Jump to content
HybridZ

Aerodynamic Testing Candidates


bjhines

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

HOW ABOUT IT GUYS... CAN WE DO IT?!?!? I'll be sending funds early next month. If this expands into a wider spectrum of testing, I'll double my donation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I plan to have my car into a tunnel (Langley tunnel down in the Tidewater) prior to attempting my 200+ mph run. If I am incorrect about my designs, I would much rather discover it in the tunnel than while I am in the car!"

 

Someone thinks alike! LOL

 

I think that was a post somewhere else during "the dark times" when someone poo-poohed this idea. The thought of spending $3500 to make a run to 260mph in a tunnel to reveal any nasty aerodynamic gremlins that may creep up is cheap insurance! (compared to the cost of full prep, and then a crash)

 

On a stock bodied car like I will have to drive, doing this before sinking all that money into the vehicle makes a lot of sense as well.

 

Even to 170mph, the results will be interesting on an S30 (even though we know a 1976 2+2 will go at least 173.325mph with a G-Nose, Full Belly Pan, and blocked off Radiator Inlet opening...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Testing at NASA Langley will cost considerably more than $3500. Which tunnel were you planning on using? The 30x60 was run by Old Dominion University under contract for a while, for NASCAR-related testing. I'm not sure exactly how that arrangement fared, but from what I hear ODU is no longer involved.

 

Anyway, a large enough tunnel with a ground plate and capacity to handle full-scale cars is going to be pricey. The Mooresville place, which is the subject of the current planning, seems to be uniquely suited to moderately-priced automotive testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

After protracted delay (sorry) I posted a Photoshopped version of the front-end treatment of my Z, which is intended to illustrate a stubby or degenerate G-nose. The poor quality of my Photoshop skills make the nose look like a fish-mouth, but the idea is that there is a small intake for the radiator. The objective - and the reason for looking at something like this instead of a G-nose includes the following:

 

* benefits of a short front overhang, vs. the G-nose

* a short, bulbous nose should be much less aerodynamically sensitive to changes in the car's rake angle

* speculation that such a nose would work better with off-the-shelf air dams

 

front_view_photoshopped.jpg

 

This is largely incompatible with retaining a front bumper, and as drawn will NOT fit an L-6 (engine would be too tall). The Photoshopped picture differs from the real thing only in the size of the radiator intake - which, on my car, is too large and aesthetically (not to mentioned aerodynamically) not especially pleasing. There are also some similarities to front-end treatment of Tony D's car, which in my opinion is a very clever solution - but the present version attempts to be more streetable and should in principle work with a stock hood and fenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Has anything ever happened with all of this talk of testing? I am starting to save up to paint my car and I would like to know if there are some little things that I can do inthe process to help with stability at freeway speeds. I will be using the air dam above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...