Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 19:55:23 -0400
Reply-To: tmiller <tmiller@VCMAILS.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: tmiller <tmiller@VCMAILS.COM>
Subject: Re: Was: Why are campers higher at the rear? NOW: Westy air drag
In-Reply-To: <07759365-BBBE-11D8-A696-003065AB24DA@farrside.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I think that is a great idea. I know I could use a couple of extra MPG
on the beast! Especially at $2 per gallon!
TEMiller
Simon Reinhardt wrote:
> Yes, but what about when the load is not just behind the rear seat, and
> what if a driver and passenger are going to get in? Now the fronts need
> to handle a load as well!
> Jeez, it's depressing, but maybe this is all boiling down to craptastic
> quality control wherever Vanagon springs were made...
> Anyway, I get what you're saying about load handling, but I'm saying
> that a spring can be stiff w/out being tall. Take the sport springs in
> the Cabby I'm selling (shameless plug!). They're lower AND stiffer than
> stock, and I can still carry a full load of people and their junk.
> I'm curious- did the load rating of the Van decrease when it got the
> shorter Carat springs later on? Anyone know?
> I've been thinking about a big piece of aluminum that would attach to
> the cargo cleats. Then we have to get access to a wind tunnel...
> Actually, looking at the turbulence, maybe a flat panel AND a mid-roof
> spoiler would be the way to go. We just need to smooth out that
> turbulence somehow! Anyone ready to rice out your Van?
>
> -SImon
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2004, at 6:33 AM, Chris S. wrote:
>
>>> "But Simon, the rears are stiffer than the fronts because of the
>>> engine's weight!"- No, stiffness and height are not necessarily
>>> entwined.
>>
>>
>> May I remind you of the Vanagon's 50/50 front-to-rear weight
>> distribution?
>> Yes, there's an engine back there but the total weight pressing down
>> on
>> the rear springs is same as the front. Rear springs are stiffer to
>> handle
>> more when the van is loaded.
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.farrside.net/vanagon/windtests.jpg
>>>
>>
>> Stock Vanagon CD (coefficient of drag): .44
>> Flat pop-top: .45
>> Westfalia pop-top: .51 <--- that sucks
>> High-top: .40
>> Camper-back: .46 <---- still better than the Westfalia pop-top
>>
>> Based on the picture my presumptions that carrying a flat, wide load,
>> such
>> as a cargo box, in the top luggage would reduce turbulence thus
>> decreasing
>> CD. Putting a plastic lid on the rack that slightly bulges out would
>> have
>> an even better effect and save fuel when on the road. Project, anyone?
>> Any fiberglass masters out there?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris S.
>> '85 Wolfsburg Westy "Camel"
>> http://www.knology.net/~vw/dadada.jpg
>>
>
>
| 
