um... sure... nice 'to the man' argument there Jake.

And the other is pretty piss poor too, "no, your wrong but I can't be
bothered to explain why I think that" .... In that case why bother posting a
reply at all ????

If you have succh a magic fomula do please share it with us.

JM2C

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jake de Villiers" <crescentbeachguitar@TELUS.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: How much fuel efficiency gained by shedding 300 lbs?

> Sorry Brandon. I know you are Canadian and all, but there IS one magic
> formula that covers all cars. The value that changes is Cd, Cx in Europe,
> and is derived from wind tunnel testing. If I had the time, or if I
thought
> it mattered, I would look it up in my old Car and Driver magazines,
> but........
> The faster you go, the more wind resistance, the more fuel burned. I don't
> quite understand the discussion anyway. I like poking along on two lane
> roads, smelling the crops and stopping at will. I feel sorry for the
drones
> ripping down the highway at 85mph in their suv's, tinted windows and A/C
> keeping the real world at a distance.  I love the real world and relish
> every chance to experience it anew. At 55mph and 25 mpg in my van. Seeya,
> Jake
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brandon" <Brandon@CONCILIO.CA>
> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 2:05 PM
> Subject: Re: How much fuel efficiency gained by shedding 300 lbs?
>
>
> > 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.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>