Tiger
Member
Registered: 12th Jun 01
Location: Leicestershire Drives:Astra VXR
User status: Offline
|
Did anyone watch it?
They proved that if a car is polished and streamlined, it does less MPG than if it is totally covered in dimples.
In fact, its MGP increased by 11%.
Meh, you had to be there to appreciate it.
|
DannyB
Premium Member
Registered: 6th Feb 08
User status: Offline
|
I LOVE Mythbusters, the new series so far has been brilliant.
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
 It used MORE fuel shiney?!
|
LukeS
Member
Registered: 25th Nov 07
Location: Ormskirk
User status: Offline
|
Mythbusters is awesome 
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
Or should that be shiny?
Christ! I've turned in to JR!
|
AlunJ
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 07
Location: Newport
User status: Offline
|
wait til deano heres this 
|
andy1868
Member
Registered: 22nd Jun 06
Location: Burscough, Lancashire
User status: Offline
|
my boss was telling me about it, they made a car covered in dimples like a golf ball and the MPG increased as it goes through the air cleaner apparently
|
Tiger
Member
Registered: 12th Jun 01
Location: Leicestershire Drives:Astra VXR
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by SVM 286
It used MORE fuel shiney?!
Yup.
|
Tiger
Member
Registered: 12th Jun 01
Location: Leicestershire Drives:Astra VXR
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by andy1868
my boss was telling me about it, they made a car covered in dimples like a golf ball and the MPG increased as it goes through the air cleaner apparently
Yeah, I still find it bizarre how it all works.
|
lostboy
Banned
Registered: 29th Jan 09
Location: Durham
User status: Offline
|
Wut? I thought if something was slippery aerodynamic wise, it would create less air resistance and use less fuel. Not the other way around.
|
Tiger
Member
Registered: 12th Jun 01
Location: Leicestershire Drives:Astra VXR
User status: Offline
|
Even the mythbusters thought so and were amazed to be proven wrong!
|
andy1868
Member
Registered: 22nd Jun 06
Location: Burscough, Lancashire
User status: Offline
|
theres a reason why golf balls have those dimples. if they went through the air better smooth the golf balls would be smooth wouldn't they?
|
lostboy
Banned
Registered: 29th Jan 09
Location: Durham
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by andy1868
theres a reason why golf balls have those dimples. if they went through the air better smooth the golf balls would be smooth wouldn't they?
Good point, but I always thought that would disturb the air more, hmm this is interesting.
|
Tiger
Member
Registered: 12th Jun 01
Location: Leicestershire Drives:Astra VXR
User status: Offline
|
But, like they said though, why arent cars and aeroplanes designed in this way?
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
Cars aren't because it would be less safe for pedestrians and also more expensive to produce compared to the savings.
|
lostboy
Banned
Registered: 29th Jan 09
Location: Durham
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tiger
But, like they said though, why arent cars and aeroplanes designed in this way?
I was just thinking that myself, I was thinking surely cars like Lambo's and Ferrari's etc are designed to glide through with their aerodynamic structure creating less drag and increasing fuel efficiency + downforce obviously.
Although I suppose if something is under alot of down force it creates more rolling resistance and uses more fuel.
|
Tiger
Member
Registered: 12th Jun 01
Location: Leicestershire Drives:Astra VXR
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
Cars aren't because it would be less safe for pedestrians and also more expensive to produce compared to the savings.
Why woul dit be less safe though? And surely, if they had a press to shape the body parts anyway, then they could have the press with dimples in it and that would be it?
|
Edd
Member
Registered: 8th Nov 04
Location: Glasgow
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
Cars aren't because it would be less safe for pedestrians and also more expensive to produce compared to the savings.
well why arent F1 cars then?
i think its purely because no-one thought of it
|
Tiger
Member
Registered: 12th Jun 01
Location: Leicestershire Drives:Astra VXR
User status: Offline
|
Maybe excessive aerodynamics = less down force?
|
lostboy
Banned
Registered: 29th Jan 09
Location: Durham
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tiger
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
Cars aren't because it would be less safe for pedestrians and also more expensive to produce compared to the savings.
And surely, if they had a press to shape the body parts anyway, then they could have the press with dimples in it and that would be it?
I'd imagine that's just so it looks better, a dimply car would look wrong.
|
Tiger
Member
Registered: 12th Jun 01
Location: Leicestershire Drives:Astra VXR
User status: Offline
|
Lets be honest though, it wouldnt be a very pretty car would it, and if you had a lambo, saving 11% on fuel economy wouldnt really bother you too much
|
Edd
Member
Registered: 8th Nov 04
Location: Glasgow
User status: Offline
|
looks alright
|
Edd
Member
Registered: 8th Nov 04
Location: Glasgow
User status: Offline
|
|
Eck
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Apr 06
Location: Lundin Links, Fife
User status: Offline
|
The new ones have been excellent. And the one where they went back to the snow plow cutting a car in half theory, and used 500mph rockets to try it was excellent
|
Daveskater
Premium Member
Registered: 29th Apr 08
Location: Oxford, UK Drives: Jap wagon
User status: Offline
|
Mythbusters ftw
They did find out that when the car was dirty it used more fuel though. Dirty and dimpled aren't the same.
Numberwang!
Originally posted by AlunJ
I like you Dave, you are a man of men
Originally Whatapp'd by Neo
Dave's maybe capable of a drive-by cuddle
Look at my pictures
|
