|
88h88 posted:And now you can fit more than a single bag of shopping in it. It's a win all round. And if it snows you can run a track around the rear 2 tires.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
thechalkoutline posted:Someone correct me if this actually made it cool but I assume it drives even worse, which is terrible: A+ would drive forever regardless of what wheels are powered or how terrible it drives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
The smart is RWD, so at least the middle wheels are powered. Unless they went the stupid kind of insane and modified the powertrain to only drive the rear tires.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Really they should just sell them like that. Smartmino Smell Camino (probably not) Smart forute
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Is it great though? A vehicle that sucks at being small and sucks at being a truck. Seems like an F35 fallacy to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Make an American market Mighty Boy
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
 I don't know what is going on with all the fins around the rear of this minivan, but I'm pretty sure it's terrible. E-I'm dumb about links. Faster Blaster fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Jun 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Faster Blaster posted:
I know what's going on with your link but I'm going to shame you anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Faster Blaster posted:
Fixed? Edit: nvm, you figured it out. Look at me, slow on the draw and always tardy 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Those kind of look like genuine attempts at vortex generators. Kind of hard to see, but it looks like the vanes are rotated to generate vortices. I doubt it actually works, but it works a lot better than the dumb row of shark fins people bro out their cars with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:From the terrible poo poo on deviantart gbs thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Those kind of look like genuine attempts at vortex generators. Kind of hard to see, but it looks like the vanes are rotated to generate vortices. I doubt it actually works, but it works a lot better than the dumb row of shark fins people bro out their cars with. Hmm maybe, but yeah, how much use could they be? I'm on my phone, so I don't know if the resolution showed it, but the fins are attached in pairs, and each pair of fins is canted inwards toward the rear of the vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
They're supposed to be in angled pairs, but if my understanding of fluid dynamics is correct, they should be pointing away from the front of the vehicle and not nearly as large as they are. Neither I nor wikipedia can seem to actually understand their intended purpose on a car. I know what they do for small aircraft, and what the equivalent structures do for golf balls and shark skin, but the wiki entry just makes note that they are occasionally put on cars and aircraft fuselages, no elaboration. I suppose it theoretically helps with drag, but the speed necessary for them to overcome the additional drag of a dozen tiny vanes breaking up the sleek profile of the car seems like it's not attainable under normal driving conditions. That coupled with the fact that I have never seen them on anything race related makes me think that installing them on a car is pointless at best, but most likely has a negative impact on overall performance.  incomingFor them to really function as drag reduction, I think that the entire surface of the car would have to be covered in micro-vortex generators, the grille entirely removed, the intake relocated below the bumper or by the rear wheel wells, and a separate intake for the radiator/intercooler that is no longer behind the grille; but that design would be ugly, impossible to clean, and very fragile. Think the bastard child of a Bertone X1/9, a TVR 2500M, and a Lamborghini Miura. And instead of clear coat, a layer of tiny, pointed, semi-rigid, carbon filaments (like a rasp made of microfiber cloth) engulf the body of the car. I am making myself very unhappy with this thought exercise... The Door Frame fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Jun 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
Destroyed by its own hubris.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
VGs aren't for drag reduction; They cause a measurable amount of parasitic drag, in fact. They're used to prevent (more accurately, to delay) boundary layer separation near the trailing edge of an airfoil, often in conjunction with a control surface, so that the control surface retains control authority at higher angles of attack/lower airspeeds. On cars, you'll often see them mounted at the trailing edge of the roofline, in an attempt to keep the boundary layer attached to the car along the back window, which is a pretty extreme angle for relative wind to follow without detaching. Almost certainly a waste of effort on almost anything short of a maximum-effort time-attack or land-speed race car, and even then you're probably either going to be rules-limited to a stock roofline with no aero mods, or you're going to modify the body shape to be more aerodynamic, anyway. Here's a pic of a 727's #2 engine inlet s-duct, note the VGs, used to keep the boundary layer attached to the duct as it changes direction.  The VGs on that van would be attempting to keep the boundary layer attached to the body farther back along the curve of the back window. However, due to the extreme (almost 90°) angle between the sides of the van where the VGs are mounted, and the rear panel of the van, I seriously doubt they're contributing anything other than a slight amount of parasitic drag.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Lightbulb Out posted:Destroyed by its own hubris. Not rear ended?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
I would be worried about getting rear-ended with that rollbar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
GrantC posted:Not rear ended? Backwards into a wall?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
GrantC posted:Not rear ended? Rear ended, but the wing is what is most likely going to total the car. I don't think it'd be totalled if it didn't have the wing causing so much damage on the back of the car.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Faster Blaster posted:
http://www.airtab.com/ ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
SCA Enthusiast posted:Really they should just sell them like that. Smarchero? Smute? El Smartino? As an aside, I am the terrible car stuff today - car broke down Monday on my way to work, really rough idle then stalled and died. Found out today the oil pump failed and caused the engine to seize up and eat itself  had a decent run, an '03 Malibu I bought in '07 and kept well-maintained. I already knew the 3.1 V6 my car had was a problem engine anyway, just didn't expect it to die so soon. At least I've got a company car that my boss is letting me borrow until I get another one lined up, maybe it's time to get a small used pickup like I wanted to do when I was planning to trade my old heap in.
BOOTY-ADE fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Jun 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
BOOTY-ADE posted:Smarchero? Smute? El Smartino? These are all amazing
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
BOOTY-ADE posted:Smute? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:VGs aren't for drag reduction; They cause a measurable amount of parasitic drag, in fact. They're used to prevent (more accurately, to delay) boundary layer separation near the trailing edge of an airfoil, often in conjunction with a control surface, so that the control surface retains control authority at higher angles of attack/lower airspeeds. On cars, you'll often see them mounted at the trailing edge of the roofline, in an attempt to keep the boundary layer attached to the car along the back window, which is a pretty extreme angle for relative wind to follow without detaching. Almost certainly a waste of effort on almost anything short of a maximum-effort time-attack or land-speed race car, and even then you're probably either going to be rules-limited to a stock roofline with no aero mods, or you're going to modify the body shape to be more aerodynamic, anyway. Oh, I thought that they were supposed to be like placoid scales, instead of real, aviation style vortex generators. I know them from the wings of small aircraft and I could not think of the flaps and control surfaces that a car would need VG's for, so I put that idea out of my mind entirely.  I guess there are some VG like structures on some of the uglier supercars, but they are few and far between
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:VGs aren't for drag reduction; They cause a measurable amount of parasitic drag, in fact. They're used to prevent (more accurately, to delay) boundary layer separation... Does keeping flow attached not reduce drag?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
jamal posted:Does keeping flow attached not reduce drag? No, it simply allows the airfoil to operate at a higher angle of attack than would otherwise be possible. The VGs themselves still impart a small parasitic drag.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
BOOTY-ADE posted:Smarchero? Smute? El Smartino? A 3100? I would have bet money on a head gasket failure, not an oil pump failure. Nevertheless, I don't like those engines and stay as far away from any vehicle equipped with one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:No, it simply allows the airfoil to operate at a higher angle of attack than would otherwise be possible. The VGs themselves still impart a small parasitic drag. You're being obtuse. You aren't even addressing the correct context in which he is asking the question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Tubesock Holocaust posted:A 3100? I would have bet money on a head gasket failure, not an oil pump failure. Nevertheless, I don't like those engines and stay as far away from any vehicle equipped with one. Yea I did the headgaskets on an 01 Malibu this winter. They were so bad that coolant was blowing all over the engine compartment. The heads werent even warped. Ive had good luck with the 60 degrees in the past but man something bad happened to the more "recent" ones. e: It only had 83k on it too, wtf
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Tubesock Holocaust posted:A 3100? I would have bet money on a head gasket failure, not an oil pump failure. Nevertheless, I don't like those engines and stay as far away from any vehicle equipped with one. A head gasket failure killed my 2003 Grand Prix with the 3100, RIP
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
It's not always the head gaskets, sometimes it's just the intake manifold gasket dumping coolant into the lifter valley. To tell the difference between these, note the condition of the head gaskets while replacing them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Tubesock Holocaust posted:A 3100? I would have bet money on a head gasket failure, not an oil pump failure. Nevertheless, I don't like those engines and stay as far away from any vehicle equipped with one. Yeah, unfortunately when I got it, I didn't know about the engine problems and mostly lucked out with minor maintenance over the years. Got lucky though, the shop that did the work didn't charge me to tear it down and diagnose, which was really awesome of them (I figured I'd at least be paying some labor cost). On another lucky note I've found a few decent looking cars around town, and already gave my info to a couple scrap/parts places to see what I can get for the beast as it sits. Other than the engine being shot, everything else can be parted out pretty easily, so whatever I get for it will go toward a new ride. My boss has been super cool and basically said "borrow a company car as long as you need to" so thankfully I'm not stranded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
heffray posted:It's not always the head gaskets, sometimes it's just the intake manifold gasket dumping coolant into the lifter valley. To tell the difference between these, note the condition of the head gaskets while replacing them. So true and having just done the intakes on a 3800SC the week before thats what I guessed. But nope the headgaskets were leaking internally, externally, such a mess on the 3100.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:You're being obtuse. You aren't even addressing the correct context in which he is asking the question. The thing is, you want do want laminar airflow, but sooner or later you have the airflow disconnect from the car, and a resulting vortex. The goal of the vortex generators on say, a GTR is to keep the airflow laminar to the rear lip design, so as to create the desired aerodynamic properties, like downforce, and or pushing the vortex off the car to improve overall drag. The 2000 Audi TTs are an interesting example; Peter Hommel (an ex-pro rally driver) was killed by his. They were found to generate 150lb of lift at 125mph. It had a very smooth trunkline (ech) and as a result the vortex was predominately formed from the airflow under the car, producing lift. The retrofit spoiler was pretty tiny but still had the effect of reducing it significantly, although Audi eventually updated the rear suspension as well to reduce handling issues. Despite the large amount of laminar surface flow, the TT still had a pretty lovely Cd of 0.34, and a CdA of 7.28, probably related to the poor overall aerodynamic design. I think it's been linked before, but there is a neat look at rear lip design and vortex generation at GreysGarage - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quDLzxmJl5I, and a cool lists of values here. edit: wrong car! thanks for the correction! Blitter fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Blitter posted:(obligatory CLK-GTR flip)  CLR! The CLK-GTR is the one that looks like a 14 year old in 1996 drew the most badass possible version of his dad's E-class, the CLR is the one that looks like someone sat on a CLK-GTR.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:They're supposed to be in angled pairs, but if my understanding of fluid dynamics is correct, they should be pointing away from the front of the vehicle and not nearly as large as they are. I may be retarded and/or blind, but aren't we busy overanalysing the poo poo out of roof rack rails on the van, whose purpose in life is to provide a standoff for roof racks affixed to them so you don't knock the stuffing out of your paint? Edit: No, I am in fact blind. If you're confused, the winglets people are talking about are on the sides of the car, not the top. The ones on the right are easier to spot because the ones on the left look like a shadow of a door mirror. IPCRESS fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
 I would think a state cop would have a loving field day with this guy. I figured he was trying to limp it into a parking lot or at least off the road... nope, once traffic opened up, he opened it up and hauled rear end down the highway. Lightbulb Out posted:Rear ended, but the wing is what is most likely going to total the car. I don't think it'd be totalled if it didn't have the wing causing so much damage on the back of the car. I'd argue the owner willingly totaled it long before it got hit. InitialDave posted:Should an American one have clear indicators or not? It looks like the tag says 1999 year. I'm almost positive they came with amber indicators in most years of the E36 M3 (in the US anyway). Though the first thing a lot of people do is swap them for clear. Negromancer posted:When new. Good luck finding a e36 m3 in the US that still has the original headlights/taillights. This. Personally I think the clear rear turn signals w/amber bulbs look a lot better, but I prefer the original front lights. Or clear with amber bulbs up front if you have to gently caress with the lenses. Most of the front replacements I've seen look like rear end. randomidiot fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
USA! USA! USA!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
"aww poo poo this kit only came with a single A, what do we do now?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:39
|
|