fenders vs. no fenders

hachi kid · 04-07-2008, 11:41 PM

which one is more aerodynamically efficient? and no speculation, either. I have a friend that says that no fenders are more efficient cause of more surface area, and stuff, while I can swear I remember reading about an aerodynamicist who said that open wheel designs are inferior because the 4 protruding wheels disturb the air flow severely. anyone know?

Joseph.

tymr287 · 04-08-2008, 12:09 AM

Yeah, I guess all those engineers for Formula 1 and IRL are just a bunch of overpaid idiots.

Final13 · 04-08-2008, 12:18 AM

I guess that would depend on the application...If you look at the IRL cars or F1, you can see obvious aerodynamic..."effort" engineered in to the front and rear of the car. Now if we are talking about something like nascar then obviously a fenderless vehicle will be aerodynamically deficient.

kbrew8991 · 04-08-2008, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tymr287

Yeah, I guess all those engineers for Formula 1 and IRL are just a bunch of overpaid idiots.

just because they do a good job with what they're given doesn't mean its ideal

a wheel/tire out in the air is pretty terrible, lots o' drag and a decent amount of lift too

nutty1 · 04-08-2008, 12:43 AM

formula 1 don't need fenders because they have plenty of power to overcome the aerodynamic drag of the huge tires. they may just have a deflector in the front to keep the air going over the tires instead of under.

kbrew8991 · 04-08-2008, 01:33 AM

those pesky rules have nothing to do with it either....

David · 04-08-2008, 02:56 PM

W/o fenders all of the air hits the tires and you get horrible handling and fuel efficiency. If you notice, the F1 cars have a spoiler in the front to help push the air over the tires. And like kbrew8991 said, even if the designers wanted fenders, the rules wouldn't permit it. But if all you do is drive around a small town or small streets, then no fenders would be a benefit only because of weight. But as far as aerodynamics go, you're better off with the fenders on. Especially on highways or at high-speed where the air actualy affects you aero.

JohnnyD · 04-09-2008, 01:01 AM

Yup, no fenders on any car for aerodynamic purposes makes no sense unless your regulations require it (or you have an awesome kit car).

+1 on David48's remark. Also, depeding on where you're driving, you might earn a decent ticket for not having the rear of your tire shielded from debris or rain kick-up. BUT, if you're rocking some very nice front fenders and an expensive fron aero at the track - then yeah, take those off and have fun but not on the street or any circuit you're doing a time attack.

MR2SW22 · 05-01-2009, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbrew8991

just because they do a good job with what they're given doesn't mean its ideal

a wheel/tire out in the air is pretty terrible, lots o' drag and a decent amount of lift too

hence the reason we see some F1 cars lift up and fly backwards in the air at 150mph+ sometimes?

hachi kid · 05-01-2009, 07:03 PM

I've never seen that happen with an open wheel car where it is just the aero's fault. that is usually spurred on by wheel to wheel contact. and that would happen with any car, not just open wheel cars.

Joseph.

MR2SW22 · 05-01-2009, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hachi kid

I've never seen that happen with an open wheel car where it is just the aero's fault. that is usually spurred on by wheel to wheel contact. and that would happen with any car, not just open wheel cars.

Joseph.

watch whacked out sports, or extreme racing vids, it's happened.

hachi kid · 05-01-2009, 07:46 PM

you may be thinking of when the CLK Le Mans car flipped on the mulsanne straight. but as far as open wheel stuff, I guarantee that they didn't just flip on their own. something had to have broken, or there had to have been some sort of contact between two cars.

Joseph.

MR2SW22 · 05-01-2009, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hachi kid

you may be thinking of when the CLK Le Mans car flipped on the mulsanne straight. but as far as open wheel stuff, I guarantee that they didn't just flip on their own. something had to have broken, or there had to have been some sort of contact between two cars.

Joseph.

youtube...

YouTube - Car flying :O

hachi kid · 05-01-2009, 10:57 PM

thank you for proving my point. there was wheel to wheel contact between the two cars. the right rear wheel of the first car touched the left front wheel of the second car, and the second car went up in the air.

Joseph.

MR2SW22 · 05-02-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hachi kid

thank you for proving my point. there was wheel to wheel contact between the two cars. the right rear wheel of the first car touched the left front wheel of the second car, and the second car went up in the air.

Joseph.

so these over paid engineers couldn't see that coming?

David · 05-02-2009, 12:31 PM

To be frank, I think that if you believe that no fenders is more efficient, then your brain dead. More surface area is very undesireable. If it was prefffered, then cars would have wrinkles all over to increase it. But instead, cars are compltely smooth to have as little surface area as possible. Because more surface area = more wind resistance. I didn't know people could be such dumb****s.

hachi kid · 05-02-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR2SW22

so these over paid engineers couldn't see that coming?

it's a simple matter of how aero works. the design of the cars are fine, until air gets underneath them. which is exactly what happened when those two cars touched wheels. the spinning rear wheel of the first car made contact with the second car, and the second car got forced up, and at that speed, a lot of air gathered underneath, and made the car catapult straight up. it has nothing to do with whether the car has fenders, or not. it could happen to our MR2's if there was a way for wheels to make contact if we were traveling at well over 100mph.

and I agree. this was a thread started a long time a go to prove to my dumb**** friend that open wheel aero is inferior to things with fenders. he still believes that fenders aren't the way to go to minimize drag and increase efficiency.....but then again, he thinks it's ok to f*** women without a condom.....so, he's not the brightest person I know...

Joseph.

MR2SW22 · 05-02-2009, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David48

To be frank, I think that if you believe that no fenders is more efficient, then your brain dead. More surface area is very undesireable. If it was prefffered, then cars would have wrinkles all over to increase it. But instead, cars are compltely smooth to have as little surface area as possible. Because more surface area = more wind resistance. I didn't know people could be such dumb****s.

true test would be a wind tunnel right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hachi kid

it's a simple matter of how aero works. the design of the cars are fine, until air gets underneath them. which is exactly what happened when those two cars touched wheels. the spinning rear wheel of the first car made contact with the second car, and the second car got forced up, and at that speed, a lot of air gathered underneath, and made the car catapult straight up. it has nothing to do with whether the car has fenders, or not. it could happen to our MR2's if there was a way for wheels to make contact if we were traveling at well over 100mph.

and I agree. this was a thread started a long time a go to prove to my dumb**** friend that open wheel aero is inferior to things with fenders. he still believes that fenders aren't the way to go to minimize drag and increase efficiency.....but then again, he thinks it's ok to f*** women without a condom.....so, he's not the brightest person I know...

Joseph.

See above comment...

David · 05-02-2009, 05:51 PM

What do you mean by that?

Think of it this way. What's more aero efficient; a brick, or a smooth sphere.

MR2SW22 · 05-02-2009, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David48

What do you mean by that?

Think of it this way. What's more aero efficient; a brick, or a smooth sphere.

all i know is rock smashes scissors

04-07-2008, 11:41 PM	#1 (permalink)
hachi kid Some Skills Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 57 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts My Google Map iTrader Rating: (0/0% )	fenders vs. no fenders which one is more aerodynamically efficient? and no speculation, either. I have a friend that says that no fenders are more efficient cause of more surface area, and stuff, while I can swear I remember reading about an aerodynamicist who said that open wheel designs are inferior because the 4 protruding wheels disturb the air flow severely. anyone know? Joseph.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-08-2008, 12:09 AM	#2 (permalink)
tymr287 Some Skills Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: New Orleans Posts: 74 Thanks: 0 Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts iTrader Rating: (0/0% )	Yeah, I guess all those engineers for Formula 1 and IRL are just a bunch of overpaid idiots.

04-08-2008, 12:18 AM	#3 (permalink)
Final13 Cage Fighter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tennessee Posts: 383 Thanks: 6 Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts iTrader Rating: (0/0% )	I guess that would depend on the application...If you look at the IRL cars or F1, you can see obvious aerodynamic..."effort" engineered in to the front and rear of the car. Now if we are talking about something like nascar then obviously a fenderless vehicle will be aerodynamically deficient.

04-08-2008, 12:43 AM	#5 (permalink)
nutty1 trading luck for skills Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: houston, tx Posts: 136 Thanks: 3 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts iTrader Rating: (0/0% )	formula 1 don't need fenders because they have plenty of power to overcome the aerodynamic drag of the huge tires. they may just have a deflector in the front to keep the air going over the tires instead of under.

04-08-2008, 01:33 AM	#6 (permalink)
kbrew8991 gimme some turns Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 1,392 Thanks: 60 Thanked 71 Times in 61 Posts My Google Map iTrader Rating: (4/100% )	those pesky rules have nothing to do with it either....

04-08-2008, 02:56 PM	#7 (permalink)
David Formerly known as David48 Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Tampa, Fl. Posts: 1,284 Thanks: 111 Thanked 25 Times in 25 Posts My Google Map iTrader Rating: (4/100% )	W/o fenders all of the air hits the tires and you get horrible handling and fuel efficiency. If you notice, the F1 cars have a spoiler in the front to help push the air over the tires. And like kbrew8991 said, even if the designers wanted fenders, the rules wouldn't permit it. But if all you do is drive around a small town or small streets, then no fenders would be a benefit only because of weight. But as far as aerodynamics go, you're better off with the fenders on. Especially on highways or at high-speed where the air actualy affects you aero.

04-09-2008, 01:01 AM	#8 (permalink)
JohnnyD RWD > FWD but < AWD Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Oceanside, CA Posts: 30 Thanks: 6 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post iTrader Rating: (0/0% )	Yup, no fenders on any car for aerodynamic purposes makes no sense unless your regulations require it (or you have an awesome kit car). +1 on David48's remark. Also, depeding on where you're driving, you might earn a decent ticket for not having the rear of your tire shielded from debris or rain kick-up. BUT, if you're rocking some very nice front fenders and an expensive fron aero at the track - then yeah, take those off and have fun but not on the street or any circuit you're doing a time attack.

05-01-2009, 07:03 PM	#10 (permalink)
hachi kid Some Skills Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 57 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts My Google Map iTrader Rating: (0/0% )	I've never seen that happen with an open wheel car where it is just the aero's fault. that is usually spurred on by wheel to wheel contact. and that would happen with any car, not just open wheel cars. Joseph.

05-01-2009, 07:46 PM	#12 (permalink)
hachi kid Some Skills Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 57 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts My Google Map iTrader Rating: (0/0% )	you may be thinking of when the CLK Le Mans car flipped on the mulsanne straight. but as far as open wheel stuff, I guarantee that they didn't just flip on their own. something had to have broken, or there had to have been some sort of contact between two cars. Joseph.

05-01-2009, 10:57 PM	#14 (permalink)
hachi kid Some Skills Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 57 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts My Google Map iTrader Rating: (0/0% )	thank you for proving my point. there was wheel to wheel contact between the two cars. the right rear wheel of the first car touched the left front wheel of the second car, and the second car went up in the air. Joseph.

05-02-2009, 12:31 PM	#16 (permalink)
David Formerly known as David48 Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Tampa, Fl. Posts: 1,284 Thanks: 111 Thanked 25 Times in 25 Posts My Google Map iTrader Rating: (4/100% )	To be frank, I think that if you believe that no fenders is more efficient, then your brain dead. More surface area is very undesireable. If it was prefffered, then cars would have wrinkles all over to increase it. But instead, cars are compltely smooth to have as little surface area as possible. Because more surface area = more wind resistance. I didn't know people could be such dumb****s.

05-02-2009, 05:51 PM	#19 (permalink)
David Formerly known as David48 Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Tampa, Fl. Posts: 1,284 Thanks: 111 Thanked 25 Times in 25 Posts My Google Map iTrader Rating: (4/100% )	What do you mean by that? Think of it this way. What's more aero efficient; a brick, or a smooth sphere.