- First Name
- Dec 5, 2020
- Reaction score
- Oldsmobile Aurora V8, Saturn Sky redline, Nissan Frontier,...
Sure, but it's less friction because the wheels are operating under less force of gravity. ^-^More like Friction reduction. If the lift works against the weight, theortetically there would be less contact. It would be like having more air in the tire or smaller economical tire. Bothe of those usually result in better gas millage.
We are on the same page. I just didn’t want to say yes to avoid someone getting on my case saying the force of gravity does not change since mass of earth and CT remains the same. Otherwise we are both talking about the same thing.Sure, but it's less friction because the wheels are operating under less force of gravity. ^-^
it wouldn't be lighter because its mass or density won't be reduced - you're talking about lift . Planes aren't lighter at higher speed.Do you guys think CT is lighter at higher speed due to having less air pressure on top like aircraft wings? Or you think the impact is negligible because there is a lot less surface area and speed?
Not on pavement. Any reduction of rolling friction would be countered by more aerodynamic drag from the lift. If you were on gravel or dirt, I suspect you would see a significant benefit.I probably should have worded it better. The question is, would it reduce energy consumption due to reduced stress (and may be contact area) on the tires?
When I was in school we had some miniature wind tunnels and I put some tent designs (made of balsa wood) in them. I bet some students would get a kick out of running some truck designs in the small tunnels (cross section about 25 square inches) as a class project. Alternatively, maybe one of the Tesla freaks working at NASA Ames (etc) could get after hours access to a small tunnel (I really have no idea how the tunnel access works over there so it might be quite impossible without funding) to do some testing.We are on the same page. I just didn’t want to say yes to avoid someone getting on my case saying the force of gravity does not change since mass of earth and CT remains the same. Otherwise we are both talking about the same thing.
Other than decades ago messing with some elementary FEA software, I don’t have any experience with aerodynamics. It would be fun to put this thing in a wind tunnel and keep tweaking stuff to see what happens. It is hard to conduct any experiments on a highway with so many variables and especially in my area a high likelihood of a lawyers driving behind me.
Probably has a lot to do with the exact shape of the trailer. Some shapes/sizes work better on one or the other.I would love to see how towing a trailer would affect aerodynamics compare to a F150. With a trailer, the aerodynamics could be the same as a F150 or worse when towing a trailer.
Cd is independent from frontal area, or cross sectional area as a more appropriate term.Something I just noticed; on the night of the Semi reveal, Elon stated that the CD of the Semi would be 0.36. Given that this model is predicting a CD of 0.34, how isthe difference of 0.02 explained by the greater frontal area of the Semi vs the Cybertruck?
Is Elon sandbagging again?
Ah that makes things much more clear, thanks so much.Cd is independent from frontal area, or cross sectional area as a more appropriate term.
When calculating total drag, cross sectional area is determined by size while the coefficient of drag is determined by shape.
Image if you had two semi trucks of the same design, but truck "A" is larger and has twice the cross sectional area as truck "B". Even though the area is larger, they both have the same shape, and therefore the same Cd. Assuming all else equal, drag would be calculated by Cd x Area. If you apply this to both trucks, truck A will have 2x the drag as truck B.
Think of Cd as a "modifier" to the area. You could have a bullet and a brick of the same size, but the bullet has a more aerodynamic shape and thus, a smaller Cd, or modifier multiplied to the area.