BoxOffice

Well, Ok - at the risk of adding my blows to the beating of the dead horse - the above "boldened" statement is technically correct, but still amounts to splitting hairs.
As I mentioned in a previous post:
"Just to be a bit clearer, let me point out that coefficient of drag (Cd) itself is not the only determinant of aerodynamic efficiency. It's actually the product of the drag coefficient times the frontal area (Cd*A) that counts. Go stand in front of your Box and imagine that everything facing you is two-dimensional (i.e., a perfectly flat surface) pushing through the air at speed, and you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about. As a comparison, think about how much smaller a Honda Insight would look like from the same view. "

peteski

Ok, you win - you right!

Funny thing is that the numbers we're discussing here do not have any scientific backing. At least, I don't see any mention of who came up with those original Cd numbers and how they ran the test.

But if those numbers are accurate then how do you explain the fact that xB's Cd is so low? It defies your logic.

BoxOffice

"Well, allow me to retort..."

As far as the Cd measurement, I honestly couldn't tell you who came up with them without delving into some past reading. I've read .34 and .35 in more than one place, so I'm basing my comments on that (.35 seems to be the accepted number here). Obviously at some point there was some kind of "scientific backing".
You think the xB's Cd is low? Hmmm. Don't base "low" on the fact that someone here on S/L recently stated the swoopy new Corvette and the xB have the same Coefficient of Drag profile. If I remember correctly, the average car these days is somewhere around .29. Additionally, my new VW GTI back in '83 was about .34, and that was about the boxiest, squarest-edged vehicle I've ever owned. That leaves the "rounded windshield" xB with a worse Cd number, after 24 years of additional technology!
Of course, that doesn't even take into account the "frontal area" aspect, or other aerodynamic concerns such as lift, downforce, degrees of freedom, etc., that would give a fuller picture of the Box's actual aerodynamic profile.

As far as I can tell, my logic still stands!

peteski

Of course you're right again (as far as you're concerned). We all can present our facts is such way that they'll fit into what we think is the correct explanation. You can make any Cd value of a car appear low or high if you compare it certain way to other cars.

All I can tell you is that I'm not a scientist who is an expert on streamlining. I just use my common sense to explain the Cd values presented to me here. If I was presented with other indisputible and verified facts, I would have to adjust my way of thinking.

As far as the rounded frontal areas of xB go, I still think they help to lower the overall drag of this car. But that is just a small part of the equation. As we both know, there are many other factors which add up to the overall drag.

I cannot explain the specifics on the similarity of xB and and '83 GTI. But whatever it is, seems to make them similar in the Cd value (if we again can trust the Cd values posted in this thread).

BoxOffice

I guess I still don't understand why we're disagreeing.
I've presented facets of proven facts and and sciences, without any kind of bias to fit a "correct explanation" as you put it (which, for some reason I feel I oughta be taking as an insult...). And whether a Cd value is high or low in relation to another car doesn't change the fact that it IS actually high or low based on given norms or standards.
Funny that you profess to not having any actual expertise in the field, yet somehow everything I've presented is wrong or biased (though based on nothing substantive on your part, that I can tell), just because it doesn't agree with your "way of thinking".

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...and I leave you with a very badly beaten and quite thoroughly dead horse.