Greg
2014 RF YAHOO CHAMP Your leader
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2011
- Messages
- 24,002
- Points
- 1,033
I asked my intern to provide a scientific but simple explanation in layman's terms for what happened to Larsons back window.
I think it clearly establishs what Blaney was thinking when he dinged up Larson, with the full intention of inflicting a cucumber upon him.
Her elegant simplified concise statement is posted below ....
"The pressure distribution on the window is almost independent of its side ratio at 0° wind incidence angle. Wind incidence angle and side ratio significantly affected the suction on sidewalls and leeward wall of the car. As the side ratio approaches to about 3.0, the final steady reattachment of the flow takes place on side faces at 0° wind incidence angle. On the other hand, the negative pressure coefficient becomes almost constant as the side ratio exceeds 3.0, indicating that when depth is about three times the breadth, the lower limit of the wake width, which is approximately the full width of the body, is obtained. However, side ratio has little influence on the variation of wind pressures along the vertical direction.
As the side ratio of car increases, the displacement along the X-axis decreases at 0° wind incidence angle due to the reduction of frontal area and increase in stiffness of the car along the direction of forces. As the side ratio of car increases, the displacement of car along the Z-axis increases at wind incidence angle of 90° due to increase in the frontal area and reduction in stiffness along the direction of forces. As the side ratio of car increases, the torque developed due to uneven mean pressure distribution around the car walls also increases. The eccentricity between resultant wind force and center of stiffness (and also the torque) is larger when the wind is nearly parallel to the long axis, than when it is nearly parallel to the short axis. The rapid rate of change in the mean torque around θ = 0° is thus principally due to the shift of the center of pressure of side face-B toward leading corner"
I think it clearly establishs what Blaney was thinking when he dinged up Larson, with the full intention of inflicting a cucumber upon him.
Her elegant simplified concise statement is posted below ....
"The pressure distribution on the window is almost independent of its side ratio at 0° wind incidence angle. Wind incidence angle and side ratio significantly affected the suction on sidewalls and leeward wall of the car. As the side ratio approaches to about 3.0, the final steady reattachment of the flow takes place on side faces at 0° wind incidence angle. On the other hand, the negative pressure coefficient becomes almost constant as the side ratio exceeds 3.0, indicating that when depth is about three times the breadth, the lower limit of the wake width, which is approximately the full width of the body, is obtained. However, side ratio has little influence on the variation of wind pressures along the vertical direction.
As the side ratio of car increases, the displacement along the X-axis decreases at 0° wind incidence angle due to the reduction of frontal area and increase in stiffness of the car along the direction of forces. As the side ratio of car increases, the displacement of car along the Z-axis increases at wind incidence angle of 90° due to increase in the frontal area and reduction in stiffness along the direction of forces. As the side ratio of car increases, the torque developed due to uneven mean pressure distribution around the car walls also increases. The eccentricity between resultant wind force and center of stiffness (and also the torque) is larger when the wind is nearly parallel to the long axis, than when it is nearly parallel to the short axis. The rapid rate of change in the mean torque around θ = 0° is thus principally due to the shift of the center of pressure of side face-B toward leading corner"
