The Ever Falling Hp Of The Elio.... :(

[ThreeWheelBurnin]

Yes and no. Sorry guys but I have to indulge my inner nerd a bit.
Aerodynamics is essentially referring to air resistance, which is a function of a number of constants in this case with the prime variable being velocity relative to air. A 50% change in velocity will result in a change in air resistance by a factor of about 2.25. However, this is not affected by rate of change in velocity. In other words, if you want to increase speed you'll have to committ the necessary force to overcome increased drag no matter how long it takes to increase speed. Acceleration then is reduced to a simple matter of force exerted on mass resulting in change in velocity. So I guess the difference would be; after overcoming the increase in drag, which has more surplus power to apply to acceleration of it's given mass.

\ v /
><
/ ^ \

brain. exploded.

 

[Folks]

\ v /
><
/ ^ \

brain. exploded.

I guess this is the first time you've been exposed to pornographic nerdity. I've also notice that some who expose their thinking on some matters discussed here are somewhat pornographic too.

 

[Snick]

This car may be one of the first which has tire rolling resistance drag GREATER than aerodynamic drag, for a variety of driving cycles!--at least if the drag figures and frontal area remain about where they are with P4 design. I can post some figures and stats later to back the claim if anyone cares.

 

[Hog]

Actually lengthening the connecting rods will provide greater torque, but by nature will rev slower, so not sure about that mod improving the acceleration, since a quick rev seems more likely to accomplish that than torque. At least that was true of the Chevy small blocks. The old 283 and 327 inch motors would rev thru the roof, and were quicker than the 348 (long stroke) or 307( also longer stroke). Sooner or later absolute HP comes into play (like the 350) which tends to equal things out some. Of course this was pre fuel injection era (except for the mechanical FI on the Vette,) so maybe this is all besides the point now. Now maybe this 383 stroker would fit in my E lio...

 

[Horn]

The 55hp will be plenty for this car. Yes you aren't going to blow the doors off anyone except a geo metro, festiva, aspire etc.....but it will be plenty to avoid wrecks. I've been driving an under powered metro for years and haven't been too close to a wreck. The close calls would have happened whether I was in a small car or full size truck. By the time you react it is usually too late....unless you are in a super car.

I'd be a little more worried how the car does in windy conditions due to the weight. You can feel the wind blow my 1800lb car around quite a bit.

 

[Hog]

Good point Horn -
I bought a Nissan Versa in 2008, mainly for the gas mileage, which was a respectable 33 as advertised, but on a trip to Florida, driving across the Bay Bridge into Virginia a 35 mph wind actually caused me to have to grip the wheel with both hands to avoid being blown off the bridge. As a thunderstorm approached I actually had to stop on the shoulder because I could not keep the car in the lane. (I was not alone, a Smart Car was there with me ) When I got back I wrote a review about the car and Nissan actually wanted to give me another car to replace it (a Sentra) which I did not want. I went back and forth with Nissan several times before they finally gave up on me, and I still have the Versa, but it does not go on the road when it is windy, and I would never take it on a trip again.

 

[carzes]

While your at it why not talk about the effects of mechanical drag.

because I was trying to keep it simple. And because adjustments in mechanical drag would work out mathematically very similar to changes in air resistance. And I don't think there are really going to be major differences from one vehicle to another of similar size, since they really have pretty much the same mechanical configuration.

While your at it why not talk about the effects of mechanical drag.

 

[JDub]

because I was trying to keep it simple. And because adjustments in mechanical drag would work out mathematically very similar to changes in air resistance. And I don't think there are really going to be major differences from one vehicle to another of similar size, since they really have pretty much the same mechanical configuration.

Mechanical drag would be cubed not squared if I'm not mistaken. So tires will have a big effect on highway mileage. They have removed most of the "toe" from newer cars to reduce drag for mileage purposes which makes the car seem to wander a bit. JMO

 

[outsydthebox]

Good point Horn -
I bought a Nissan Versa in 2008, mainly for the gas mileage, which was a respectable 33 as advertised, but on a trip to Florida, driving across the Bay Bridge into Virginia a 35 mph wind actually caused me to have to grip the wheel with both hands to avoid being blown off the bridge. As a thunderstorm approached I actually had to stop on the shoulder because I could not keep the car in the lane. (I was not alone, a Smart Car was there with me ) When I got back I wrote a review about the car and Nissan actually wanted to give me another car to replace it (a Sentra) which I did not want. I went back and forth with Nissan several times before they finally gave up on me, and I still have the Versa, but it does not go on the road when it is windy, and I would never take it on a trip again.

You both, raise a valid point. The Elio "may" not be good in "severe cross winds." Those would be good days to drive "the other car, truck, suv, or tank." Or, If we are already away from home, and don't have a choice...use good judgement. I've had to do so many times in the past, while on my motorcycle or scooter. I expect my Elio will be much better than either of them in fowl weather. The Elio will not be "all things to everyone."

 

[AriLea]

Sorry to be such a tech snob, but when the terms get mixed up so does the mis-information grow. Mechanical drag is one of those. It's good for general discussion but isn't specific enough for most any logical assessment. Mechanical and drag are considered to be in different areas of vehicle efficiency.
There are three areas, each with detail effects. Aerodynamic Drag(Aerodynamics:AD), Rolling resistance(RR), and internal friction (mechanical efficiency:MF). The two letter designations aren't technical, I just do that to save typing.

I don't know if MF exactly goes up by a exponent, it is usually described as a percentage of the power used. There is 'friction drag' and 'hydrodynamic drag' in any moving part and not all parts are moving at the same relative rates in all gears. But typically it's 2-4% of power generated unless you have 4wheel drive then add a few percent.

RR is also a simple rate of increase based on speed and weight until you get above 120mph, or/also more/or/less than the rated PPSI range for the tire, where tire heat etc, can take a pronounced effect, but we only care about under 80mph for the Elio I would assume, and normal tire loadings. But generally at 60mph, the rolling resistance is about equal to the aerodynamic drag. Of course, if your car is very heavy or very aerodynamic that ratio can vary.

Aerodynamics have two primary considerations, the cross-section area (or profile:csa) of the vehicle and the coefficient of drag (efficiency:cd). I believe AD goes up to the square of speed. It also goes up relative to the csa(vehicle size), effectively also a square calculation. For each body shape the cd stays about the same, --unless the form is very small or super large, as compared to the viscosity and granularity of the medium(atoms in the case of air).

So the balance of RR to AD will always be very different at say 50mph(RR bigger) vs 70mph(AD bigger). Even all that isn't technically perfect. I've noticed, most often, in general discussion if the MF isn't being described separately, it's assumed to me included with RR. When you are being technical and MF is not discussed, it's being ignored as not significant to the argument being made.

K snuff technical snobbery.