Why aren't Vortex Generators more common?

SixPapaCharlie

SixPapaCharlie

May the force be with you
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
17,546
Display Name
First Officer 6PC
This guy had to add them after the fact.

Why didn't Nissan think to add Vortex Generators to the Sentra as a basic option?
This guy was going incredibly slow down I-35 and didn't appear to stall or even come close.
Seems like a no brainer. Why don't all vehicles have them?



Untitled-1.jpg
 
I thought the VGs go on the wing. Those running boards are (as they say back in the day) the bomb though ...
 
Daleandee said:
I thought the VGs go on the wing...
Click to expand...
On airplanes VGs go anywhere you want the airflow to stay attached. Separation = drag, loss of lift & control power, etc...
I'm not a car guy but I think on cars they go anywhere, as long as you think they look cool.

Nauga,
and curved air
 
They work when the basic aerodynamics are pretty good. The aerodynamics of a car are somewhere between marginal and abysmal.
 
On a serious note, some cares have legitimately used VGs or something similar from the factory to control airflow over the rear window not for drag reduction but for the purpose of keeping it cleaner. My parents had a late 60s or early 70s station wagon with a sort of an air scoop above the rear window to do the same thing. Gotta keep the window clean for the kids in the rear facing back seat...
 
Is that asbestos wrapped around the tail pipe?
Y'all are laughing at him, but clearly he has a turbojet under the hood. :cool:
 
Clearly a member of the “my cat-back exhaust and cold air intake both claim a 20hp gain, so now I’m +40hp from stock” crowd… :biggrin:
 
nauga said:
On airplanes VGs go anywhere you want the airflow to stay attached. Separation = drag, loss of lift & control power, etc...
I'm not a car guy but I think on cars they go anywhere, as long as you think they look cool.

Nauga,
and curved air
Click to expand...

Yeah I knew that but wondered if the car guy did. I think he was just going for what he thought was "kewl" ... :dunno:
 
I ask with people with stupid wings how much downforce they make. After they tell me 300 or more pounds, I ask if I can sit on it. They tell me no, as it will damage it. Hmm, I weigh about 200.
 
Pinecone said:
I ask with people with stupid wings how much downforce they make. After they tell me 300 or more pounds, I ask if I can sit on it. They tell me no, as it will damage it. Hmm, I weigh about 200.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s 300lbs of air, duh… there’s a difference, ya know. :rofl:
 
Dana said:
On a serious note, some cares have legitimately used VGs or something similar from the factory to control airflow over the rear window not for drag reduction but for the purpose of keeping it cleaner. My parents had a late 60s or early 70s station wagon with a sort of an air scoop above the rear window to do the same thing. Gotta keep the window clean for the kids in the rear facing back seat...
Click to expand...
Our 78 Blazer had something similar. In addition to keeping the back window cleaner, it seemed to reduce the amount of exhaust that was sucked up into the back past the seals.
 
Pinecone said:
I ask with people with stupid wings how much downforce they make. After they tell me 300 or more pounds, I ask if I can sit on it. They tell me no, as it will damage it. Hmm, I weigh about 200.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they don’t make them like they used to.IMG_8537.jpeg
 
That car probably needed the down force... Wasn't that version of the Road Runner done in production in limited numbers just so they could race it? And didn't they have a bit of problem with that type of car potentially flipping end for end if they spun around 180 on the track? I'm remembering something about pop-up spoilers in case the cars ended up going the wrong way, but I may be remembering incorrectly.
 
Pinecone said:
After they tell me 300 or more pounds, I ask if I can sit on it. They tell me no, as it will damage it. Hmm, I weigh about 200.
Click to expand...
200 pounds of what's essentially a point load in the middle of the wing vs 300 pounds evenly spread out over the whole wing. Not the same thing.
Matthew said:
Yeah, they don’t make them like they used to.
Click to expand...
Notice they put two lightweight girls towards the edges, to get lower bending moments. They knew the structural limitations.
Plus,
1742556642409.png
 
AV8R_87 said:
200 pounds of what's essentially a point load in the middle of the wing vs 300 pounds evenly spread out over the whole wing. Not the same thing.

Notice they put two lightweight girls towards the edges, to get lower bending moments. They knew the structural limitations.
Plus,
Click to expand...
There was a picture from the day when the cars were new that had 3 or 4 sitting on the wing.
 
Albany Tom said:
That car probably needed the down force... Wasn't that version of the Road Runner done in production in limited numbers just so they could race it? And didn't they have a bit of problem with that type of car potentially flipping end for end if they spun around 180 on the track? I'm remembering something about pop-up spoilers in case the cars ended up going the wrong way, but I may be remembering incorrectly.
Click to expand...
The numbers I remember were 200 lb. Yeah, that Superbird was for sale, pretty much the same as what was in the track, “Win on Sunday, sell on Monday!”, when stock care were pretty much still stock. I don’t know about that car having any more or fewer problems than others when spinning, but pop up spoilers are on all the cars now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top