This really proves what you were saying about the importance of accurate 3D models that are provided to AirShaper ! Regarding the design of the truck, I wonder why they simply didn't just add ( low poly ) beveled edges to the sharp edges. This would have kept the angular look, but also provide a more radiused edge for the airflow.
Very nice! I am about to add the Cybertruck Co Molle rack to my Cybertruck, would be interested to know how it affects the airflow. I have heard a 10% reduction in efficiency, but im more curious to know if there is a wind deflector I could add to help. I have a theory that I could direct the air to flow over the top of the rack and across the surface of a rooftop tent that sits 8 inches higher than the peak of the roofline. Similar to the airflow of a Suburban. The setup is a "Cybertruck Co" Molle rack plus an "Intrepid Camp Gear Geo 3.0" tent.
This really proves what you were saying about providing accurate models to test in AirShaper ! The difference is quite large for even minor variations. Regarding this truck design, I have to wonder why it was that the sharp edges did not simply have a ( " low poly " ) bevel applied along the edges. I understand the desire to only have a boxy look, and this would have kept the angular look, while giving the air ( what it sees as ) a curved surface to flow around.
Thank you, very interesting and informative. A respectable Cd for the type of vehicle - but a ridiculously large truck nonetheless, which wouldn't be safe for other road users and pedestrians in Europe 🇬🇧
Just found Airshaper today after catching up with Robin Shute's channel and Im hooked! I have a build in progress il certainly drop into the app for analysis and see where improvements can be made.
Ah fantastic, looking forward to see your design! You can connect directly with me at wouter@airshaper.com if you like, perhaps you can already drop me your contact details?
Love the in-depth analysis, much appreciated. Worth noting the aero covers on the wheels are missing, that could explain part of the discrepancy - would be interesting to see how much of a difference they make.
The aero efficiency of the T50 must be incredible. Lightweight apart the car easily gives over 30 mpg in Dario's latest video where he takes an interviewer along for the ride, and he only used 6th gear once.
Hi there! Perfect tutorial and explanation! I would like to know when do we know if our data is normalized or not? I've read that dimensional values are known as "no normalized data" and adimensional values are know as "normalized data". Could you tell me where I can find this information in my OpenFoam folders? Thanks!
Those half windows are complete deal breakers. Their excuse of aerodynamics is just that, an excuse for not designing the door such that the window will fit in it. 9:20 Look... the joint/seams are right at eye level. Absurd.
In short Introducing the vortex generators increases the Reynold's number, making the flow turbulent increasing boundary layer thickness, delaying the flow separation.
More of this! Also a $100 compute option would be welcome for more detailed hobby projects. First one is often too rough and the next one is quite the leap in terms of cost.
@@AirShaper maybe you could do a hobbyist offer at $50-100 that makes the simulation public, similar to today’s cloud CAD pricing models. Hobbyists will be happy and the whole community will learn from their public results (on your website) which is a viral coefficient on its own. I’ve tried both of your plans and a middle ground is indeed needed.
I found AirShaper to be quite affordable. The entry level test is only $50, but is extremely accurate ( The air flowed exactly the same as when I tuft tested the car.) There are a couple of free CFD softwares out there, but the learning curve is very, very steep.
@AirShaper Thank you for this video. Beginning at 3:33 into the video you discuss the airflow behind the front wheel. I noticed the tufts of yarn behind the second air curtain are just as turbulent as the yarn tufts in front of the air curtain behind the front wheel. Shouldn't the second air curtain have caused the air behind it to re-attach on the drivers door and possibly the passenger driver side door? I'm doing some tuft testing on my Tesla Model X after installing flat wheel covers and have found a good decrease in Wh/mi (watt hours per mile) but would like to test the undertray behind the front wheels to see if Airtab vortex generators would improve attached flow. The second area of interest is behind the rear tailgate on the Model X to see what can be done to reduce drag to improve range. The third area of interest is at the rear of the hood (bonnet) to see if a lip spoiler similar to the one on the Lucid Air would also decrease drag created in the pocket between the hood and the windshield (windscreen). One thing I discovered is that lowering the air suspension ride height from medium to low doesn't improve the Wh/mi but instead increases it slightly. I assume it is because the increase in negative camber and toe in from lowering the suspension are negatively impacting rolling resistance. What are your thoughts?
Hi there, just watched a video from the ETH where they are talking about "CAS in AI and Software Development". I must say, you look so much like the guy in that video named Daniel Ellersiek, is there any relationship between the two of you, or are you even that guy? An amazing resemblance. at 1:03, he works for a company called "planet". Sorry for being so nosy.
These videos are so useful, Wouter! This makes me (and others) learn some basic fluid structures of machinery like this VTOL or a Drone or whatever, which are not so popular in uni courses or in general; thank you for presenting such cases to the public!
I have a question, in the '80 the racing bikes has a big squared tail, that work, I think, like the kammback. Except for the rear wing, newer bike, or the moto3 - moto2 bike, have a real small tail and from wind tunnel we see lots of turbolence here. So, this is because the tail is not so important? And is still here, but really small, only for aesthetic reason, but a simple bicycle-like seat without tail could work well?
I would love to see the aero of a bike in yaw, with the rider having a significant lean angle(knee touching the ground). I suspect the leg of the rider affects the aero of the bike, which is also in ground effect. Is that why the wings on bikes have a high anhedral angle? Once the rider is leaning the bike, the angle becomes vertical on 'lean towards side', and horizontal on the 'lean away side'. That way the front wing on the outside produces downforce, while the inner one works more like a vertical stabilizer.
Cool, but I wish there was a free or at least cheaper version for personal use. I am not going to pay 50 euros for something I could set up in Blender for free. But obviously, I am not the intended user.
Kind of in the same boat here but Im guessing 3D scan the car then once its imported to CAD have some surfaces applied to make it a model. There might even be an app or AI that will take a 3D mesh and surface it for you these days. If such an app exists i think a hobbyist level 3D scanner will be a really handy tool to have when you're making changes to your aero. Id also have your aero peer reviewed by someone who know's what they're doing because if something went wrong it could be catastrophic to the vehicle and driver.
Hi, amazing video. I enjoyed each and everything in the video. However, i just wanna ask why did you get a positive downforce? Fz is 1.02e2 which is positive that means there's a lift. Is that normal or common to see in such simulations? I'm running a cfd analysis and even I'm getting positive downforce which is lift. Thanks
k ben al lange tijd gepassioneerd door vliegtuigen en wil graag luchtvaartingenieur worden. Ik ben zeer klimaatbewust en mijn levensdoel is om de luchtvaartindustrie - van passagiersvliegtuigen tot General Aviation - groener te maken. Ik ben nu 17 en heb net mijn middelbare school afgerond, maar ik ben een beetje verdwaald in de vele studiekeuzes die voor me liggen. Ik twijfel tussen het volgen van een bachelor in Leuven en daarna een master in lucht- en ruimtevaart, of direct naar de TU Delft gaan. Wat zou u aanraden? Heeft u tips voor iemand die succesvol wil worden in deze industrie, en welke richting ik het beste kan kiezen? Denk je dat het nuttig is om mijn zomervakantie te besteden aan het experimenteren met RC-vliegtuigjes en proberen enkele zeer efficiënte modellen te maken, of zou ik beter iets anders doen? Ik bewonder wat u doet en hoop iets vergelijkbaars te kunnen bereiken. Met vriendelijke groet Mauro
Hi Mauro, coole ambities! Experimenteren met RC vliegtuigen is goud waard. Die praktische ervaring is vaak maar beperkt aanwezig binnen universitaire opleidingen. En je ontwikkelt er een heel goed buikgevoel mee, iets dat goed samengaat met de theoretische kennis die je later kan opdoen. Tu Delft heeft geloof ik iets meer reputatie internationaal, al weet ik niet of de inhoud effectief beter is dan die bij de KULeuven. Ik heb aan de KULeven gestudeerd en vond dat in elk geval heel goed. Maar die ervaring is ondertussen gedateerd 🙂 Veel succes!
