cars in 2011

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by serial jeff

this is the only true statement you've made in this thread.

There's nothing wrong with the Countryman, and it's not going to be a failure just because it's been called a 'crossover'. To me it seems like a better choice than the regular Mini, but either could be made into a good rally car.

If you're going to comment on shoddy aerodynamics, provide sources. I don't mean to sound insulting but I seriously doubt you have even a slight grasp of automobile aerodynamics because it's a very complicated subject.

Last I checked the regular Mini had a drag coefficient of about 0.33, which is average, and I doubt the Countryman's body is significantly different.

---

Argh! Why do people wheel out the cD as some measure of how much drag a car has?!?!?!?!?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

cD means NOTHING unless you're comparing two bodies with identical frontal area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Argh! Why do people wheel out the cD as some measure of how much drag a car has?!?!?!?!?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

cD means NOTHING unless you're comparing two bodies with identical frontal area.

---

Are you sure? If you look at the article of your link, the area is divided away :)

Yes I am sure ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Argh! Why do people wheel out the cD as some measure of how much drag a car has?!?!?!?!?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

cD means NOTHING unless you're comparing two bodies with identical frontal area.

---

I'm not sure, but the formula shown in your article divided the area away. And I guess for different cars the same reference is used, or the coefficient doesn't say anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Yes I am sure ;)

---

Sorry, deleted my previous post :) Added another one tough ;)

Funny, this other page on wikipedia compares only based on cD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automob...ag_coefficient

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaCo

I'm not sure, but the formula shown in your article divided the area away. And I guess for different cars the same reference is used, or the coefficient doesn't say anything.

---

No, front area has same importance as drag coefficient. If You want to make serious comparison You need to compare Cd*A not only Cd and not only A.

The page You posted has comparison of CdA also, just scroll down. That's the only one which is practically useful for performance. Cd itself may be useful for some noise analysis.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up Mirek and Daniel. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaCo

Ok, thanks for clearing that up Mirek and Daniel. :)

---

Not a problem :) I'm just glad I learnt something from my time at university doing aviation! It wasn't all wasted at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Argh! Why do people wheel out the cD as some measure of how much drag a car has?!?!?!?!?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

cD means NOTHING unless you're comparing two bodies with identical frontal area.

---

Yes, but my point was that you can't sit a Mini and a DS3 side by side, look at them, and pronounce that the Mini is less aerodynamic- which is essentially what he was doing.