Quote:
Originally Posted by woodsman
I agree with the theory about venting the center rad upwards but how does introducing 10X the air volume into the front wheel- well reduce lift? With aero less is more- I think but than it depends on intended velocity. Auto makers spend days in the wind tunnel to make our cars 'work' with as little drag as possible. For instance, why increase flow through the rad by 500% ( my guess on JFRO'S liner) AND THEREFOR DRAG when blocking the bottom and venting the liner with 2 4" .25" slits would probably suffice? The key concern is ability to cool while creating the least amount of drag-right? At 60 mph we're hitting a cement-like wall of air and aero is gently persuading. And ya let's discuss- it's a FORUM so there's no need to get pissy or all-knowing.
|
Any "intake" events interacting with the main airstream will almost certainly increase drag. Let's not get into exhaust vents and blown surfaces etc. The front rad vents we are talking about remain as they are; they will cause drag.
This drag will vary with airspeed and perhaps a little with exhaust/venting; airflow through the radiators. The flow path is so convoluted and restricted that would guess very little effect. You need a wind tunnel to know. As a side note I believe I recall a Mustang (aircraft not car) cooling vent that actually produced thrust and hearing about open car windows giving very little drag due "filling" of the cabin at speed...thereby giving the effect of a "closed" window....dunno without testing.
In this case there no aim to reduce drag. We are considering aero and cooling. Consider that improved cooling might achieved by venting the liner and improved aerodynamic performance by closing the downward rad vent exhaust. How so you might ask....well it is felt by some that this is done to reduce front end lift at speed (hence the hovercraft reference). And yes optimizing cooling may hurt aero.
Now does lift occur in the wheel well? Perhaps there is just enough escape path areas ...
Threaded Mode
