R56 Roof Air Intake??? (aerodinamic spoiler)
#1
#3
#4
#6
-Tecnica
Former STi Owner - That is where the name Tecnica comes from: STi Subaru Tecnica International
#7
Roof intake = more drag = slower car (all bets off with a TRUE race car, no interior, etc)...unless you are from the school of thinking that most Pontiac designers came from... The one that says, the more plastic you bolt on to add weight, makes a car look faster, and that is all the counts....
Trending Topics
#8
Roof intake = more drag = slower car (all bets off with a TRUE race car, no interior, etc)...unless you are from the school of thinking that most Pontiac designers came from... The one that says, the more plastic you bolt on to add weight, makes a car look faster, and that is all the counts....
If the accessory has an air in hole and an air out hole, there is not drag. It would have the same effect as the rear spoiler (more grip at high speed). Even the "dummy" Cooper S hood scoop generates more drag than this accessory (if not modified to make it functional).
As for the weight, I assume it's fiberglass or ABS so it is not a problem!
I'm still thinking in to give it a chance in my R56 ...
#10
BTW, the earliest cars that I know of with this type of air intake were the MacLaren F1 cars. The intake fed directly into the engine, which was in the middle of the car. Several other mid-engine race cars (and the super high-end cars they were based on) used similar intakes later on.
#11
Yes, there is drag. In fact, there may be more drag than if there was no opening at the back! And a design like the one shown will produce no measurable downforce at any speed on its own. (There's some chance it might help the rear wing to work a little more effectively, though?)
BTW, the earliest cars that I know of with this type of air intake were the MacLaren F1 cars. The intake fed directly into the engine, which was in the middle of the car. Several other mid-engine race cars (and the super high-end cars they were based on) used similar intakes later on.
BTW, the earliest cars that I know of with this type of air intake were the MacLaren F1 cars. The intake fed directly into the engine, which was in the middle of the car. Several other mid-engine race cars (and the super high-end cars they were based on) used similar intakes later on.
In example: a parachute hehe
If there is a way where the air can flow freely, there is no drag, because ... there is no drag. Surely there is downforce, and that is not bad at high speeds.
It's possible we are using different "drag" concepts?
NO DRAG EXAMPLES:
DRAG EXAMPLES:
#12
Your understanding of aerodynamic leads me to say....er....WOW!? Self taught I'm assuming?!
Drag is not just caused by air getting "stuck" buy also the byproduct of making lift or dowforce, aka upsidedown lift....so if the part is in the airflow of the car, disturbing the airflow, it is 100% making drag....
The internet is full of bad and poor information..... Just cause it is published online does not make it true....
Drag is not just caused by air getting "stuck" buy also the byproduct of making lift or dowforce, aka upsidedown lift....so if the part is in the airflow of the car, disturbing the airflow, it is 100% making drag....
The internet is full of bad and poor information..... Just cause it is published online does not make it true....
#14
Your understanding of aerodynamic leads me to say....er....WOW!? Self taught I'm assuming?!
Drag is not just caused by air getting "stuck" buy also the byproduct of making lift or dowforce, aka upsidedown lift....so if the part is in the airflow of the car, disturbing the airflow, it is 100% making drag....
The internet is full of bad and poor information..... Just cause it is published online does not make it true....
Drag is not just caused by air getting "stuck" buy also the byproduct of making lift or dowforce, aka upsidedown lift....so if the part is in the airflow of the car, disturbing the airflow, it is 100% making drag....
The internet is full of bad and poor information..... Just cause it is published online does not make it true....
That's great because these differences are (often) the origin for new ideas.
I need to clarify that my intention is not to discuss who is right (I'm a simple system engineer and I have nothing related to aerodynamics experience).
I like to share my opinion to know and learn from others and, if possible, help others with my Mini troubles experience.
#15
#16
#17
There are many things that we add to our cars that have no (or very little) purpose on a road car. For example, how many of us have splitters? Do you think we really need them, hell no, some of us just think they look cool.
If you like it and think it looks good then put it on.
If you like it and think it looks good then put it on.
Since the roof scoop is not something shocking to the vehicle (cosmetic only, as you said so) it is good to know other experiences/suggestions for the pros and cons.
That's all folks!
#18
#19
And surely, as you say, it will generate some kind of sound. I had not considered that important detail ...
#20
A faired-over blister makes very very little. A faired-over blister with an opening at the front generates not much more. Air can get "stuck" in the opening, but once there it starts spinning around, which acts kind of like a ball bearing and smooths out the air flowing over the rest of the blister. (This spinning air is called a "recirculation bubble".)
Shapes at sharp angles to each other, or parallel to each other in close proximity, will create interference drag. The wakes coming off of each one will hit one another, and will create lots of turbulent flow which is very draggy. (This is why it is best to have fairings around the wing roots of airplanes rather than have the wings abruptly jut out the sides.)
The "no drag examples" you give are not "no drag". While it is possible that the top element of the multi-element wing on that open-wheel racer does reduce drag, it is very tightly engineered to work in that one circumstance--on top of another wing on the back of a race car going well over 100 MPH. It may reduce the drag compared to that car without the upper wing, but one reason is that race cars with large wings like that typically have terrible Cd (coefficients of drag), on the order of 0.5-1.0, rather than the ~0.35 of most street cars today.
The second wing is most likely just for looks. Marketing drives automotive design more than aerodynamics.
Aero is one of the least-intuitive sciences out there, so trusting your common sense can actually lead you quite astray there.
#22
Only applicable to moon cars
Thank you so much for your time and your clear explanation!
#23
#24
#25