NavajoEverclear Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 If you put wings on a car, would the lift make the car lighter and thus use less gas?
Phi for All Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 Wings like a spoiler? No. They actually push downward to give better traction and road-hugging. Wings like an airplane? Yes. And at a certain speed your wheels might lose traction completely, saving gas but wrecking the vehicle.
Molotov Posted March 7, 2005 Posted March 7, 2005 I'm guessing the extra drag induced by the wing would negate any gas savings.
Skye Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 The lighter weight cars use less fuel largely because they don't have as much mass to accelerate. (Wings don't decrease the mass of a vehicle)
J.C.MacSwell Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 I'm guessing the extra drag induced by the wing would negate any gas savings. Good guess, a lot of the drag reduction in recent years has been accomplished by reducing lift.
The Thing Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 There are two drags. Induced and parasite. Both increase if you add wings, and even if the wings get the car into the air it will drop, unless the car glides, which slides off topic a bit. Don't think it will save a lot of gasoline.
ecoli Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 I think the way cars are designed now, are too heavy and too bulky to use wings to generate lift. Even if it did work...more lift = less traction.
Callipygous Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 like that other person said. its having less mass to accelerate that saves gas, not less weight. wings add air resistence and mass. (that wasnt directed at you ecoli, just a response to the thread in general : P)
Guest abcdefg Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 If you could angle the wings in a neutral position while you gain speed, then angle the wings up so that the car "hops" you could probably glide the car for a couple feet... maybe
ydoaPs Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 so, if i open the doors on my delorean, and floor it...
ydoaPs Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 holy crap, i love those movies. all three are so stupid you just have to love them. kinda like napolean dynamite.
Callipygous Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 If you could angle the wings in a neutral position while you gain speed, then angle the wings up so that the car "hops" you could probably glide the car for a couple feet... maybe why would you bother? you would be burning momentum going up instead of forward.
calbiterol Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 why would you bother? you would be burning momentum going up instead of forward. Island hopping. Just kidding!
The Thing Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 How will you control the car once its up in the air? Okay, so we add more rudders, then ailerons, then elevators. Then we slowly get two giant turbofans, we change wheels into landing gears. There, a flying car. But wait, its a plane now! Why waste all those materials and energy to build a flying car, when we have planes? Now Im not saying Im against the idea of a hovercar. Quite the opposite. Hovercars will be cool...
Callipygous Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 who says you control it? just get it pointed the right direction and take a leap of faith. thats the way real men do it...
ydoaPs Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 forget control, if it gets off the ground, there is no force driving it forward. it could jump, but not fly. cars are heavy, to get off the ground, it needs to go really fast or have huge wings. once off the ground it is doomed. cars don't have a good glide ratio
Guest abcdefg Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 How do you know that cars don't have a good glide ratio, sure it is a recipe for disaster, but mabe it could work
Phi for All Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 How do you know that cars don't have a good glide ratio, sure it is a recipe for disaster, but mabe it could workIn Engineering, there is always a practical purpose. Disaster is rarely the purpose. I'm not sure wings could ever efficiently give enough lift to both lighten the vehicle in regards to fuel consumption and leave enough traction for maneuvering purposes. Cars already give up control the faster they go, why would you want to give up more control to save on fuel? Being alive to spend your savings should rank high on everyone's list.
Callipygous Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 i thought we already agreed that no ammount of lift will help your gas consumption. are some people still not getting this? its the same mass (more actually) same inertia, same force required. its not weight that matters. its mass.
The Thing Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 I think what they are saying is once the car is in the air, they shut the engines and let it glide. THEN it will reduce gas consumption.
Callipygous Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 I think what they are saying is once the car is in the air, they shut the engines and let it glide. THEN it will reduce gas consumption. thats, um.... interesting. so now what we are gaining is the reduced friction from not having to turn the axel... im sure that amounts to a lot.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now