i was just playing around with an aerodynamic simulation where i put in the e for a first test at 100km/h:
https://youtu.be/S5IeJBNRuLM?si=osrCb8qK79YkaRU
i dont have any results yet, but it looks pretty!
overall i think there is not much optimization possible, the factory drag coefficient of 0.27 is already really good.
i mainly want to find out how much effect lowering the car or changing the wheels can have on the efficiency.
Aerodynamic simulation
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2024 8:00 am
Cool indeed
How do i read this?
Red is good and blue is bad?? Or the other way?
How do i read this?
Red is good and blue is bad?? Or the other way?
thanks for the feedback!
i found the official drag coefficient here
and i extended the bounding box upwards.
the colors are green for 100km/h wind, red is faster wind, and blue slower wind.
i made some further tests, especially a comparison of standard ride height, and 30mm lowered ride height:
depending on different settings, the simulation gives the 30mm lowered version 6-7% less drag, and 15-30% more downforce, which is quite a bit!
based on the cw of 0.27 and a frontal area of 2.5m i get an air resistance of 312.325Newtons.
at 100km/h, this are 8,673 kW spent on air resistance.
therefore, a reduction of 6% air resistance should save 0,520 kWh per 100km at 100km/h.
taking the average official highway-efficiency of 18,38kWh/100km, this would give you a range boost of 2,82%, so 4,38km extra.
i always wondered how much the ride height affects efficiency, so now this estimate is saying a little bit, but not a huge amount!
i found the official drag coefficient here
and i extended the bounding box upwards.
the colors are green for 100km/h wind, red is faster wind, and blue slower wind.
i made some further tests, especially a comparison of standard ride height, and 30mm lowered ride height:
depending on different settings, the simulation gives the 30mm lowered version 6-7% less drag, and 15-30% more downforce, which is quite a bit!
based on the cw of 0.27 and a frontal area of 2.5m i get an air resistance of 312.325Newtons.
at 100km/h, this are 8,673 kW spent on air resistance.
therefore, a reduction of 6% air resistance should save 0,520 kWh per 100km at 100km/h.
taking the average official highway-efficiency of 18,38kWh/100km, this would give you a range boost of 2,82%, so 4,38km extra.
i always wondered how much the ride height affects efficiency, so now this estimate is saying a little bit, but not a huge amount!
- londiniumperson
- Posts: 1786
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:37 pm
This is why F1 cars run as close to the ground as possible, subject to the regulations.
2020 Advance in Crystal Black Pearl on 17's - 08/2020-Current
2015 VW Tiguan (Pure White) - 04/2018-Current
1991 Honda Beat PP1 (Festival Red) - 11/2022-Current
2015 VW Tiguan (Pure White) - 04/2018-Current
1991 Honda Beat PP1 (Festival Red) - 11/2022-Current
Look good and your result seems plausible compared to claims from other brands.
On top of the aerodynamic gain you can add a bit of drivetrain efficiency gain - less power at speed = lower losses in electrical, mechanical and rolling resistance. It always a positive (or negative) spiral effect on such changes
On top of the aerodynamic gain you can add a bit of drivetrain efficiency gain - less power at speed = lower losses in electrical, mechanical and rolling resistance. It always a positive (or negative) spiral effect on such changes
The drag coefficient in the linked article refers to the Fireblade motorcycle. The drag coefficient of the Honda e is not mentioned.
I've tried to find an official figure myself, but can't seem to find it. I could only find an estimated figure of 0.35 on the Automobile-Catalog website.
Once on an Italian car review channel I saw that they wrote 0.35 too, so it is more likely 0.35Peter-E wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 7:44 amThe drag coefficient in the linked article refers to the Fireblade motorcycle. The drag coefficient of the Honda e is not mentioned.
I've tried to find an official figure myself, but can't seem to find it. I could only find an estimated figure of 0.35 on the Automobile-Catalog website.