Why did Dodge do this with the Viper?

[Omamder5]

I've always wondered about the design of the Viper. While I think it was a rather great-looking car, there was one quip that always irked me; the fog lights. Did they have to be designed in such a way that they create drag?

While I'm not entirely sure about this, could Dodge not have simply covered the fog lights with two clear pieces of plastic? I'm sure this would have decreased the drag a noticeable amount.

I'm nitpicking, but I've always found that this annoyed me.

 

[Omnis]

Something like that isn't going to affect drag so much.

 

[Christian_C]

Whilst I can see where you're coming from, You still have to remember that aesthetics do matter and I as such like the design of the car, cover those holes up in photoshop, take a look at it and then tell me it looks as good as I don't think it would.

 

[Omamder5]

I figured, with such an easy fix, it would be a no problem to implement it when they designed the car. It would a help fair bit, wouldn't it?

 

[Azuremen]

I figured, with such an easy fix, it would be a no problem to implement it when they designed the car. It would a help fair bit, wouldn't it?

No, not really. Most of the issues regarding drag develop around the wheels and rear of the car, not the front.

 

[Nicksfix]

Something like that isn't going to affect drag so much.

Agreed.

How fast do you think you have to be going for the driving lights to have an adverse effect on drag ? If the car is to be raced at higher speeds where that may come into effect,I'm sure that there would be clear lexan covers over them to help smooth it out.

 

[Omamder5]

Huh. Guess you learn something new every day. I should probably research a bit on aerodynamics concerning cars.

I totally understood why Dodge did this with the Viper's tail.

Rather than this

I've heard plenty of times about how, if a car has a flat butt end, it would be more aerodynamic, but I figured the front end would be important, as well.

 

[Jondot]

I doubt anyone involved in the development of Chrysler products understands the concept of drag anyway. The Nitro tends to back up that theory pretty well.

 

[Zenith]

Something like that isn't going to affect drag so much.

Ohhh yes it does. Anything that sinks into the body and traps air to create aerodynamic deadzones will affect the smoothness of the boundary layer and the rest of the airflow around the car.

However

There are much better ways to fix this car's drag coefficient

 

[TheCracker]

The original RT/10 had the same drag coefficient as a Series 1 Range Rover (0.45) - aerodynamics were obviously low on Dodge's 'things to do' development list.

With a huge 8 litre V10 drag isn't something it needs to worry about. Marginally narrower rear tyres or a couple of degrees less rear wing would more than cancel out any drag caused by the recessed fog lights.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Huh. Guess you learn something new every day. I should probably research a bit on aerodynamics concerning cars.

I totally understood why Dodge did this with the Viper's tail.

*snip*

Rather than this
*snip*
I've heard plenty of times about how, if a car has a flat butt end, it would be more aerodynamic, but I figured the front end would be important, as well.

Something small like fog light covers aren't an issue, because once air is getting piled into there it becomes stagnant, so you end up with a mass of air plugging the hole which then allows fast moving air to move around it. Very small difference to putting a cover on it.

The Dodge grill is the biggest issue. That's a big, square radiator input that is essential for cooling but a big issue for aerodynamics.

The tail I imagine evolved to improve downforce. Yes, a nice clean tail usually gives a smooth air flow, and that's all great in a straight line, but lose downforce in the rear and you have a very unstable car at speed.

 

[Omamder5]

Something small like fog light covers aren't an issue, because once air is getting piled into there it becomes stagnant, so you end up with a mass of air plugging the hole which then allows fast moving air to move around it. Very small difference to putting a cover on it.

The tail I imagine evolved to improve downforce. Yes, a nice clean tail usually gives a smooth air flow, and that's all great in a straight line, but lose downforce in the rear and you have a very unstable car at speed.

Very interesting. I always imagined that, if there were holes in the front of a car, like those fog lights, that air would rush into them, bounce out, and slow the car down, however little.

However, am I right in saying that pretty much anything relatively smooth, wide, and angled upward in relation to the rear of the decklid, such as a spoiler, ducktail, etc., will increase downforce?

 

[Omnis]

Ohhh yes it does. Anything that sinks into the body and traps air to create aerodynamic deadzones will affect the smoothness of the boundary layer and the rest of the airflow around the car.

However

There are much better ways to fix this car's drag coefficient

My point.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Very interesting. I always imagined that, if there were holes in the front of a car, like those fog lights, that air would rush into them, bounce out, and slow the car down, however little.

You're right, to an extent it will. But the flow inside the pocket isn't as turbulent as you might imagine. And yes, covers would be a benefit, but would have a considerable affect on aesthetics for very little aerodynamic gain.

However, am I right in saying that pretty much anything relatively smooth, wide, and angled upward in relation to the rear of the decklid, such as a spoiler, ducktail, etc., will increase downforce?

Basically yes. But some produce alot more drag for relatively little downforce.

 

[TheCracker]

However, am I right in saying that pretty much anything relatively smooth, wide, and angled upward in relation to the rear of the decklid, such as a spoiler, ducktail, etc., will increase downforce?

I would imagine so, but at the expense of producing more drag. It would also depend on how the wing is attached. Bolt it directly to the chassis and most of that force will be transfered as weight holding the back end of the car down. Attach it to some flimsy bodywork and a good chunk of that force will be transfered as weight flexing that particular piece of bodywork. Spoilers and ducktails, rather then wings, work more as high speed stabilizers then anything that actually produces tangible downforce.

 

[Northstar]

I doubt anyone involved in the development of Chrysler products understands the concept of drag anyway. The Nitro tends to back up that theory pretty well.

I think the Nitro is just proof that Chrysler doesn't get the concept of selling cars people actually want.

 

[Duke]

On the Viper ACR, those foglights aren't installed, which leaves great little holes for connecting brake ducting...

 

[Omamder5]

I think the Nitro is just proof that Chrysler doesn't get the concept of selling cars people actually want.

This is why Dodge is giving $5-15,000 rebates on their brand new cars.

These aerodynamics are proving very interesting. I'll go look up 'drag coefficient,' because I want to know what it means before I go bandying it about like some people (nobody in this thread).

 

[GT_Prologue5]

i'm pretty sure the cars in Dodge's lineup are awful on aero tests. Let's see.
Nitro-no
Journey-aerodynamic for a crossover. Still don't like it.
Grand Caravan-no one cares only soccer moms buy it.
Avenger-crappy Sebring
Charger-sort of
Challenger-not so much
Viper-Yes

 

[Eric.]

Thanks for that extremely scientific analysis of Dodge aerodynamic drag.

 

[Adamgp]

Lots of cars have foglights like that. My Grand Prix has recessed fog lights.

I for one applaud Dodge for not producing a lineup generic Prius-like jelly bean cars.

 

[jet1991]

Foglights like those probably would have looked good on the Viper. And they`re flush (flush mounted? English isn`t my first language).

 

[Azuremen]

If companies were really concerned about drag to the extent to modify cosmetics, most cars would look like Airplane wings - broader in the front to a finely tapered rear end. Why? Because most drag is generated by vortexing behind the vehicle, short of it being shaped like a giant brick...

 

[Adamgp]

Now that I think of it, I've seen quite a few 2nd gen Vipers that have fog light covers. Maybe they were optional?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I remember reading an article about how covering the 4th generation Camaro's headlights improved top speed or something. But I don't remember more than that.

 

[Stevisiov]

This is why Dodge is giving $5-15,000 rebates on their brand new cars.

These aerodynamics are proving very interesting. I'll go look up 'drag coefficient,' because I want to know what it means before I go bandying it about like some people (nobody in this thread).

Its simply a measurement of the relative aerodynamic efficiencies of shapes. A Shape with a high Cd will produce more drag than one with a low Cd.

However, people often mistakenly take Cd as the only factor. It's important to consider the size or rather frontal area of the object too, as this plays a major role. Take a small hatchback car that has a high Cd, and compare it to a big family car with a lower Cd, while the shape of the larger car is more efficient, it may actually produce more drag due to its larger size.

The viper in this case, is not only perhaps a little inefficient in shape, but it's also notably large so it looses on both counts.

 

[Zenith]

If companies were really concerned about drag to the extent to modify cosmetics, most cars would look like Airplane wings - broader in the front to a finely tapered rear end. Why? Because most drag is generated by vortexing behind the vehicle, short of it being shaped like a giant brick...

You are correct sir.

The biggest killer to aerodynamics on any car is the cockpit. As the air flows over the cockpit, the drop (onto the trunk lid) is simply too steep for the flow to "stick to". The otherwise smooth and stable (laminar) flow is then broken apart and becomes turbulent. This turbulent air is slower and creates a lower pressure zone which yanks the car back. This turbulence extends all the way back to the end of the vehicle. The way to keep this turbulence from occurring is to build a car with a 6:1 length to drop ratio. Which is usually hard for a road car.

Irrelevant EDIT: Right now NASA Ames' Fluid Mechanics Lab is experimenting with putting dimples on the separation point (the point where laminar flow ends and turbulence begins) to achieve a golf ball effect on the aerodynamics. This is much like the Mythbusters, except we're doing it correctly, not making a TV show.

 

[ExigeEvan]

If companies were really concerned about drag to the extent to modify cosmetics, most cars would look like Airplane wings - broader in the front to a finely tapered rear end. Why? Because most drag is generated by vortexing behind the vehicle, short of it being shaped like a giant brick...

Most aerodynamic designs for road cars (CRZ, Prius, Citroen C4) these days employ a kammback. You start with a "teardrop" shape but cut it abruptly short. You still get a low pressure void at the back, but less turbulence as the air continues to follow the "teardrop" flow.

Irrelevant EDIT: Right now NASA Ames' Fluid Mechanics Lab is experimenting with putting dimples on the separation point (the point where laminar flow ends and turbulence begins) to achieve a golf ball effect on the aerodynamics. This is much like the Mythbusters, except we're doing it correctly, not making a TV show.

Golf ball turbulence is really interesting when applying it elsewhere. Though the time it'll take to find the balance between increasing surface drag and reducing parasitic drag is going to take alot of work.

 

[Stevisiov]

Golf ball turbulence is really interesting when applying it elsewhere. Though the time it'll take to find the balance between increasing surface drag and reducing parasitic drag is going to take alot of work.

Agreed, for me, the 'golf ball' turbulence presents an unusual aerodynamical problem, one which is not as intuitive as most others. It's muddied even more by the vast differences in cars shapes that are knocking around. Suffice to say, I am glad I am not an aerodynamicist.

Kind of makes you think this was all worthwhile.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7477849.stm

Dimpled VW's anyone?

 

[GTP_V8SuperCars]

I've always wondered about the design of the Viper. While I think it was a rather great-looking car, there was one quip that always irked me; the fog lights. Did they have to be designed in such a way that they create drag?

While I'm not entirely sure about this, could Dodge not have simply covered the fog lights with two clear pieces of plastic? I'm sure this would have decreased the drag a noticeable amount.

I'm nitpicking, but I've always found that this annoyed me.

Wow that looks nice in this image, so neat.

Anyway if you would take this onto the track blast it around a few laps and then put some ugly perspex covers (as seen in the Ford GT in a post above) over the fog lights and go again you would have to be 1million times better than schui to notice any difference at all.
IMO would rather the car as is.
But hey it could be your first upgrade if you ever buy one ;-)