#51
|
|||
|
|||
Why so few spokes?
Jim Price wrote:
dvt wrote: Right, but is traction a limit to acceleration at speeds where a spoiler is significant? At those speeds, I'd think you'd be limited by available power rather than traction. On a race track, the answer would be a yes, but not quite the way you might think. You want to come out of a corner accelerating hard, and there is a balance to be struck between available acceleration and the overall traction the tyre can cope with. This overall traction is actually a vector which is the sum of the effects of both acceleration and cornering, so at absolute maximum cornering speed, you could break traction with the accelerator even with a low powered car. I hadn't thought of combining the two cases. As you probably surmised, I'm not a motor sports nut. Thanks for the enlightenment. To the original point, I would think that a front-drive car could conceivably use a spoiler to enhance cornering traction at high speed. Am I wrong? -- Dave dvt at psu dot edu |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Why so few spokes?
Dave Vt writes:
That is like the spoilers on the backs of cars that emulate but do not function as those on 150mph racing cars, will improve commute times as well as road holding at speeds one might attain on a deserted public road. I always enjoy seeing spoilers on front wheel drive cars. OT, but you got my interest. Why does front wheel drive invalidate a spoiler? Sure, spoilers on most cars are non functional, but I don't know why spoilers would affect front and rear wheel drive cars differently. I think the use of wings on drag racers, where they are used to add downward pressure to the drive wheels may be the issue. On most race cars they are used mainly for cornering traction. Therefore, whether front or rear drive has little bearing on whether to use the device. Unfortunately the term "spoiler" became popular in the Kamm Effect days when they were put on the rear of cars to get rid of lift from eddies behind GT cars. Jobst Brandt |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Why so few spokes?
That is like the spoilers on the backs of cars that emulate but do not
function as those on 150mph racing cars, will improve commute times as well as road holding at speeds one might attain on a deserted public road. wrote: I always enjoy seeing spoilers on front wheel drive cars. dvt wrote: OT, but you got my interest. Why does front wheel drive invalidate a spoiler? Sure, spoilers on most cars are non functional, but I don't know why spoilers would affect front and rear wheel drive cars differently. I also find them hysterical. He meant not the air dam just ahead of the front wheels but rather the wing over the rear deck. At speeds over roughly 200K those wings are supposed to press the back of the car down for traction -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Why so few spokes?
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Why so few spokes?
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 19:21:56 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:
Dave Vt writes: That is like the spoilers on the backs of cars that emulate but do not function as those on 150mph racing cars, will improve commute times as well as road holding at speeds one might attain on a deserted public road. I always enjoy seeing spoilers on front wheel drive cars. OT, but you got my interest. Why does front wheel drive invalidate a spoiler? Sure, spoilers on most cars are non functional, but I don't know why spoilers would affect front and rear wheel drive cars differently. I think the use of wings on drag racers, where they are used to add downward pressure to the drive wheels may be the issue. On most race cars they are used mainly for cornering traction. Therefore, whether front or rear drive has little bearing on whether to use the device. Unfortunately the term "spoiler" became popular in the Kamm Effect days when they were put on the rear of cars to get rid of lift from eddies behind GT cars. They're still used for that purpose, and to reduce total drag. FWD race cars do sometimes have handling problems from rear end lift at high speeds. And drag's effect on straightaway speed can be very much an issue. These days however you can't use a spoiler in a non-modified class (unless it's standard equipment), and in modified classes the whole body can be completely redesigned anyway. But aerodynamic aids can still be used to good effect, as Ernie Rogers has done with his Volkswagen Beetle: http://www.max-mpg.com/default.htm Ernie shows exactly how wings can be used to reduce drag. Of course the wings and things we see on kids' cars these days are all for looks. Matt O. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Why so few spokes?
Sandy wrote: Dans le message de oups.com, a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : Keep in mind, we're talking about measures marketed to a clientele that believes that they can feel a two ounce difference in the weight of a frame. "Negligible" is poorly understood. For those who do not compete, feel free to use "negligible" or "insignificant". For those who compete, half a wheel's difference over 150 km may be significant. Your context and mine are not the same. Thus, your opinion has a negligible effect. Offered amicably. Thanks for the amicable response. But even for most racers, these supposed advantages are usually negligible. Some racers seem to think that a 0.05% reduction in drag coefficient of the wheels, or of the bike, will lead to a 0.05% reduction in their race time. There are several reasons it won't. One is, of course, that the aero drag of the rider's body is much greater than that of the bike, so any improvement in the bike yields a smaller percentage improvement overall. Another reason is that drag force increases greatly with velocity. The increase in speed would be much less than the above thinking predicts. A third reason is that, except for time trials, most of the mileage of most races is spent in the slipstream of at least one rider. Aerodynamics of the bike and rider are much less important there. But the biggest reason is that such small advantages are routinely overwhelmed by one's physical and psychological variation from day to day. However, I certainly don't want to dissuade anyone from spending their money on anything they choose, including a "faster" paint job. It may give you that psychological boost you need to gain half a wheel. - Frank Krygowski |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Why so few spokes?
Sandy wrote: Dans le message de oups.com, a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : Keep in mind, we're talking about measures marketed to a clientele that believes that they can feel a two ounce difference in the weight of a frame. "Negligible" is poorly understood. For those who do not compete, feel free to use "negligible" or "insignificant". For those who compete, half a wheel's difference over 150 km may be significant. Your context and mine are not the same. Thus, your opinion has a negligible effect. Offered amicably. Thanks for the amicable response. But even for most racers, these supposed advantages are usually negligible. Some racers seem to think that a 0.05% reduction in drag coefficient of the wheels, or of the bike, will lead to a 0.05% reduction in their race time. There are several reasons it won't. One is, of course, that the aero drag of the rider's body is much greater than that of the bike, so any improvement in the bike yields a smaller percentage improvement overall. Another reason is that drag force increases greatly with velocity. The increase in speed would be much less than the above thinking predicts. A third reason is that, except for time trials, most of the mileage of most races is spent in the slipstream of at least one rider. Aerodynamics of the bike and rider are much less important there. But the biggest reason is that such small advantages are routinely overwhelmed by one's physical and psychological variation from day to day. However, I certainly don't want to dissuade anyone from spending their money on anything they choose, including a "faster" paint job. It may give you that psychological boost you need to gain half a wheel. - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another shimmy question | Dave | Techniques | 111 | December 9th 05 08:55 PM |
Spoke tension meter | Ken | Techniques | 345 | July 28th 05 04:54 PM |
Snaping Spokes | [email protected] | Techniques | 82 | March 8th 05 04:34 PM |
Rec.Bicycles Frequently Asked Questions Posting Part 1/5 | Mike Iglesias | General | 4 | October 29th 04 07:11 AM |
Wheel Rebuilding | TheObieOne3226 | Unicycling | 16 | January 1st 04 10:55 AM |