, top speed would increase to over 130 mph due to reduced drag, fuel economy would jump to perhaps 50 miles per gallon, 0-60 would be about 6 seconds. For those wondering, yes, there is a TR6 transmission, drive axel, and engine in this thing. After all this is done, along with an acid bath and a showroom quality dark British Racing Green paintjob, I'm going to take the plunge and convert it to electric. I hope to fit about 25 Optima Yellowtops, a WarP 9', and a Zilla 1k for 80-100 miles range pussyfooting it highway, 1/2 that with a lead foot! Excellent article. We could all do well to apply those principles to the EVs we might own, and even those who don't own EVs, just our cars in general. "
Posted by: John Westlund
|
|
28-Jul-2005
8574
| |
It works! http://www.mmiiccrroossoofftt.com/ideas/cars/cars1.htm
I discovered it myself this spring, and got more than 5% better gas mileage."
Posted by: Ray Leistner
|
|
28-Jul-2005
8580
| |
Hey Ray, congratulations.
I would think that you could get even better mileage if you smoothed out that plastic around the wheels.
Does your car have a roof rack ? If so, removing it would reduce drag quite a bit.
I noticed you used semi transparent plastic. Have you thought of using clear plexiglass?
I wonder how Phil got those wheelcovers to work on the -front- of his CRX. ( I would think they would rub when he turned the wheels, causing a fire hazard. )"
Posted by: Sean B
|
|
29-Jul-2005
8606
| |
Sean,thanks for the interest,I'll try and cover your questions.Your hatchback has a station wagon type wake of turbulent air,however,it is free of attached vortices.The sedans wake actually begins at the end of the roof as flow which cannot follow the steep backlight angle separates.Also,while this flow may reattach at the end of the trunklid where the main wake begins,the radical pressure gradients and violent mixing zones caused by velocity discrepancies between dide flow and rooftop flow can cause attached vortices which can trail the car by hundreds of feet,robbing horsepower from the engine.Yes,I have many pictures.If you can provide me an address,I'd be happy to share.The boattail goes back to Eiffel in the 1890s.It is basically a truncated,half-elliptical,body of revolution,of 6:1 length-to-width.The Germans were pursuing boattails in the 1920s with airships,busses,and autos.The boattail on my CRX has an electrical umbilical wired like trailer wiring,and my license plate and lights are moved aft to the back of the boattail.On the bellypan,I utilised existing mounting points and where existing holes,rivnuts which install like pop-rivets.The skins are pop-riveted to aluminum frames and cross-braces,and units attched with stainless steel fasteners.I've driven the car coast to coast,and yes there is some heating,there are plenty of openings for extraction.The CRX does not exhibit any increased susceptabiliy to hydroplaning,however,at 2,000 LBS,she's still light and I don't push the envelope.As far as stability,I believe it to be inproved.18-wheeler bow and sternwakes don't phase it.Crosswind stability does not appear to be compromised.Shes rock solid at a 100 miles per hour,however thats for the racecouse only! Keep us abreast of your CIVIC project."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
29-Jul-2005
8607
| |
I appologise for mispelled words.I work away from home and library and I've yet to figure out how to edit and correct my comments without losing them.I type slow and cannot afford to redo it all.dide flow should read side flow."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
29-Jul-2005
8610
| |
Phil,I'm glad to see that you are still active in this forum.
You ( or anyone here ) can send me an e-mail at cgreality@yahoo.com
>>>>( that's reality not realty by the way )<<<<<<
You sound like just the person I'd like to speak with.
I thought of the idea of re-locating the plates to the end of the 'tail' somehow, but the lighting problem had me stumped.
I'm sure you are familiar with the U.C.Davis car ( I think they call it the "Future Car" ).
If not, I'll try and send images of the car. It is a modified Ford Taurus.
The tail tapers, but then ends about halfway from creating a complete cone. The small section of 'trunklid' that is left has a concave depression to it, which helps to decrease turbulence.
I have plans to create a 'half cone' shape which will use clear plexiglass pieces attached to the area around the hatch of the car. The function of the hatchback will not be affected because the pieces will be hinged on the sides to hinge outward as the glass moves upwards.
I'm concerned about the turbulence that the hollow area inside the 'cone' area will produce.
I have some ideas I'd like to throw your way.
Out of curiosity,since my car has a more 'ideal' shape than your truck had at first, would I see less of a change in the drag coefficient if I made changes to the car?
Ideally,
I'd like convert my car to an E.V., but I seem to lack the brainpower !!!:)
Improving the gas mileage means burning "X" less gallons of polluting gasoline, so this is one small step towards doing something good for the world.
---------------------------------------------
I now live near Houston, but used to live around Dallas. ( In fact, my dad recalls seeing you on the highway once.
---------------Small world!------------------
"
Posted by: Sean B
|
|
29-Jul-2005
8624
| |
Phil - no problems with the typos. I just reviewed my last post - can you say ' run on sentence ' ?!
Somehow my last post got all squished together.
I have a new question :
I would have thought that the 1997-current Chevy Camaro / Pontiac Firebird would have a fantastic drag coefficient, yet it has a bland .32 ( worse than the .31 .cd of my boxy Civic.)
When seen from above, the cars have a bullet like profile - a nose which has a very small frontal area, tapers to the sides,and a windshield that is rounded from above and steeply laid back from the side view.
all glass is flush, and there are no protrussions on the body ( nevermind the less aero trans-am versions.)
The rear glass has a nice curve to it as well, and would seem to move the air to the back in a very efficient manner.
The back of the car even tapers back in at a nice angle.
By comparison, the Lexus LS430 has a large upright grille, a windshield that doesn't have that steep of an angle, a flat roof with no taper, and an otherwise ordinary profile.
The door handles aren't even flush.
Also,the tires are almost the same width as the Camaro.
The drag coefficient on the LS430 is .25
----HOW ?
I know that the LS430 has some smoothing to its underside, but what else makes this car so sleek and the Camaro so bad ??
On a similar note, a Ford Focus hatchback has a horrible .36 .cd despite having a similar shape as the Civic, yet the 1992-1995 Civic hatcback has a .31 cd.
What makes the Focus so bad ?
I noticed that it's stated on the Insight website that the civic hatchback has a .36 .cd.
I suppose that this is referring to the last generation hatchback. The back glass has a steep angle and more rounded corners - perhaps the air gets turbulent.
I wonder if the figures that I saw of .31 for my generation Civic were attained without side mirrors. I read somewhere that car makers will do this sometimes.
Recently, I have seen some cars that I would swear were 'bricks' to the wind, only to find that they have .cds in the .20 range.
So ... is aerodynamics just a guessing kind of a science ?
I type slow myself. If you are more comfortable with it, I could call you and we could discuss this more.
:)
"
Posted by: Sean B
|
|
31-Jul-2005
8642
| |
I was just experimenting, so the panels were made of plastic, and attached with masking tape. Living in a Rust Belt, I have to figure out a way to attach something without opening up the sheet metal to rust problems. One thing I noticed when I taped a sheet from the front edge of the bumper to the front of the hood was that the rear window was suddenly resistant to collecting road spray during the rain. Sending more air over the car helped keep the window clean. I've also tried vortex generators, and did not see any difference in fuel economy, though they kept the rear window cleaner than normal, though not nearly as good as the radiator covering. There should be a better discussion board devoted to automobile aerodynamics experiments, like this."
Posted by: Ray Leistner
|
|
01-Aug-2005
8653
| |
Sean,the air captured within your boattail extentions will be "dead air",just a bubble of stagnant air filling up the void.A neighbor is running such a device on his Volkswagen Vanagon,with no back,and no bottom.He claims higher mileage in spite of the open architecture.Since this dead air is at a higher static pressure than the surrounding air mass,you must be carefull that your extensions don't "burst".A reinforcing superstructure would add a safety margin to the Plexiglass.As to whether the CIVIC is a better candidate than the T-100,with the Honda,you don't have as far to go,until you reach the empirical limit of Cd 0.11,the lowest drag that can be acheived in ground effect.Otherwise its a wash,with the exception that you've got about 10 square feet less frontal area."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
18-Aug-2005
8921
| |
Hey, everyone, the discussion has moved off line to
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/maxmpg/ you really need to go to this site and sign up as a member to continue this discussion with us. We will be publishing new performance data on the T-100 in November after modifications and trip from Texas to New Mexico 9over 750 miles)on one tank of gas.
Posted by: John Gilkison
|
|
20-Aug-2005
8951
| |
You could also save money by adding a deep cycle battery to take some of the load off the car's alternator, charging the deep cycle off the grid when you get home. If you live in the sunny south, you could put photovoltaic panels on the roof to provide power as you drive. It would be cheaper than burning gasoline to turn the car's alternator.
Posted by: Ray Leistner
|
|
22-Aug-2005
8988
| |
Ray,your idea about the electrical modifications has merit.In High School,my friends raced T-T Scrambles and Motocross with constant-loss electrical systems.Those young couples I met from California at the Solar-500 operated their all-electric solar-charged Volkswagen conversions this way.When I exploit all the aero I can think of,I'd like to do some of these things.For now however,I cannot introduce any variables to the T-100 that are not aerodynamic,or else I'll never be able to sort out what change is responsible for some change in performance.The neighbor of mine with the Volkswagen Vanagon,drove it roundtrip to Seattle,Washington without an alternator,Relying totally on a rooftop photovoltaic array for all electric loads.The deep-cycle batteries allowed operation into the night.It was a no brainer,and theres no question that it enhanced the vehicles efficiency.Does anyone at EVWORLD know anything they can share about "ultra-capacitors"? Were they too dangerous for EMTs and fire personell to work around in collision scenarios that they were rejected for vehicle applications?
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
04-Oct-2005
10004
| |
Phil, you have completely inspired me. For weeks now I have been doing internet searches to find out what ordinary/extraordinary people are doing to modify existing automobiles to increase fuel efficiency. I have come across some interesting things such as fuel vaporizers and kit cars like the Doran or Tri-magnum. But streamlining seams to give the biggest return, not to mention being able to use the existing car,s platform. You mentioned in an earlier email that you have 345000 miles of data on a streamlined CRX. I am very interested in finding out more information about this project if you are willing to share any pictures or additional information or I would be very grateful my email is tecs@netzero.net I also have a 90 honda accord 4 door sedan and was interested in any streamlining ideas, comments or suggestions you might have for this vehicle as well. Thank you for your time.
Posted by: Todd Mohorovich
|
|
24-Oct-2005
10464
| |
I read about what you did with the T-100. I have the same thing with a 2.7 liter and 5-speed. I read how you made it more aero with the shell and belly-pan and covered most of the front around the radiator. Would cutting louvered vents on the far sides of the hood near the windshield help to vent the air in the engine compartment on your truck? Would this air flow help improve the slipstream near the windshield? Just a thought.
Posted by: rick becker
|
|
27-Oct-2005
10541
| |
Rick,I believe extracting the engine bay air where you mentioned would probably help.AS the flow accelerates around the A-pillars pressure is reduced and louvers positioned here would tend to scavenge air out of the underhood area.Dr.Wunibald Kamm did this back in the 1930s and it helped energise the flow over the windshield and prevent separation and onset of the turbulent wake.Since flow was now attached over the entire length of the roof,stylists were free to cut the roof off wherever they desired and the roof would still be "clean".I've done some work to the T-100 since the article came out.Visit a bunch of us aspiring aeroholics over at http://autos.groups.yahoo.com.group/maxmpg/ see ya there,Phil. P.S. thanks for the comment!
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
28-Oct-2005
10555
| |
Hi Phil:
Great website, and props to you for all of your hard work!
Would adding some kind of wing to the rear help direct the air downward to some degree and reform to blend with the low pressure area behind the vehicle?
The teardrop effect!
Lee
Posted by: Lee Curry
|
|
27-Nov-2005
11183
| |
How much frontal area would you cut by replacing the rear-view mirrors with cameras (and lcd screens inside)? Rangers have huge mirrors compared to the Toyota in the picture, and I am one of the lucky few with an EV version, so I hope to do a LOT of aero mods in the future - this is the best way to get more range.
Posted by: Russell L
|
|
28-Nov-2005
11205
| |
RE: Russell L.'s Ranger mirrors.Russell,just got your comment.Without a Ranger like your's to inspect I'd have to guess at the frontal area of the two mirrors,and I'd guess at about 0.66 square feet and drag coefficient of about Cdo.45 for the mirrors.Something to bear in mind though.When I ran my CRX at Bonneville,on one run,I completely removed the sideview mirrors,and the difference could not be measured to a thousandth of a mile per hour.My thought is ditch your time and expense on the mirrors and it in some low hanging fruit known to add mpg.Theres alot of info available over at Tom Shelton's maxmpg site.Google maxmpg and click on one of the comments to get in.I think it will save you mucho time and expense.Thanks for your interest and let us know how things fall together.
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
01-Aug-2005
8654
| |
Sean,with respect to the Cds,its three different car companies and three different windtunnels.Entire research papers have been published trying to reconcile the differences in windtunnel results,and low drag can be a bragging right and there has been some ledgerdermain in the past.If Lexus uses the Japanese Automotive Research Institute tunnel,It has a buoyancy problem do to its small test section and if not accounted for,will give lower than actual numbers.I don't know where their numbers come from.Honda uses JARI so here we go again.Ford uses a crosswind averaged drag coefficient,with yaw angles up to 5-degrees.At zero yaw,I suspect the Cd of the Focus to be lower.Looks can be deceiving! The Olds Aurora looks like drag but doesn't fair better than average as its flanks taper too fast and the flow separates long before reaching the end of the car.I suspect the Camaro/Firebird to do likewise.Also,their rear windshield (backlight)is yoo steep in both plan and elevation causing early separation.The Lexus begins its plan taper early,Has higher sectional density and its high boot allows for reattached flow over the captured vortex behind its backlight.Since the fronts of cars are fighting positive pressure gradients,they do not require super radii to provide attached boundary layer flow and can look kinda like bricks (although they'll never acheive really low drag).The aft body is very sensitive to flow separation (lift/drag))and dependent on forebody to provide clean flow.Again,Eiffel's cone gives us an idea of what the air will tolerate.And contemporary examples can be seen in the aftbodies of canoe,kayak,aircraft fuselage,Space Shuttle tailcone,birds,fish,marine mammals(bottlenose dolphin especially)."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
01-Jul-2005
8245
| |
Nice concept, but in my opinion totally off target. A light duty truck? More attention to big rigs would have been a more effecient use of resources. Since those trucks are normally driving at highway speeds and need better aerodynamics. As for the Turda-100 and it's 3.4 liter v-6 , it was a marginal platform at best, hence it not being made anymore. As I have said before, trucks are practical for farmers and others who need the utility in hauling, but for commuting? Save your money and the environment and get a bus pass! "
Posted by: sherwood baker
|
|
01-Jul-2005
8249
| |
Shewood, do you have any idea how many light trucks there are in Texas, or in the USA for that matter? As for the T-100 (not a Tundra) it
was a traditional half ton pick up truck. It had a 8 foot bed with 4 feet between the wheel wells.
The model in question had a 2.7 liter four cylinder 150 HP engine, but normally came with a V-6 as your pointed out. This proof of concept was not vehicle specific, ie, it would work on any truck. Let me repeat that, improving the aerodynamic of any light truck like this would
net a similar improvement in highway mileage. If the base vehicle got only 18 MPG on the highway at 70 MPH it would be improved to 23 MPG. If 20 MPG was normal then 25.6 MPG. Well you get the picture, a 5 to 7 MPG improvement of light trucks on the highway would save America alot of gasoline and air pollution. One of the best things we could do is set minimum cd figures for all cars and trucks that would do much to improve the nation's fleet mileage averages as well as setting MPG numbers. I can't think of one light aircraft that looks like a Hummer."
Posted by: John Gilkison
|
|
01-Jul-2005
8251
| |
Setting cd figures is a great idea. The improved aerodynamics on this truck could be applied to any pick-up out there. I see a lot of them everyday and rarely do they have something in the bed. This concept provides a good business case for making calapsible aerodynamic kits like this for the different pick-ups that are or have been on sale. That way the customers can save money on fuel with the car they already have. And even possibly make cd improving aerodynamic kits for regular cars. If the manufacturers won't take it serious I think its hightime someone does."
Posted by: tonami P
|
|
01-Jul-2005
8255
| |
Tonami, do you know any venture capitalist, or have a bundle of cash yourself, ha? What needs to be done is form work to set up jigs and production capability. There is already an established group of manufacturers out there making camper shells and
bed covers, but they are made for looks, not performance. Some of the appliances Phil made, such as the belly pan aren't available at all. All this would take some comittment and vision, as well as know how"
Posted by: John Gilkison
|
|
02-Jul-2005
8257
| |
It would be good if someone could calculate or measure the actual mile per gallon improvement for each of the individual improvements so cost/effectiveness judgements could be made. A truck owner could then decide on priorities and determine what is worth the expense. I'm not an expert, but my guess is that if you removed the tailgate and tapered the cover all the way down to the truckbed, you would maximize the effect."
Posted by: Ben Wheeler
|
|
05-Jul-2005
8278
| |
Ben I can see what you mean. But from my understanding of aerodynamics, increasing the angle of the slope anymore than 32degrees would result in turbulence and instability at speed. Thats why the Audi TT has a terrible cd of 0.35 despite the aerodynamic look. I think the shape phil has created is perfect and more practical. The only way improvements can be made would be to slope the bottom to meet the top which is not practical. John I have no contact with any venture capitalist, neither do I have the money to create a start-up myself, but this could be something I could do when I'm done with college. I can also calculate hypothetically that the biggest contributor to drag reudction is the aerodynamic cover over the bed followed by the underbelly cover. The wheel cover and the shielding of open inlets in front add the last few gains. "
Posted by: tonami P
|
|
06-Jul-2005
8301
| |
The intersting thing here was the belly pan which improved the mileage to 28% percent over the 11% improvement with just the aeroshell alone. The two work together in that they both clean up turbelant flow, and neither of them separately do the complete job. In answer to Ben's question, since traveling with the tailgate down is an option, an aeroshell could be made to extend the convergence, and further reduce the wake of the vehicle. This would have the added benefit of improving the cord ratio and increasing storage area. This would entail a bit more work though."
Posted by: John Gilkison
|
|
06-Jul-2005
8305
| |
thats pretty interesting John. I've noticed that cars with the lowest drag coeficient presently have the underbelly shielded with metal or platic. The list includes the honda insight(0.25), Lexus LS430(0.25), euro Honda accord(0.26), mercedes E-class(0.26), toyota prius(0.26). Mnay carmakers don't do this because of cost, but I think it should become indutry standard by now.A good example of the improve is the already aerodynamic Audi A2 whose cd droped from 0.28-0.25 after putting an underbelly cover in the A2 3L. "
Posted by: tonami P
|
|
01-Aug-2005
8655
| |
Ray,thanks for sharing.I too share in the challenge of structural integrity vs rust although I have made some sacrifices in the name of science and proof of concepts.The pretty stuff will come later with much attention to other cosiderations.When I can,I'll use existing hard points on the cars.Automotive primer,sealer,caulk,and adhesives help combat the ravages of moisture.Composite structures can replace or be bonded to existing panels in some situations.Production pieces would be expected to have all the polish we expect from todays state of the art manufacturing technology."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
01-Aug-2005
8657
| |
I don't know how the rest of you feel about this, but I am seeing this article as one of the most commented on articles on evworld.com, I am counting
forty two comments including this one. Nine of them are mine and thirteen are Phils in response mostly to questions. I sense from reading alot of evworld postings over the last few years that the importance of aerodynamics isn't generally understood. The professionals who work for the auto companies take a back seat to the stylist.
This is going to have to change if we are ever going to make any progress in ground transportation efficiency. A great deal of the new technological magic under the hood is going to be wasted without a fundlemental change like this."
Posted by: John Gilkison
|
|
01-Aug-2005
8659
| |
Now I'm really confused.
Go here :http://fuelcells.sae.org/automag/globalview_11-99/10.htm
Not only does the Opel G90 have a brick like front end, it also has a super wide grille opening as well, no full whell covers, and seemingly little -if any- taper to the back ( when seen from the top view. )
It even has blocky side view mirrors instead of cameras !
How is it possible that the car has a .22 .cd ?
The front end of the car is literally straight up and down !
How does air react at the sharp, vs. smotthed edges of the bumper ?
If car companies can make a brick like this one 'fly', it really shows me that it must be possible to streamline ANY shape of car. It is such a shame that the auto companies build cars like this as if to taunt the whole Environmental movement - almost as if to say, " See ... we can build a better car but we won't."
Back to aerodynamics, I read somewhere that a full boat tail creates more surface drag ( skin friction ? )than a Kamm-Back does.
Please comment on this.
"
Posted by: Sean B
|
|
02-Aug-2005
8664
| |
FYI, having been inspired by Phil and his exploits, I have started a yahoo discussion group called maxmpg.org. I have also registered that URL and will soon start to document my modifications and the resultant mpg savings. Please pay attention to the rules of the group, political discussions are not allowed. There are plenty of forums for that purpose and we don't want to alienate anyone who would otherwise have something worthwhile to contribute. Stick to the technical stuff. Also, even though I'm the moderator, I'm no expert. I don't have any sort of engineering background like Phil so it will be up to all of us to help each other. You will be able to post pictures of your projects and share links to other web sites that share our goal. Please spread the word and join up. "
Posted by: John Shelton
|
|
04-Aug-2005
8716
| |
John Shelton, I and others keep going to maxmpg.com and all we find is a opening page provided by the provider. Could you let us know when you expect to have this listserver operating so we will know when to go there! I have posted that you were doing this and the address maxmpg.org in a couple other places on evworld.com."
Posted by: John Gilkison
|
|
04-Aug-2005
8717
| |
Sean,I Googled the Opel G90,and from what I saw,a Cd of 0.22 would be no problem.The forebody has generous side and top radii,the roofline has a beautiful elliptical slope,it appears to have some plan taper,I suspect GM paid attention to the underside ( their late model Corvettes have one of the most streamlined bellys in the industry).The grille may 'appear' enormous,however,we can't actually see from the photos how much of that area is open.The G90 is not quite as clean as the EV-1 (Cd 0.19 ),it is cleaner than the Calibra (Cd 0.26 ).And not as good as some of the 1980s Citation concept cars ( below Cd 0.17 ),its definitely a step in a good direction.Funny thing is that Opel used the Penguin as the inspiration for the G90 and a Penguin has a Cd of 0.11. Their are two photos of the G90 in scale model windtunnel,and the flow is clean over the whole car.One photo shows smoke spilling into the wake,which the aeroshell and boattail address."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
04-Aug-2005
8718
| |
John,really looking forward to your website.Bill Moore has been very generous to provide us with a venue to diseminate aero info.Good luck with your project.Think safety! Our quest for low drag shouldn't endanger us or our neighbor motorists.And if speed seduces you,just don't go there! Race courses have the proper infrastructure to deal with unforseen contingencies.Again,good luck."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
04-Aug-2005
8720
| |
Phil, what had me so confused with the G90 was the boxy shape. I had always assumed that you needed a boat tailed bullet like shape to have a good .cd.
So just how hard is it to predict what a good shape will be ?
I have read of many cases where hundreds of hours of wind tunnel time will be devoted to dropping the .cd figure by only a few counts.
I have read that even the width of body gaps will be considered.
Observing cases like this, I am reminded of just how little that I know of the science.
As an example, I always assumed that The German V2 rocket would be more streamlined than the blunt nosed Mercury rockets were. The V2 had a teardrop shape vs. the dull pencil like profile of the Mercury.
What made the V2 less streamlined ? ( Or were they ? )
Perhaps this weekend I may do some yarn tuft testing with my car. Perhaps you folks could make some suggestions as to what I could do to lower the .cd. ( I could post photos )
To repeat what others have asked, I was also wondering how to " read " the tufts.
( I plan to use thick string instead of yarn because the last time i tried the test, the yarn ended up sticking to itself. )
I'm really eager to find out more about the CRX that you had. How did you make the front wheel pants work since the tires have to turn. ( Or did you just use them for the straight line speed testing ? )
Also, how far did the boat tailed extention come out on the CRX ?
Since I need the back hatch to work on my car, what can I do besides a boat tail to taper the air at the back of the car ?
I noticed that the fellow at http:/www.max-mpg.com has used a VW Beetle as his test car.
I never would have imagined that a car with such a steep backlight angle and bulbous fenders could be improved so dramatically by just adding a shelf spoiler. He doesn't even use vortex generators. How does the air stay attached so well ?
I have some plans for adding a belly pan to my car, but I worry about water being trapped in the belly pan when it rains and ripping pieces of it off - not a good thing when you have someone driving behind you.
BTW,I didn't mean to come off as arrogant with the comment about my car having a more 'ideal' shape.
I was actually just wondering if i could see a change in my .cd as easily as you guys that use trucks. ( I am guessing that the more streamlined that a vehicle becomes, the harder it becomes to streamline it further - but that's just a guess . )
Thanks for the feed back folks !
"
Posted by: Sean B
|
|
05-Aug-2005
8728
| |
John and all, The discussion group I started can be found at http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/maxmpg/. Join the group and start sharing your ideas and experiences. The website I'm in the process of building is at www.maxmpg.org. It's currently under construction and is just a simple template style website but it's a start. This will be where I post the modifications I make to my truck, how to do them, parts sources, pictures, and results. I will also post the same info from anyone else who wants to contribute. There will be a links section and I plan on making the instructions for the projects in PDF format for easy download and printing. Check in on Monday, I should have something a bit more definitive by then. As far as the group goes, this will only work if people actually join. So far I'm the only one who has joined up. I don't have the technical know-how of people like Phil, I just have some ideas. That's what makes it so important to have lots of participants. Everyone has something to contribute and something to learn. So PLEASE join the group this weekend. If you know of any other fuel saving websites, drop me an e-mail and I'll post links to them. Thanks. "
Posted by: John Shelton
|
|
05-Aug-2005
8731
| |
Phil, don't worry, I'm nowhere near a speed demon. My truck, in the time I've owned it, has never seen the top side of 75 mph. The first step in getting better mileage is to slow down. Unless it's on fire, there's no reason why you need to speed to get somewhere. Another maxim I drive by is it's a speed limit, not a speed minimum. A natural byproduct of making an engine more efficient is more horsepower, you just need to keep your foot out of it. But thanks for your concern. Also, do you have a book you'd want to recommend for a layman about automotive aerodynamics?"
Posted by: John Shelton
|
|
05-Aug-2005
8735
| |
Sean, don't look at rockets. They go pretty much strait up at first, then tilt over to acheive orbit. Speeds aren't that high in the atmosphere, the goal is to get above as much of the atmosphere as possible as soon as possible. They start going much faster after Max Q."
Posted by: John Gilkison
|
|
27-Aug-2005
9099
| |
I suspect today's ultra-capacitors lack the energy density of NiMH cells, but I do remember seeing one hybrid car listed as using one. Maybe they are suitable for regenerative braking.
Only once this summer I spotted a truck where the side mirror was mounted using tubing having a streamlined cross-section instead of a round section. Another place for streamlined tubing is the exhaust stack.
Posted by: Ray Leistner
|
|
27-Aug-2005
9102
| |
Ray,thanks for the observatuons on ultr-capacitors.Looks like maybe all the media hype on them was too good to be true.With respect to the sideview mirror stantions,at the EAA fly-in in 1997,a fellow was marketing aerodynamic streamlining extrusions for ultralight aircraft which fly at 27 mph.Funny that on any given day,a truck may drive into a 30 mph headwind at 70 mph,and little attention is paid to details for these vehicles with 100 mph airspeeds.As we approach $3.00/gallon fuel prices on Labor Day,I wonder if anyone will be looking to the sky for clues to higher mpg.
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
18-Sep-2005
9597
| |
Would a vertical panel or two near the middle of the pickup bed, perpendicular to the direction of travel, be able to reduce drag by trapping clean, stable vortices in the bed, assuming there was no junk stored in the bed there? Tracks could be placed on the sides of the bed, and the panels slid into place when the bed is empty. This would be much less effective than a full cover, but it would be really cheap, and you could store the panels flat when the bed was in use.
Posted by: Ray Leistner
|
|
06-Jul-2005
8310
| |
Yes Tonami, it makes sense when you consider it
is a whole side of the vehicle that is normally
not addressed. Since it is out of sight, it has been out of mind so to speak. But the air does not make any of these fine distinctions. What it did for us was literally clean up the turbulance
that was feeding into the wake area behind the vehicle. This is why I keep emphasizing the fact that these refinements together acted synergistically to improve the cd far more then the indivigual appliances would separately or additively."
Posted by: John Gilkison
|
|
06-Jul-2005
8312
| |
An interesting article...With the flat belly work and the sloping wing like topside, it seems to me that lift is occurring. The rear of the belly could slope upward to meet the downward sloping roof to help offset lift. I've noticed some newer cars like this."
Posted by: Bill Stone
|
|
07-Jul-2005
8325
| |
Thanks for the comment Sherwood.After my Honda CRX achieved up to 84.5 mpg with streamlining,I turned my attention to pickups,as I'm in construction trades and at times need the full utility of a 1/2-ton truck.My Honda is for commuting,however many pickup owners cannot support the expence of two vehicles.I agree that 18-wheelers need help and I'd like to be involved,however I don't have a couple hundred thousand dollars to play with.If you want to make an endowment,let me know,otherwise I'll continue to work on the 35.5 million light trucks that I can do something about."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
07-Jul-2005
8327
| |
Ben,thanks for the interest.Going back to Eiffel's work of 1895,if you were to take the bedcover down to the bed of the box,you would exceed the angle at which boundary layer adhesion can be maintained,flow would separate right behind the cab and you'd be right back where you started.The angle of the 'aeroshell'is right at the ragged edge of adhesion.Any steeper angle and you shoot yourself in the foot!Observing the aft bodies of fish,birds,and marine mammals will give you perfect examples of what will work."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
07-Jul-2005
8328
| |
Bill,Thanks for your comment.The portion of the bellypan behind the rear axle does slope up at 2.5 degrees,which is the maximum angle undervehicle flow can support without separation and attendant drag increase.This is called a "difuser" style bellypan and is of the lowest drag design known.The "aero-trailer" concept mentioned in the article allows for the impossible lengths and tapers,both in plan and elevation,that the air likes best.At the Solar-500 at Phoenix International Raceway a decade or so ago,some competitors drove pure electrics,non-stop from Los Angeles pulling generator trailers to create America's first hybrids.Had those trailers been streamlined,the vehicles could have achieved even greater performance,range,and lower emissions."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
07-Jul-2005
8329
| |
John,your Triumph project sounds interesting and ambitious.I've messed around with some of the things you mentioned so I thought I'd throw it out there in hope that it may help.I have 345'000 miles of data on my CRX.The streamlining I did to it added weight and did not degrade urban efficiency.Highway mileage has beenas high as 84.5 mpg.I hold a Utah Salt Flats Racing Association club land speed record with it.At 100 miles per hour,the windshield wipers,door handles,antenna,side mirrors,and license plate made absolutely no difference to top speed.Also,I tried the RED LINE racing full synthetic oil in the transaxle and it showed no measureable improvement.SLICK-50 showed absolutely no measureable change in performance.An aero facia,partial front wheel pants,wheel discs,rear wheel skirts,and partial bellypan while demonstrating "some"measurable speed increase,nothing did as much for speed and fuel economy as the "boattail" behind the CRX.And most motorists don't realize the significance the back of their vehicle plays on performnce,economy,and enviroment.A modest "tufting" study,with yarn and Scotch tape will tell you if you have attached flow on your Triumph.If so,you might consider looking at the back of it as a source for unlocking free horsepower,efficiency and range for thoses future batteries.Good luck,let us know how it goes."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
11-Jul-2005
8359
| |
Congrats it Phil for accomplishing what I've spent years daydreaming on! For the bed cover, are there any DIY fiberglassing resources that you'd recommend, or a perhaps how-to guide based on your experience? I've envisioned such a tapered shell, but with either a fabric/vinyl rear window that can be removed for hauling bulky items, or an acrylic rear window covering the entire bed area, opening with gas-charged shocks just like other solid tonneau covers.
Thanks,
Jay"
Posted by: Jay Donnaway
|
|
12-Jul-2005
8372
| |
I just thought of something that could further improve the cd of this vehicle, if not so impractical. I'm thinking of the GM precept-like grilles on the side of the truck bed and a louvered or mesh openining on the tailgate. Phil I'm just guessing, but I think it could really improve it. Like I mentioned earlier it seems to be a little impractical, but that doesn't mean it cannot be tried."
Posted by: tonami P
|
|
12-Jul-2005
8375
| |
Dear Phil, did you set up by any chance a website with more detailed pictures and data for your projects? I think that we are all very interested in your ideas. Thanks"
Posted by: Ludowil Tolz
|
|
12-Jul-2005
8376
| |
I can answer Tonami's question, but Phil will have to address Jay's and Ludowil questions. Opening to allow air to theorectically flow through the bed would be of no use whatsoever. What you want is laminar flow which organizes the air flowing off of the vehicle and keeps the wake area behind the vehicle to a minimum. Two major improvements which would help are One: An extention to the bed cover to bring the air togtehr even more behind the vehicle, as far at least as the tailgate in the down position. Two: physically relocating the radiator to just in front of the rear wheels, (one on each side)to stop air from entering the engine bay and all the drag this causes. Air could enter and exit immediately with this configuration. Finally as Phil has mentioned a properly shaped trailer could lower the cd even more, as this represents a more favorable cord ratio for the whole vehicle aerodynamically speaking."
Posted by: John Gilkison
|
|
13-Jul-2005
8385
| |
Thanks John for clarifying that for me. This topic is becoming ever more interesting, Seems some tangible stuff is going to come out of this. Good work Phil. "
Posted by: tonami P
|
|
14-Jul-2005
8393
| |
Jay,there are some DIY books available through mail order.A good book on composite experimental aircraft construction would cover everything you'd need to know.I can get all the supplies I need at the Home Depot,in the paint dept.,and insulation section.Polyester resin usually has adequate instructions to get yoy going.A neihbor did a naughahyde covered skeleton bedcover.It worked okay until ultraviolet attavked it.A complete acrylic cover would be amazing,however very expensive and complicated tooling,oven,and vacuum table do draw out the shape.No plans yet on any kits,as it opens a big can of worms with patent attorneys,etc..Good luck! Phil."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
29-Oct-2005
10591
| |
Phil, thanks for your reply. I had another idea, farfetched at best. Please bare with me. I see your working on the wake ( negative air ) behind your truck. You are using aero shapes to improve the slipstream. Maybe you could use the positive pressure air in front of the truck to do the job. Punch a hole front and center in the air dam, connect a pipe and run to the bumper and exit in center at the license plate through the bumper. This would shoot the air into the center of the wake. Special attention should be paid to the entry and exit ports. The front port at the front air dam must be smaller than the exit port at the rear bumper. This will keep any pressure from building up in the pipe ( help to pull air through). This pipe should be run inside your bellypan. This idea could be expanded to an entire trough to help make the 18 wheel trucks more aero in the rear. Just another thought.
Posted by: rick becker
|
|
14-Jul-2005
8394
| |
tonami P,John pretty much covered the tailgate issue.In the 1980s Texas Tech research discovered that running a pickup with the tailgate down, off,or with a cargo net actually increased drag.So far,the aeroshell shows the most promise for drag reduction in pickups.You'll see this shape in Porshe.Ferrari,Lamborghini,Dymaxion,Tucker,Peregrine falcon,nuclear attack submarines,aircraft fuselage,its all around us, just not on trucks.Thanks for your comments,Phil"
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
15-Jul-2005
8404
| |
Actually I don't think patents or any of it is a problem. If the shapes are all around us and just not being used on trucks then there is no case for patent infringement. If I were Phil I would just market it as improved performance and leave it at that. I seen a bed cover hinged in the middle longitudinally and that looks like a great way to go. You wouldn't have to hinge the whole thing, just sections of it for access."
Posted by: John Gilkison
|
|
16-Jul-2005
8421
| |
I ran across your work while looking for ways to improve the gas mileage of my '88 Toyota 4x4. I can see from looking at the picture, many of the methods you've used. I don't understand about ' blocking off the grill ', if this means that there's less air available for the radiator.
Also, can you refer me to a source for better describing your methods in practical terms ? Do you have a separate website ?
I expect to keep my truck for a few years more and figure it's an opportunity to practice these principles right away.
Thanks,
Steve"
Posted by: steve enfield
|
|
19-Jul-2005
8462
| |
Steve, I can only answer your question partially, Phil would have to answer the rest of it. Phil does not have a website at the present time, but he would like to. As far as the grill blockage is concerned, manufactureres provide far more inlet air for the radiator then is really needed, so optimizing the opening to reduce drag is easily done. Obviously if you see temperatures rising at all you have overdone it."
Posted by: John Gilkison
|
|
19-Jul-2005
8463
| |
Steve,"blocking off the grille"pretty much means what it implies.Cooling systems are designed to perform at Death Valley,California,in peak summer weather,with all accessories on and no vehicle motion.This usually leaves excess capacity for all but extreme circumstances.The tip comes from the head of General Motors GMC Truck Division and was in a Popular Science article last year on pickup fuel economy.On the T-100,there is only one grille slot open,just above the bumper.At 102 degrees F.,I can't begin to overheat the engine.Actually,the drag reduction gained by blocking the grille actually makes the truck run cooler! I'll think of some sources of info.There have been articles in the popular press over the decades,however,EV WORLD may quite possibly become the best source.I do not have a website,have been asked about it and at this time don't know where the resources would come from to create such an animal.Your 4by4 will add an extra challenge as its higher ride height agravates both your trucks frontal area and drag coefficient."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
06-Dec-2005
11428
| |
I want to add my thanks to this list of folks who appreciate what EV World and Phil Knox have done by making this information available.
A fascinating article which has obviously inspired numerous readers to learn more about aero modifications. As a direct result of reading about this, I've also started testing and documenting aero mods on my own car. (For all the gory details, see: www.MetroMPG.com)
I also use the YAHOO MaxMPG group that grew out of this discussion and can vouch for its good signal to noise ratio: it is a good resource.
Thanks again EV World and Phil Knox.
Posted by: Darin cosgrove
|
|
05-Nov-2005
10737
| |
Re:Lee Curry's question.Lee,while a wing helps behind the cab,it would no doubt help out behind the truck box if at a proper downslope angle.Thing of it is though,if your gonna add this length,why not enclose the sides and bottom to create the boattail,known to produce the best performance.You can see mine at the maxmpg site mentioned above at my last entry.NASA uses it,Waggoner Trucking uses it,peregrine falcons,sailfish,bottlenose dolphins,NAVY attack submarines,aircraft,etc. use it.For the money,its the best investment you can make.The wing will help,but it promises only a fraction of the benefit possible with the boattail.
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
05-Nov-2005
10738
| |
Re: Rick Becker's central duct.Rick,your idea has merit.Military aircraft use this principle although since they rely on thrust and not traction its a different game for us.My bellypan attempts to maximise ground clearance.The space it encloses is like a torture chamber for the air,and does not present enough additional space for the interbody ductwork.Having no air pass through the body was the solution Jack Telnack of FORD arrived at with the PROBE series of concept cars.Radiators and air conditioning condensers were moved to the vehicle rear,with short,ideally formed ducts expelling directly into the vehicle wake.At Cd 0.13 for the PROBE-5,it remains the lowest drag,producible,car ever penned by the big dogs.Given time,I will probably pursue this route as I do believe its a bird in hand as far as technology goes.Good comment,you're thinking outside the box.That's a good thing!
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
08-Aug-2005
8754
| |
I stopped checking this article only to come back and find a truck load of comments. This is the most active article ever on EV world. Phils has started up something with this T-100 project of his. I like the attention aerodynamics is garnering on this site. Too bad the automakers always push it to the side. I remember they called the G90 the future of Opel, fastforward to 2005 and the opel astra still has 0.34cd. Very very disappointing. Audi did well with the aerodynamic A2, but never folowed up the achievement with their other cars. GM the automaker that has the most experience with aerodynamics has some of the least aerodynamic cars in production. We really can make a change. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Reading about everyones developments has put some ideas in my head. i'm thinking of a TV show much in the vein of "Pimp my Ride", but instead of making cosmetic changes to cars, Aerodynamics and other techniques would be used to reduce the mileagee of cars. I imagine a "Green my Ride" show where after all the modifications are made they could be made available as kits to the public. I have so many ideas in my head, but I don't even have a car to experiment with. That would not stop me though. Does anyone have any contact with a TV show producer? I'm thinking Phil would make a good hast with his well rounded knowledge on the subject. "
Posted by: tonami P
|
|
08-Aug-2005
8755
| |
The lakcluster nature of the automotive industry can also be seen in TV car programs. Most.....uhm more precisely ALL of them are geared towards more and more outragious horsepower. If that human energy and desire to be the best can be chanelled into a show and races that are geared towards Fuel economy, the public would notice. With the current situaton, the general Public is just dumb and do what ever they see fit on TV. Give topics like aerodynamics more attention and more TV coverage and a change would occur. The bottom line is that we can experiment all we want, but if every other person does not swicth, our efforts would be in vain. This is the part that troubles me the most. Trying to convince my friends on aerodynamic enhancement like covering the rear wheel is more like moving a mountain and a lot harder than discussing it in a very educated circle like EV world."
Posted by: tonami P
|
|
08-Aug-2005
8764
| |
Sean,just a quick note for now.I'll be pulling materials together to share and post.I've stayed away from ballistics because its just not a domain I'll ever be involved with.The V-2 was shaped much like a 50-caliber projectile which was known to be supersonic.The V-2 became supersonic on reentering the atmosphere arriving ahead of it's accoustic signature.Very high terror quotient! On the Mercury,the leading edge of the capsules tower penetrated the airstream ahead of the rocket,and the rocket performs a sort of NASCAR draft behind its payload."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
08-Aug-2005
8765
| |
John,just a quickie! Glad that safety is part of your program.I also respect posted speed limits.I'm pulling a list of resource materials to post.There are quite literally hundreds of sources so please be patient as I try to cull through them.There are some great books and I'll list those.Hopefully,They'll be available on inter-library loan,if not,some are worth the invesment for a permanent reference.I'll get to your website as soon as possible.Thanks for hosting."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
09-Aug-2005
8780
| |
Phil, can't wait to see the material! And you will always have space reserved on my website! Quick note, I'm about to order an electric fan too replace the clutch driven one on my engine. It's beginning!!!"
Posted by: John Shelton
|
|
09-Aug-2005
8781
| |
Everyone,here are some technical references for aerodynamics from academic sources.I'll follow with popular press article references as time permits.(1) THE AUTOMOTIVE AERODYNAMICS HANDBOOK,by Henry Clyde Landa,copyright 1976,1977,1979,1983,1987,ISBN 0-931974-14-3.(2) Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles,Edited by Wolf-Heinrich Hucho,Butterworths,1987,ISBN 0-408-01422-9.(3) CRC HANDBOOK of tables for APPLIED ENGINEERING SCIENCE,second edition,CRC PRESS,INC.,Boca Raton,Florida,copyright,1970,1973,ISBN 0-8493-0252-8,Table 5-22,page 516,(4) A METHOD of Estimating Automobile Drag Coefficients,R.G.S.White,SAE Paper No.690189,Society of Automotive Engineers,1969.Good construction tips for fabrication can be found with: COMPOSITE BASICS-5,5th Edition,by Andrew C. Marshall,also,COMPOSITE CONSTRUCTION FOR HOMEBUILT AIRCRAFT,by Jack Lambie,both available through HISTORIC AVIATION,1-800-225-5575. They also have great books on metal fabrication and such.The knowledge will pay dividends the rest of a life.Sailing books also get into aerodynamics.Old Fluid Dynamics textbooks will also introduce readers to aerodynamics.And don't get scared 'cause its college text.You won't need advanced mathematics to work with this stuff.Basically,your working with percentages,based on the height and width of your car,van,or truck.Curves are nicer than straight lines,however,they multiply build time by many times over.Eiffel's ice cream cone is not as pretty as the back of a Peregrine Falcon,but it gets most of the job done.If you all are driving late model vehicles for project cars,then,you're going to be concentrating on the "back" of your vehicles.Thats where the real drag is."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
09-Aug-2005
8782
| |
Good move John! Fans are aerodynamic and above 40 miles per hour you don't need one.Plenty of ram-air to cool.Just be sure you have a good thermostatically controlled unit for low speed,gridlock,and those times when you can't move."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
10-Aug-2005
8789
| |
You need to look at "Streamlining and Car Aerodynamics" by Jan P. Norbye.
Phil, any intentions to maximize efficiency by adressing excessive brake drag by machining the brake pistons to be round, adressing wheel bearing friction by replacing the bearings, adressing high tire rolling resistance by switching to LRR tires, addressing drag from alignment by adjusting to 0 degrees camber, and increasing transmission efficiency slightly by changing to a synthetic transmission oil? How about weight reduction by replacing metal body pieces with fiberglass, and windows with lexan?
Any intent to convert your T100 to electric? 2,500 pounds of flooded lead acid batteries could give a truck that aerodynamic 200 miles highway range! On par with an ICE-powered car, using lead no less! That would be nothing short of amazing.
"
Posted by: John Westlund
|
|
10-Aug-2005
8799
| |
Aero magazine articles: (1) Thin Car Travels Far,by John Matras,POPULAR SCIENCE,August,2002,p.28. (2) Space Shuttle Orbiter-ready for test flight (special tail cone.......to reduce aerodynamic drag),by Jim Schefter,POPULAR SCIENCE,Jan.1977. (3) Ford's advanced-concept Probe V 'most aerodynamic car in world',The Dallas Morning News,Saturday,Aug.24,1985,p.6D.(4) PROJECT CAR:'CRISIS-FIGHTER'PINTO,by Don Sherman,CAR&DRIVER,March 1974,p.44. (5) Slip through the Wind,by L.J.K.Setright,CAR&DRIVER,Nov.1979,p.73. (6) TUNNELING THROUGH THE AGES by Alex Tremulis,ROAD & TRACK,Aug.1982,p.36. (7)AERO ESTIMATION,SELF TAUGHT by Del Coates,ROAD & TRACK,Aug.1982,p.40. (8) POPSCI EXPERIMENT A Truck That Drinks Less Than a Car?,POPULAR SCIENCE,August 2002,p.83. (9) MUSCLE SUBS by Peter Briton,POPULAR SCIENCE,June 1989,p.126.(10) SEARCHING FOR THE PERFECT .10 by Rich Taylor,Popular Mechanics,Sep.1981,p.75. (11) Coast to Coast on a single Tank?,POPULAR SCIENCE,August 2002,p.87."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
11-Aug-2005
8823
| |
More Aero Aticles:(12) Slashing aerodynamic drag:how computers redesign a car for more mpg,by Jan P. Norbye,POPULAR SCIENCE,Nov.1979,p.72. (13) Flying on the Ground,by Rick Voegelin,MOTOR TREND,Feb.1981,p.40.,(14) How designers build more mpg into new low-drag cars,by Jim Dunne,POPULAR SCIENCE,Sep.1981,p.74. (15) SEEKING LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL,by Dennis Simanaitas,ROAD & TRACK,Aug.1982,p.32.(16) Trans Am in the Tunnel,by John Lamm,ROAD&TRACK,Sep.1982,p.147. (17) Low-drag cars get 100+ mpg,by Ben Kocivar,POPULAR SCIENCE,Jan.1982,p.80. (18) PROBE IV Ford's new wind-cheating supercar,by Herbert Shuldiner,POPULAR SCIENCE,March 1983,p.65. Ford vs Chevy! We drive the latest missiles in the aero wars,CAR and DRIVER,Aug.1984,p.36.<(19),(20) Oldsmobile AEROTECH The World's Fastest Oval Racer,by Mark Ewing,Sports Car Illustrated,Dec.1987,p.34. (21) GM's NEW ULTRACAR 100 MPG!,POPULAR MECHANICS,April 1992. (22) Twisting in the Wind,by Bob Zeller,CAR and DRIVER,May 1996,p.182."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
11-Aug-2005
8824
| |
John W.,good comments,all about efficiency.As for the T-100,the front disc calipers always drag a little on the rotors,however,they're ready to stop in wet weather and I believe rolling resistance is far overshadowed by collision avoidance issues.The rear brake shoes do not drag on their respective drums,so machining would net no additional gain.Front wheel bearings are adjustable to a degree,however intoducing some free-play at the spindles might open a can of worms.Its okay on a closed course as in the SHELL MILEAGE MARATHON,however I don't like to gamble on other motorists safety.Same for the front wheel camber.I'm not a suspension guy and I don't want to stray too far affield,so no camber change for me.I think I addressed Synthetic lubricants in an earlier comment.I've tracked 345,000 miles in the CRX and synthetic oil demonstrated no measureable improvement to fuel economy.Same for low-rolling-resistance tires.The tires do offer great wet and dry traction,and Michelin wears forever,however for my experience,I never measured any difference over the cheapest all-season steel radial.Wish I could say different.I did try to buy a licencing agreement from GENERAL MOTORS to have GOODYEAR tire and Rubber CO.produce the LRR tire showcased on the ULTRALIGHT concept car.This Tire would have made a difference.GM said no.Weight reductiuon is good in town,makes little difference on interstate.Syncronizing traffic lights would be equivalent to a 50%weight reduction for all cars,vans,suvs on the roads today.The American Association of Traffic Engineers says they're funded at about 2%.Each dollar spent on traffic light syncronization yields $62.00.I will lighten the T-100 as I can.No,the truck will remain I.C.(maybe 40-mpg though!).I have a Karmann Ghia spider that is slated for electrification.Solar charging only! I want zero-pollution on this one.I met people from California that had been doing this for seven years."
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
11-Aug-2005
8827
| |
The Karmen Ghia is a good platform to use. Will you apply those aerodynamic principles you learned to that car if you convert? With those techniques you did to that truck, if you could get a Ghia's Cd down to about .25, you could have a 100 mile range with a 1,000 pound battery pack. These drag reductions combined with about 40-50% battery weight out of total vehicle weight are what allowed EVs like the TZero and Impact to exceed 100 miles range at 70 mph on lead acid batteries. Will you make this conversion also have performance, or are you simply aiming for a commuter?"
Posted by: John Westlund
|
|
21-Sep-2005
9686
| |
Ray,my short answer to your question is that I don't know.If the vertical panels were no higher than the side rails of the bed,some of the captured vortex might be compartmentalized in between the panels.As the panels themselves would each have a drag coefficient of Cd 1.11,the eddys striking them might disrupt the flow into an even larger area of separated flow,consequently increasing drag.Typically the air over the cab spills into the bed as a sideways tornado,with flow actually coming in from the tailgate region.All this cyclonic turbulence makes it impossible for the air to regain the atmospheric pressure it posessed before being attacked by the vehicle.Viscous attrition will eventually wear down the eddies,however it may take many car lengths to do so.This region of separated flow IS the drag for the truck.The compartments may alter the center of rotation for the vortices but I don't think they can reduce the magnitude of the kinetic energy unavailable for pressure regain,the only thing that could reduce the pickups drag.According to Ford Motor Co.,those panels laid across the rails in front of the tailgate would show measurable drag reduction.Only some kind of softening or rounding of the panel edges I believe would prevent them from exasperating the vorticity situation.Let me know the configuration of the panels and I'll think more on it.Its good that your asking fundamental questions 'cause thats at the base of all our challenges.I'll wait to hear from you,Phil.
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
11-Oct-2005
10159
| |
I loaded the images this time, and see the wheel disks now. Dialup is so slow for anything but text. I recently added some plastic sheeting under the front bumper on my car, but haven't tested it independently of the other things. A recent trip at 55 mph gave 37.5 mpg vs. 36 with no aerodynimic changes, but there was a crosswind this time, and temperatures were lower.
Posted by: Ray Leistner
|
|
12-Oct-2005
10178
| |
Ray,sorry for late reply.Was gone two weeks doing additional road testing on T-100.About your bubble idea,A rigid bubble( Plexiglass)would hold its shape,but very expensive.An inflated clear plastic envelope with constant fan tension on it could provide aero shaping,although could be problematic when needing bed for hauling.I have done an inflated boattail and know the consept works,although it did not have to provide rear visibility.For the wheel covers,I left the slots open as I drove over many mountain passes with 6% grades and did not want to sacrifice brake cooling capability.Pontiac Motor Division,during aerodynamic development of their Trans Am Firebird measured drag reductions with sealed wheelcovers so it does work.The open slots are a compromise for safety.Note:John David Shelton has created a website for us aeroholics.You can find it at http://autos.groups.yahoo.com.group/maxmpg/ hope you join us there!
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
12-Oct-2005
10179
| |
Todd,sorry for late reply.As I told Ray L.,I've been away doing additional testing on T-100.As I mentioned to Ray,John David Shelton is hosting a website for aeroholics.You may find images of my CRX there,along with other folks contributions.Join us there so we can all jump in on your project.Find us at http://autos.groups.yahoo.com.group/maxmpg/ see you there!
Posted by: phil knox
|
|
|
|
|