If the theory of "wind resistance" vs "weight" is correct, I should not have
a 20" high plastic box on top of my van?
Any comments on large object we may have on top of the front cabin?  Should
a small trailer replace such box that increase the wind resistance?
joel

-------------------------------------------
so then the 2 conditions that must be met are:
 - same shape
 - same surface area

correct?

If so, I would argue that no 2 cars models have those in common and thus
the wind resistance for each car is unique. As a result, no one magic
formula can accurately account for how fuel inefficient all vehicles are
unless it includes some kind of unique variable specific to that model of
vehicle.

as a side, I think what you meant to say was that the density of an object
has no bearing on it's wind resistance. Which is true. However the higher
the density the more energy it will take to change it's relative position
i.e. - Accelerating from 0 to 65 MPH

> I think he meant, a 6 ton flat brick has the same wind resistance as a
> 200g flat brick. ;)
>
> On 8/17/05, Brandon <Brandon@concilio.ca> wrote:
>> so by that logic a 1 pound Tear dropped shaped object has the same wind
>> resistance as a 6 ton flat brick.
>>
>> note: our vans more closely resemble the brick :)
>>
>>
>> > My goodness you guys, nobody is thinking, and I can't sit quietly any
>> > longer!
>> >
>> >  The mass of the vehicle does not change the wind resistance, or the
>> MPG,
>> > on
>> > the highway. Stop and go or big hills is another story, but on flat
>> ground
>> > at steady speed the van could be 6 tons and you'd get the same MPG.
>> >
>> > At steady speed you are not accellerating the mass, you are only
>> pushing
>> > the
>> > wind out of the way, so mass doesn't matter.
>> >
>> > John
>> > Aircooled.Net Inc.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>