Opel GT Forum banner

81 - 100 of 108 Posts

·
Über Genius
Joined
·
9,093 Posts
Dont remove the flip over headlights. Its what makes a GT a GT.

Karl
The hood bump does, not the headlights.

(I'm just instigating a fight)
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Scifi Guy

·
Just Some Dude in Jersey
Joined
·
14,616 Posts
Okay, if that's true, then if you go out on the highway and drive at 80mph with the headlights down, then flip them up, you should detect a speed decrease. I assure that you will not. Your speedo needle won't budge a mm. Of far, far, more consequence and air drag is the massive mouth of our grills, bumpers, the pile of silverware sitting on our windshields that they call wipers, flat round side view mirrors, license plates, the big hollows in the wheel wells behind our wheels, etc.. Our headlights flipped down just look cool.....to some people.....but they don't make you go faster.
 

·
Just Some Dude in Jersey
Joined
·
14,616 Posts
I just posted the pictures to show the alternate ideas guys have tried, I'm not a proponent of any of them. As stated and proven, the aerodynamic benefit is zilch. The flippy lights are just a ridiculously complicated and heavy gadget that our cars have. Some folks like'em, some don't. I personally would never have done such a massively labor intensive mod to a GT, especially since it accomplishes nothing and has no aerodynamic gain. In fact, I wouldn't have done hardly any of the huge body mods done to my car by the PO. The car came to me already modded, so I worked with what I had and did my best to try to make it all work and look good. I won't be doing anything to my gullwing car, except a hood change, for styling, engine clearance, and better cooling, and a small wing for styling, possibly the Lenk grill my GTX has, I really like it a lot.
 

·
Can Opeler
Joined
·
3,363 Posts
Okay, if that's true, then if you go out on the highway and drive at 80mph with the headlights down, then flip them up, you should detect a speed decrease. I assure that you will not. Your speedo needle won't budge a mm. Of far, far, more consequence and air drag is the massive mouth of our grills, bumpers, the pile of silverware sitting on our windshields that they call wipers, flat round side view mirrors, license plates, the big hollows in the wheel wells behind our wheels, etc.. Our headlights flipped down just look cool.....to some people.....but they don't make you go faster.
Yes they do make you go faster if you are geared for it.
I'll attempt to explain with what I remember from fluid dynamics 4 years ago

The density of air is about 1/415 slugs/ft^3, 100mph = 146.67ft/s, Cda of stock GT = 6.622 ft^2, CdA of stock GT w headlight up =7.138 ft^2, lets assume tire rolling resistance is about 15 lbs at that speed.

Headlight down: Wind force on GT = 1/415 slugs/ft^3 * (146.67ft/s)^2 * 6.622 ft^2 = 343.26 slug-ft/s^2 = 343.26 lbs
Headlights up: wind force on GT = 1/415 slugs/ft^3 * (146.67ft/s)^2 * 7.138 ft^2 = 370.01lbs(force)
Difference = 26.75 lbs.

Lets convert this to HP required to maintain 100mph

Down HP = (146.67ft/s*(343.26lbs(f) air + 15lbs(f) tires))/550 ft-lb/s = 95.53HP
Up HP = 102.67 HP
Difference = 7.13 HP

Conclusion: This is a simplified model and clearly the HP numbers are too high as you can barely hit 100mph (105mph on the speedo) with around 70 WHP in my experience. the .41 Cd is the most conservative number I found for drag coef. .36 is listed lot of places for the GT. With the lower coef HP required is more like 84HP. It's also possible I made some errors. It's been a long time since I've calculated this stuff.

7 HP is a slight enough change that you may not notice yourself giving the car a tiny bit extra gas to compensate. At 80mph that you mentioned, we are talking a 3.8HP change to maintain speed with light down vs up. There's no way you'd notice that change unless you have your throttle mechanically locked. You can't trust a human we are good at making power corrections without knowing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RallyBob

·
Build a dream and drive
Joined
·
123 Posts
Just a suggestion, you may want to do a search for Eurotreffen. This is a large gathering of Opel GT's across the pond each year. Could be a source of inspiration, some of those shown are highly modified. This site does have some purist but for the most part understand a desire to create your own thing. I am not someone who would like a Lowrider but respect the work that goes into the Build. Also you may want to join the Opel Motorsport Club. The most recent issue of the club magazine shows an exploded view of t View attachment 430271 View attachment 430264 View attachment 430265 View attachment 430266 View attachment 430267 View attachment 430268 View attachment 430269
Ho Lee Chit!!! That widebody and modern tail light set up!!!! Where... How...??? Kieth??
 

·
Just Some Dude in Jersey
Joined
·
14,616 Posts
You're assuming that a straight wedge is the optimal shape for that part of a car. For all you know, the bow wave coming off the bumper may be causing a vortex to form and, like a spoiler, the headlights up disrupts the vortex. Using all your equations, a pickup truck shouldn't even be able to start rolling 'cuz it's dead flat to the wind. I've done the speed change test countless times and you don't notice any change. You can quote formulas all you want, but if you can't replicate their results by actually driving and performing the test, then they aren't 100% valid in this example. We can argue back and forth all we want, but only a wind tunnel test at the mild speed of 80mph will tell the tale.
 

·
Member
Joined
·
1,721 Posts
Ho Lee Chit!!! That widebody and modern tail light set up!!!! Where... How...??? Kieth??
As I understand it, that was a custom build for a customer who asked Kieth to let his imagination run wild. There was a thread on here about the build showing how Kieth did it.
 

·
Member
Joined
·
1,721 Posts
The only 2 that look good in Gordons pics are the blue one and the black one. The rest look like regular cars now.

Karl
If you are talking about the Aqua and Black colored GT's. I think those are later model Fiberglass production GT's made by a company who's name starts with a K. Only sold in Europe.
 

·
Can Opeler
Joined
·
3,363 Posts
You're assuming that a straight wedge is the optimal shape for that part of a car. For all you know, the bow wave coming off the bumper may be causing a vortex to form and, like a spoiler, the headlights up disrupts the vortex. Using all your equations, a pickup truck shouldn't even be able to start rolling 'cuz it's dead flat to the wind. I've done the speed change test countless times and you don't notice any change. You can quote formulas all you want, but if you can't replicate their results by actually driving and performing the test, then they aren't 100% valid in this example. We can argue back and forth all we want, but only a wind tunnel test at the mild speed of 80mph will tell the tale.
Modern pickups actually have the same drag coefficient as our GT lol. The frontal area is much higher though. Almost double for most pickups. My same formula gives 158.95HP required for my Toyota Tacoma to reach 100mph which is about right.

Also remember that speed is an exponential factor in these equations. The HP required to maintain speed shoots up really fast above highway speed and beyond.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
2,718 Posts
If you are talking about the Aqua and Black colored GT's. I think those are later model Fiberglass production GT's made by a company who's name starts with a K. Only sold in Europe.
Yep (y)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,624 Posts
Also remember that speed is an exponential factor in these equations. The HP required to maintain speed shoots up really fast above highway speed and beyond.
They say that speed doubled requires HP squared. So it takes 4 times the power to go 200 mph for a given vehicle than it does to go 100 mph.

Yes frontal area is a huge advantage for the GT. One of my aerodynamics books shows that, for example, that a first generation VW Scirocco has nearly the same CD as an Opel GT, even though their appearances are vastly different. But the frontal area is much greater on the VW. So for the same HP and gearing, the GT would have a higher top speed.
 

·
Can Opeler
Joined
·
3,363 Posts
They say that speed doubled requires HP squared. So it takes 4 times the power to go 200 mph for a given vehicle than it does to go 100 mph.

Yes frontal area is a huge advantage for the GT. One of my aerodynamics books shows that, for example, that a first generation VW Scirocco has nearly the same CD as an Opel GT, even though their appearances are vastly different. But the frontal area is much greater on the VW. So for the same HP and gearing, the GT would have a higher top speed.
That is exactly true. The formula above confirms that since speed is squared.
It also takes 1.56x more HP to go 100mph compared to 60mph
 

·
Detritus Maximus
Joined
·
2,465 Posts
Yep (y)
I would have sworn those were done by grafting GT sheetmetal onto a Miata....
 
  • Like
Reactions: rrossjr

·
Registered
Joined
·
650 Posts
They say that speed doubled requires HP squared.
Cubed, IIRC. (Force is squared, power is cubed because it includes velocity).

Fuel requirements for a journey are squared.

So it takes 4 times the power to go 200 mph for a given vehicle than it does to go 100 mph.
8x.

But it gets there 2x as fast, so you'll only use 4x the fuel.

Ballpark, most vehicles use about the same energy fighting rolling resistance (which is roughly linear) as they do wind resistance, somewhere around 40mph. It roughly scales because larger vehicles (more wind resistance) also tend to be proportionally heavier. Regardless, that's why after around 40mph, the cubic power requirements of speed start to skyrocket and leave the rolling resistance numbers behind until they're practically negligible.

Knorm65 said:
Also remember that speed is an exponential factor in these equations.
I think, technically no. It goes up as cubic, not an exponential.

X^X is exponential
X^3 is cubed

... pet peeve (not here - tangent), common parlance with people saying "exponentially more" when they don't mean any adjective beyond "more". Especially when they're not even referring to a rate of increase, so it's not even the right category of qualifier. "Another jar and I'll be carrying exponentially more." No, just "more", that's it, it's a flat amount, not a rate of increase. Or, sometimes, they specifically mean linearly "Oh if we keep inviting guests, we'll be spending exponentially more on food"... no you won't or the universe would run out of space quickly. You could say "linearly more", or, more to their point, "too much on food".

And, curious, why do you count the increased area of the headlights? Do you count "frontal" area twice if air passes over it twice?

I.E. A blacked out front silhouette of the car doesn't change when headlights are up, because the area they occupy was already covered by the hood/windshield. So the cross-sectional area remains the same.

I don't actually know, but here's how I thought it worked:

Increased drag for the same silhouette is (maybe) the result, which is why adding the perturbations of the headlights would (maybe) bump up the coefficient.

The coefficient isn't a predictable number based on any laws. It's by definition a observed measurement of "shove this particular shape through the air at a particular speed, what do you measure if we calculate frontal area only as a silhouette?" It's a kind of a catch-all for being able to use simple enough math to just cludge a complex calculation out of a silhouette. There's a lot more nuance as to what's happening with turbulence, and all of that is abstracted by just making the coefficient whatever makes the math work afterwards.

To an extreme, let's use the example of a GT towing another GT. The frontal area hasn't changed (the silhouette matches exactly). The coefficient of drag certainly will though, when you measure the actual drag of that (now twice-as-long) shape travelling a certain speed and the power it took to make it go that speed. The coefficient is chained to the shape. It's the net result of all the complicated airflow changes that result from two GTs close to each other.

A more extreme example, let's say one GT towing another GT 200 feet back on a thin cable, as a single object. Well, that's probably far enough that you could just use the original Cd and just double the cross sectional area, their airflow isn't really interacting much anymore.

I suppose you could fudge the math to say the headlights might as well be new surface area for the same Cd, or, the same surface area for a higher Cd, but, you're doing both at the same time which I don't think is correct.

At least, that's how I understand it, but, you're an engineer, I'm not.
 

·
Can Opeler
Joined
·
3,363 Posts
All good points. I forgot my third V variable in the power calculation. It is cubic growth.

Good point on the headlight frontal area. I had to actually go out and look at my GT to confirm what you said. The top of the lights are indeed level with the top of the hood so no change in frontal area.

The percentage increase in Cd was gotten from looking at changes from similar cars with pop up headlights up tested in wind tunnels.

Distance does have an effect on drag. Hence the fact drafting exists when really close to someone’s bumper.

Parabolic growth of force would be correct, not exponential.

Correct rolling resistance isn’t really effected by speed much, but it is massively effected by road material. Car weight is the other big factor. Now if a car has a lot of downforce (or lift in the case of the GT) that changes rolling resistance too.
Weight to rolling resistance is a linear equation
 
  • Like
Reactions: MattsAwesomeStuff

·
Opeler
Joined
·
532 Posts
Folks, great discussion but respect this is Witness's GT build thread so careful not to hijack it. Suggest a new thread on aero effects of headlights and modifications.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
650 Posts
Folks, great discussion but respect this is Witness's GT build thread so careful not to hijack it. Suggest a new thread on aero effects of headlights and modifications.
Fair, could a mod split the topic into "GT Aerodynamics"? Even just this much is kind of cluttery to a build thread. :/
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
114 Posts
Discussion Starter #100
So I have my eye set on a totally different engine.
After deciding on what HP I wanted and cost to build that.
Getting the parts and all that added in?
I came across a different option and maybe no one has went this way?
It's an in-line 5 cylinder!
Chevy L52
 
81 - 100 of 108 Posts
Top