did it nearly every day for years first parading vehicles in the army.Quote:
Originally Posted by ugu80
Printable View
did it nearly every day for years first parading vehicles in the army.Quote:
Originally Posted by ugu80
This document is amazing. Bumping for others to see who missed it in the past! :)
If you want to skip straight to the point, page 31 of PDF (which read page 21 on document page).
It's interesting I suppose, but a bit academic, the test was conducted at equivalent to 187km/hr, and the Reynolds number was fairly constant after 165 km/hr. It tells us what we already know; a roof rack increases fuel consumption, the actual percentage is not really accurate because most of us will rarely exceed 110 km/hr. It was interesting about the aerodynamic improvement with a spare wheel on the bonnet of the defender. It would not apply to many cars, because the defender has a fairly unique shape in modern times, and probably the poorest Cd of any car made in the last 25 -30 years. Volvo 2 series was often criticized for boxy (but practical) shape, & poor Cd. Volvos reasoning was Cd is a secondary importance to practicality for cars that spend most of their time below 100km/h. They must have got something right because it didn't stop them selling 2 series for 25 years. I notice on my tdi landy sitting on 95 -100kms hour with fully loaded 2.2 meter roof rack I still get less than 11 liters per 100km. I recently bought bonnet for carrying a spare wheel so I'm looking forward to an improvement. :D
Land Rover have always known that.
I was rereading an older LRO in the dunny, and came across an article by one of the Defender engineers who stated just that.
Regards Philip A
This thread has always cracked me up :D
Blokes who drive cars shaped like fridges worrying about aerodynamics :Rolling: :wasntme:
...or turning the fridge into a brick.Quote:
Originally Posted by gusthedog
Would have been fun to study.
But no test for spare tyre on bonnet plus short roof rack at back...can this cancel each other out?