Aerodynamics (WAS 90 q manual & bike rack 4 sale)

[Peter Henriksen <peterhe@microsoft.com>]

>For the Volvos, it would be hard to do 150mph with 227hp with the
>aerodynamics of a brick.
>
>Square, yes. Aerodynamically challenged, probably not.
>
>Does anybody know what the Cds for the different Audi models are?
>- peter
>
Original Message-----
From:        	Alexei M Voloshin [SMTP:Alexei.M.Voloshin-1@tc.umn.edu]
Sent:         	Wednesday, August 07, 1996 1:38 PM
To:            	Bob D'Amato
Cc:            	Lee Levitt; quattro@coimbra.ans.net;
immike@ix.netcom.com
Subject:   	re: 90 q manual & bike rack 4 sale


A car does not have to look aerodynamic to be aerodynamic. Airplane
does, 
because it flies above the ground. Car does not, because it moves on the
ground where the wind dynamics are more complicated and don't look 
anything like what they do around the airplane. 

For example:
new Taurus looks a lot more aerodinamic than 5k, but has the same CD.
Lexus LS 400 has CD of .27 -> the most aerodynamic car sold in US, does 
not look so Aerodynamic to me with its huge upright grill in front.
Volvos have a shape that is different and looks less aerodynamic, but 
functionally it can hold its own.

Alex


On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, Bob D'Amato wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, Lee Levitt wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Um, why is it called swedishbricks? Well, because Volvos and bricks have
> > similar aerodynamic properties ;-)
> > 
> 
> Oh thats harsh... but true, I doubt theres a Volvo out there that ever 
> saw a wind tunnel!