The Truth of Sport Shift

[owequitit]

haha, well my 93 CB7 with the F22 A6 is still faster than a 90-91 with "sportshift" so i dont think it matters. because don't the 90-91's only have 125-130 hp vs the 140 on the 92-93's?

The 90-91 is also lighter...

There is more to performance than power. It is power to weight, and power to drag (at high speeds).

[deevergote]

I'd be curious to see if the 92-93 has a lower drag coefficient than the 90-91...

[owequitit]

I'd be curious to see if the 92-93 has a lower drag coefficient than the 90-91...

My guess would be that they are identical, on spoiler equipped vs non spoiler equipped vehicles.

If the 92-93 is lower, it is probably so marginal you couldn't tell anyway.

Here is an interesting note, the coupe actually has less drag than the sedan (fewer panel gaps and rubber seams), and if I can remember correctly (to lazy to find the C&D issue) it is .30 for the coupe and .31 for the sedan, or very close to that.

The intersting part though is that the 86-89 Accord had a smaller drag coefficient, due to the larger size of the CB7, but mainly due to their choice to do the "aero" styling.

[Akira_kj]

The intersting part though is that the 86-89 Accord had a smaller drag coefficient, due to the larger size of the CB7, but mainly due to their choice to do the "aero" styling.

Doesnt surprise me one bit. Round isnt always lower drag... look at the ferrari 208 gtb(reminded me of the 89 accord coupe) , boxy as hell but very low drag. Then look at a newer VW rabbit or fox with the rounded fronts, thats just cosmetic and causes more drag. air has a harder time hitting a round surface than it does a angled flat surface.

Im not saying a brick has better aerodynamics than a ball but a wedge sure does.

[Ralphie]

i cant believe it took almost 3 pages to explain that.

Barf

[owequitit]

Doesnt surprise me one bit. Round isnt always lower drag... look at the ferrari 208 gtb(reminded me of the 89 accord coupe) , boxy as hell but very low drag. Then look at a newer VW rabbit or fox with the rounded fronts, thats just cosmetic and causes more drag. air has a harder time hitting a round surface than it does a angled flat surface.

Im not saying a brick has better aerodynamics than a ball but a wedge sure does.

Actually, typically speaking, round shapes make for a better transition.

That is why the noses of airplanes are rounded.

However, air also doesn't like to change direction, so by continually moving it abruptly, we are causing more drag.

My guess would be that on vehicles like the Golf and Jetta, the air is constantly moving, and thus increasing drag.

Also, we can get away with continuously curving the air, while simultaneously reducing drag, by doing it very gradually, and over a long distance.

Aerodynamics is very strange and complicated.

[deevergote]

Aerodynamics is probably one of the least understood and least researched concepts in automotive tuning. The majority of body kits, wings, and other aero parts availible for just about every car on the market have no wind tunnel testing done. Of those that do, it probably isn't thorough.

For example, as far as Honda kits go, Mugen is probably the only one that tests the kits in a wind tunnel. The rest of the kit makers do their testing on the track... While a test of aerodynamics using an experienced driver is decent, it's not great.

Aerodynamic testing without a wind tunnel is like tuning for power without a dyno.

[acchonda]

Its a shame that aerodynamics don't sell cars because some of the most aerodynamic cars didn't sell so well. Styling doesn't always agree with aerodynamics so we buy something that we "think" is cool even when its not the most efficient. All it would take was for them to market aerodynamics as cool and our perceptions might change. Yep we have sorta changed the thread but oh well..

[owequitit]

Aerodynamics is probably one of the least understood and least researched concepts in automotive tuning. The majority of body kits, wings, and other aero parts availible for just about every car on the market have no wind tunnel testing done. Of those that do, it probably isn't thorough.

For example, as far as Honda kits go, Mugen is probably the only one that tests the kits in a wind tunnel. The rest of the kit makers do their testing on the track... While a test of aerodynamics using an experienced driver is decent, it's not great.

Aerodynamic testing without a wind tunnel is like tuning for power without a dyno.

Yes it is, aerospace engineers don't know exactly why a lot of stuff happens yet.

They have general knowledge obviously, but some of the finer details are completely unpredicatable. You have to take everything on a case by case basis, which is why it is so important to measure everything.

Certain aerodynamic techniques work in some cases, but not others.

For instance, say Mugen made two different kits for the EF, and they were both functional. You couldn't necessarily combine parts of the two and achieve the same results.

That is why mixing and matching is usually ineffective, and ends up being worse than the original OE body work. Honda put a lot of R&D into the CB7's exact shape.

Even though all of their main priorities weren't necessarily, performance related, they made a good compromise.

One of the coolest things you can see is a wind tunnel in action. It is amazing to watch what a huge difference in airflow, a degree can make, or an extra little peice here or there. It is profound how something the size of a dime can cause an effect that you would expect from something the size of a serving platter.

Here is a good example, that hopefully you will understand.

If you took a wing on a big airliner, and put 6 grains of sand per square inch, that wing would lose 30% of its lift.

You wouldn't even be able to see the sand on the wing, unless you were sitting on it, but you still lose 1/3 of your lift.

It is really crazy.