Landracing Forum

Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => 2017 and before: SW & WF => SpeedWeek 2014 => Topic started by: debgeo on March 11, 2014, 03:51:10 PM

Title: AERO
Post by: debgeo on March 11, 2014, 03:51:10 PM
Powered by bicycle  88 MPH
Title: Re: AERO
Post by: WOODY@DDLLC on March 11, 2014, 06:38:44 PM
http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2013/results.htm
Date     9/14/2013
Rider     Sebastiaan Bowier
Vehicle Name Velox 3
New design in the works: http://www.hptdelft.nl/en/
Speed MPH 83.13
Speed KPH 133.78
 :cheers:
Title: Re: AERO
Post by: debgeo on March 12, 2014, 02:05:00 PM
THANKS for correction Woody.
Title: Re: AERO
Post by: SteveM on March 16, 2014, 06:13:18 PM
Very impressive speed. I wonder if there is power data available for that run?  I'm guessing 1,000+ watts average.
Title: Re: AERO
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 17, 2014, 01:09:37 AM
... I'm guessing 1,000+ watts average...
Maybe. I don't know if a human can apply about 1.5 HP or not.
Title: Re: AERO
Post by: Stainless1 on March 17, 2014, 09:32:28 AM
... I'm guessing 1,000+ watts average...
Maybe. I don't know if a human can apply about 1.5 HP or not.

Maybe for 8 furlongs...  :-D
Title: Re: AERO
Post by: fordboy628 on March 17, 2014, 11:40:34 AM
... I'm guessing 1,000+ watts average...
Maybe. I don't know if a human can apply about 1.5 HP or not.

Maybe for 8 furlongs...  :-D

I vaguely remember reading something about top Tour De France riders being able to produce 800 watts for short periods of time.    As in climbing mountains.    Power for average riders was 700/750 watts.

745.7 watts/hp

Average U.S. male Olympic athlete (non-cyclist) tested @ .5 hp  approx. 373 watts
Title: Re: AERO
Post by: metermatch on March 23, 2014, 01:08:42 PM
They couldn't go any faster than 88 mph because whenever they did, they went back in time...

Jeff
Title: Re: AERO
Post by: salt27 on March 23, 2014, 01:51:16 PM
I vaguely remember reading something about top Tour De France riders being able to produce 800 watts for short periods of time.    As in climbing mountains.    Power for average riders was 700/750 watts.

745.7 watts/hp

Average U.S. male Olympic athlete (non-cyclist) tested @ .5 hp  approx. 373 watts

Is that with or without performance enhancing drugs.   :roll:
Title: Re: AERO
Post by: 1212FBGS on March 24, 2014, 09:34:55 PM
got any shapes like that on your hard drive Woody?
kent
Title: Re: AERO
Post by: WOODY@DDLLC on March 25, 2014, 06:08:07 PM
Kent, if I tell you I have to kill you!  :-D  However, I do have a concept for a 100+ mph human powered vehicle but can't get anyone interested in building it. Would be a great university project!  :cheers:

This shape was optimized analytically for the velocity/pressure distributions at the chosen speed range of 80~85 mph. [Laminar flow thingy!] Add 100, 200 or 300 mph and it all changes. The previous record holder was an "organic" design by a sculptor. http://www.varnahandcycles.com/hpv.htm The air getting into the wheel wells is a killer for these machines.  :-(

Now where did I put that weed-whacker engine and the model airplane fuel?  :?

There was a CFD study done that "proved" that if the second place guy would have cut his ponytail he would have beat the "enhanced" Lance! About 9 grams of drag is considered the theoretical difference between first and second place - all other enhancements being equal!  :-o
Title: Re: AERO
Post by: dw230 on March 25, 2014, 06:24:04 PM
9 grams is approx. 4 times the weight difference in a NASCAR connecting rod that means legal/illegal for a competition imbalance.

DW
Title: Re: AERO
Post by: Blue on April 05, 2014, 12:04:35 AM
Took a while to find this, it was farther back than I thought

http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,4084.0.html

Max HP for a trained rider in recumbant position is just over 2HP.  Much better than a conventional bicycle position.
Title: Re: AERO
Post by: tauruck on April 05, 2014, 02:49:16 AM
Kent, if I tell you I have to kill you!  :-D  However, I do have a concept for a 100+ mph human powered vehicle but can't get anyone interested in building it. Would be a great university project!  :cheers:

This shape was optimized analytically for the velocity/pressure distributions at the chosen speed range of 80~85 mph. [Laminar flow thingy!] Add 100, 200 or 300 mph and it all changes. The previous record holder was an "organic" design by a sculptor. http://www.varnahandcycles.com/hpv.htm The air getting into the wheel wells is a killer for these machines.  :-(

Now where did I put that weed-whacker engine and the model airplane fuel?  :?

There was a CFD study done that "proved" that if the second place guy would have cut his ponytail he would have beat the "enhanced" Lance! About 9 grams of drag is considered the theoretical difference between first and second place - all other enhancements being equal!  :-o

I'll build it. :wink:
Title: Re: AERO
Post by: fordboy628 on April 05, 2014, 07:23:55 AM
Kent, if I tell you I have to kill you!  :-D  However, I do have a concept for a 100+ mph human powered vehicle but can't get anyone interested in building it. Would be a great university project!  :cheers:

This shape was optimized analytically for the velocity/pressure distributions at the chosen speed range of 80~85 mph. [Laminar flow thingy!] Add 100, 200 or 300 mph and it all changes. The previous record holder was an "organic" design by a sculptor. http://www.varnahandcycles.com/hpv.htm The air getting into the wheel wells is a killer for these machines.  :-(

Now where did I put that weed-whacker engine and the model airplane fuel?  :?

There was a CFD study done that "proved" that if the second place guy would have cut his ponytail he would have beat the "enhanced" Lance! About 9 grams of drag is considered the theoretical difference between first and second place - all other enhancements being equal!  :-o

I'll build it. :wink:

Where do I sign up for the team?

My PowerAde ration can go to the cylclists, I'll be swilling something "better".    :wink:

The model airplane fuel I'd use is the stuff with Nitro . . . .
Title: Re: AERO
Post by: yarp on April 18, 2014, 09:01:32 PM
They couldn't go any faster than 88 mph because whenever they did, they went back in time...

Jeff

ha!
Title: Re: AERO
Post by: Blue on May 13, 2014, 01:09:34 PM
This shape was optimized analytically for the velocity/pressure distributions at the chosen speed range of 80~85 mph. [Laminar flow thingy!] Add 100, 200 or 300 mph and it all changes.
Actually, until we get to much higher Rn the lowest drag shape will be a natural laminar flow design very close to a NACA 66xxx to 67xxx.  Above 100 million Rn, there's a small advantage to moving the max thickness point a little more forward.  Anyone building for up to 400 mph is well below this.

Above 500 mph, we're getting into transonics and that leads to super-critical airfoils with less laminar flow and flatter velocity profiles.  Supersonic, we go towards "bi-convex" airfoils to minimize wave drag.  In all of this, the separation drag at the rear and under the vehicle is the biggest area of improvement available for LSR. 
Title: Re: AERO
Post by: tauruck on May 16, 2014, 01:14:29 AM
... I'm guessing 1,000+ watts average...
Maybe. I don't know if a human can apply about 1.5 HP or not.

Maybe for 8 furlongs...  :-D

Bob,  :-D :-D :-D