Author Topic: CP vs CG  (Read 102628 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John Burk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 695
Re: CP vs CG
« Reply #150 on: December 22, 2014, 04:37:33 PM »
The CP of most wing profiles change little or not at all at Reynolds numbers that would be 133 , 167 and 400 mph for a 24 ft streamliner .

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5503
Re: CP vs CG
« Reply #151 on: December 22, 2014, 09:25:49 PM »
Today I talked with some engineers who know about this subject.  The method shown by Sumner is perfectly legit.  The car, when the back end swings out to be perpendicular with the line of travel, has a pressure centroid close to the areal centroid.  The method of weighting the car as shown is what is needed to help it regain stability.  Fins on the back help and as long as one is not in the turbulence shadow of the other, each can be considered a full addition to the exposed side area.

The center of pressure does not move in some shapes like symmetric airfoils if they are pointed in the direction of travel.  An assumption of the CP being 25 percent behind the front edge is often used.  The CP moves to the near the middle of the airfoil if it is tilted so it is perpendicular to the flow.  I was cautioned about applying this principle to other shapes.

There are stabilizing and destabilizing forces acting on vehicles.  They vary according to speed.  The impression I have of the CP moving forward might be partially due to the destabilizing forces gradually overcoming the stabilizing ones as I go faster.

The above was explained to me.  My thoughts are that a bike guy is dead meat if the back end slides out on the salt and the motorcycle is perpendicular to the direction of travel.  That is why I developed the idea described a few pages back.  In it I look at the forces acting on the vehicle rather than the CP.  Two reasons for this.  No one I know including myself can accurately determine the CP of a bike facing forward, and we cannot depend on the areal CP to CG relationship to save us in a slide.

I was wrong during the recent posts and I apologize.  My dinner tonight will be crow.  Sorta tough but tasty with plenty of BBQ sauce.

Offline John Burk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 695
Re: CP vs CG
« Reply #152 on: December 22, 2014, 10:31:08 PM »
Aerodynamic stability prevents wild rides . It shouldn't show up while you're having one .

Offline Sumner

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4078
  • Blanding, Ut..a small dot in the middle of nowhere
    • http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/sumnerindex.html
Re: CP vs CG
« Reply #153 on: December 23, 2014, 12:27:50 AM »
....The method shown by Sumner is perfectly legit.  ....

Let me make something clear and that is I didn't devise using the area as viewed from the side to derive an "approximate" (note that word) CP location I think it was Tom B. who first brought it to my attention.  Using the area method or about any other means that most of us can use and that is in our reach is going to end in an "approximation"  In the case of the 'area method' that I documented on my site a flat vertical surface, like a tail, is going to have a greater effect/value than say the same area as seen from the side that is rounded, like say a fender or roof top.

I feel the main purpose of the thread is to try and get you to at least come up with some idea where the CP is even if it isn't exact.  Then you can explore what your options are in regards to trying to move it rearward or the CG forward.  If you are building a streamliner or lakester you have a lot better chance of designing a vehicle that has more stability from the get-go but with a car you need to work on at least trying to stop the disaster before it gets totally out of hand.

You don't have to be Einstein to get some idea where the CP/CG is on your car.  Get the car weighed and a side view taken from a distance and at least take a look (see my other post for the link on how to do the rest) or try John's approach, at least do something  :-) :-),

Sum

Offline John Burk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 695
Re: CP vs CG
« Reply #154 on: December 23, 2014, 12:03:43 PM »
 This was posted here in 2006 .
   



Yes that is one of the reasons why cross winds (even minor ones) can make such a huge change.

For example the high pressure area that forms in front of the windshield quickly disappears as the wind begins to move from a quartering angle. This means two things, one a slight cross wind can drastically change your front down force (or rear for that matter) and it can very rapidly shift the center of pressure fore and aft on the vehicle. A body that is very stable in dead quiet wind conditions can suddenly turn into a car that wants to turn away or into a cross wind and unloads the front tires when it is hit by a cross wind gust.

In Norbye's book Streamlining and Car Aerodynamics (long out of print copyright 1977) he covers this issue a bit in Chapter 5. He states that the center of pressure on a typical sedan is near the cowl area and on sports GT's it is near the front wheels. (streamlining tends to move the center of pressure forward as drag at the rear of the body is eliminated, unless measures are taken such as fins to increase the rear sail area).

On the 1963 Corvette its front down force due to the high pressure area at he base of the windshield essentially disappears at a wind vector of 30 degrees from the axis of the body.

According to Norbye, the early Ford GT 40 had  696 lbs lift at 200 mph, 528 lbs front and 168 at the rear. When the wind vector swung to 15 degrees off axis the cars lift went up to1170 lbs, 786 at the front, and 384 in the rear. This car had a static weight on the front wheels of only 766.5 lbs, so in cross winds the front wheels would come off the ground.

The problem was solved with the addition of a front air dam and a change in the shape of the cars nose. After those modifications front lift at 0 degrees angle of attack was 236 lbs, while rear lift increased to 272 lbs. At a 15 degree angle of attack front lift still was only 309 lbs, and rear lift was at 343 lbs.



Larry

Offline manta22

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4146
  • What, me worry?
Re: CP vs CG
« Reply #155 on: December 23, 2014, 03:16:04 PM »
John;

Here is an excerpt from a 1969 wind tunnel report on a "GT40-like" race car. It supports what you have stated.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ
Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5503
Re: CP vs CG
« Reply #156 on: December 23, 2014, 10:06:53 PM »
Nose shape and its effect on vehicle behavior in cross-winds was the reason for using this rounded shape.  The shape it presents to a wind from straight ahead or at mild yaw seems to be the most uniform, in comparison to other shapes. 

Offline tortoise

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
Re: CP vs CG
« Reply #157 on: December 23, 2014, 10:28:27 PM »
Clearly the solution is to go really really fast to reduce the effective yaw angle from side winds.

Offline 7800ebs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • http://quickturnparts.com/index.html
Re: CP vs CG
« Reply #158 on: December 23, 2014, 11:18:08 PM »
OK. I will..... :cheers:

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5503
Re: CP vs CG
« Reply #159 on: December 24, 2014, 01:03:26 AM »
Usually when a vehicle goes sideways we think it is the rear end breaking loose from too much applied power.  At high speeds tractive forces exerted by the back tires on the surface are weakening as one shifts through the gears.  Is there another cause of high speed spins?  Aero drag is increasing with speed.  The CP is pretty far forward when going straight.  Is the wind catching the front of the vehicle and spinning it around?

A few years ago there were some horrific bike crashes on runways.  I do not know the exact causes of them.  They got me to thinking.  Suppose the bike hit a bump, the front end lifted, the wind got under the bike, and it lifted the front end up and spun the bike onto its side?

This is something I think about.  Is there any evidence of it happening?     

Offline John Burk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 695
Re: CP vs CG
« Reply #160 on: December 24, 2014, 01:49:47 PM »
Funny thing about tires , when available traction is used up for acceleration there is none left to resist yaw . That's the reason for spins . Speed Demon has been so stable because their traction control kept a little traction in reserve for side grip . The crash happened because the traction was worse than they expected and had the traction control set for .

Offline jl222

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2963
Re: CP vs CG
« Reply #161 on: December 27, 2014, 03:32:02 PM »
 Yeah Sid I don't know how the CG wouldn't change as speed increases.

  If the CG was measured at rest then 100 lbs. added to a rear wing the CG would move back. But at speed adding
100 lbs of down force the CG doesn't change? Just can't buy that.
There must be a way to get this idea through.

Think of 2 externally identical vehicles, vehicle A with most weight in front, vehicle B with most weight in rear. Both have adjustable wings, front and rear. Adjust the wings so that at 200 mph the wheel loadings are the same for both vehicles.

By your thinking, both vehicles now have the same CG at 200 mph, right?

Drive over a patch of black ice at 200. (Funny weather at Bonneville, huh?)

Will vehicle A and vehicle B behave the same?

  Where did you, or anyone else, get the idea that I think extra downforce [weight] on rear tires makes it more stable in a spin?
  I think more aero dowforce helps traction and prevents tires from spinning and causing a spin, but my original point was, if aero downforce puts more weight on rear tires and if it did not help traction wouldn't the CP VS CG get worse because of added weight on rear tires and make the car less stable?

  JL222

Offline tortoise

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
Re: CP vs CG
« Reply #162 on: December 27, 2014, 05:21:44 PM »
  Where did you, or anyone else, get the idea that I think extra downforce [weight] on rear tires makes it more stable in a spin?
I don't claim to know what you think, other than that aero downforce moves the CG.
Quote
  I think more aero dowforce helps traction and prevents tires from spinning and causing a spin . . .
Everyone would agree, I think.
Quote
but my original point was, if aero downforce puts more weight on rear tires and if it did not help traction wouldn't the CP VS CG get worse because of added weight on rear tires and make the car less stable?
No, aero downforce doesn't move the CG. There's a question in the post you're quoting, and I wish you'd answer it. If those 2 different vehicles have the same downforces (from mass plus aero) on each wheel at speed, do they thus have the same CG location at that speed, and if they lose traction, will they handle the same?






Offline jl222

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2963
Re: CP vs CG
« Reply #163 on: December 27, 2014, 08:47:21 PM »
  Where did you, or anyone else, get the idea that I think extra downforce [weight] on rear tires makes it more stable in a spin?
I don't claim to know what you think, other than that aero downforce moves the CG.
Quote
  I think more aero dowforce helps traction and prevents tires from spinning and causing a spin . . .
Everyone would agree, I think.
Quote
but my original point was, if aero downforce puts more weight on rear tires and if it did not help traction wouldn't the CP VS CG get worse because of added weight on rear tires and make the car less stable?
No, aero downforce doesn't move the CG. There's a question in the post you're quoting, and I wish you'd answer it. If those 2 different vehicles have the same downforces (from mass plus aero) on each wheel at speed, do they thus have the same CG location at that speed, and if they lose traction, will they handle the same?






  The vehicle with the most weight in the front will be less likely to spin [duh]

               Now please explain how down force is not a weight that puts more load on the tire and does not change the
             CG. And while your at it explain how weight is not a force as Sumner says.

            The 222 Camaro 3000 lbs on rear tires 1680 lbs on front. tilting up spoiler and adding a 2'' piece of metal
at 45 deg angle for more down force. lets just guess 500 lbs. Now rear weight is 3500 lbs at speed and you guys
         say that's not moving the CG back at that dynamic point and I don't have to worry about it?

                              JL222

         

         

Offline tortoise

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
Re: CP vs CG
« Reply #164 on: December 27, 2014, 10:21:04 PM »
The vehicle with the most weight in the front will be less likely to spin [duh]
According to you, aero downforce and mass are both "weight". Both vehicles have (at speed) the same "weight" (as you define it) on each wheel.
Quote
              Now please explain how down force is not a weight that puts more load on the tire and does not change the CG.
I cannot speak for Sumner or anyone else, but I have no problem calling downforce "weight". After all, we speak of weight jacking by adjusting the suspension without moving any mass around. Forget about "CG" when talking about aero stability; think of center of mass. When you've lost traction, inertia is resisting the slowing of the vehicle, and this forward inertial force is centered at the center of mass. The rearward aero force (drag) is centered at the CP. If the force pulling forward is in front, the vehicle "wants" to face forward.
Quote
And while your at it explain how weight is not a force as Sumner says.
I think he would say that weight is a force, but not all force is weight, even if it's pointing down. I agree, but don't think it's important.
Quote
The 222 Camaro 3000 lbs on rear tires 1680 lbs on front. tilting up spoiler and adding a 2'' piece of metal
at 45 deg angle for more down force. lets just guess 500 lbs. Now rear weight is 3500 lbs at speed and you guys say that's not moving the CG back at that dynamic point and I don't have to worry about it?
The center of mass has not moved. Aero stability is unaffected. Fear not; go fast.