UK and Europe · Public discussion

Trouser Bottom Aerodynamics

Started by Dransfield · · Last activity · 24 posts · 873 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
1 October 2004
Last activity
4 October 2004
Original author
Dransfield
Posts
24
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
873
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 24
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. What magic quality of trouser bottom aeodynamics is it that creates a big
    flap of fabric which 'reaches out' sideways trying to make contact with the
    oily chainwheel? Why doesn't it form a nice teardrop shape as per all other
    aeordynamic theory, with the flap on the leeward side of one's leg? Or if
    non-teardrop behaviour is ocurring, why doesn't the flap form on the
    non-chainwheel side once in a flippin while. Perhaps once properly studied
    and understood, this knowledge could be harnessed for the good of mankind.
    One thing I've noticed: The newer and lighter coloured the trousers, the
    stronger the pull towards the oil.

    Dz

  2. a person known to the world as 'Dransfield said:

    What magic quality of trouser bottom aeodynamics is it that creates a big
    flap of fabric which 'reaches out' sideways trying to make contact with the
    oily chainwheel? Why doesn't it form a nice teardrop shape as per all other
    aeordynamic theory, with the flap on the leeward side of one's leg? Or if
    non-teardrop behaviour is ocurring, why doesn't the flap form on the
    non-chainwheel side once in a flippin while. Perhaps once properly studied
    and understood, this knowledge could be harnessed for the good of mankind.
    One thing I've noticed: The newer and lighter coloured the trousers, the
    stronger the pull towards the oil.

    Good question. Perhaps we could coat aeroplanes in beige chino material and
    then fix really big, REALLY oily chainrings at airports around the world,
    thereby providing zero-pollution air travel as the planes are sucked
    inevitably towards the oil?

    Ian Walker
    --
    My email address is invalid to prevent spam. Real contact details are on my
    website at www.drianwalker.com

  3. Ian Walker said:

    On 1/10/04 12:16 pm, a person known to the world as "Dransfield"
    <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Good question. Perhaps we could coat aeroplanes in beige chino material and
    then fix really big, REALLY oily chainrings at airports around the world,
    thereby providing zero-pollution air travel as the planes are sucked
    inevitably towards the oil?


    We also need gymballed mounts on the plane for cats with buttered slices
    of bread strapped to their backs, in order to provide lift.

  4. "Ian Walker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    a person known to the world as 'Dransfield said:

    What magic quality of trouser bottom aeodynamics is it that creates a big
    flap of fabric which 'reaches out' sideways trying to make contact with
    the
    oily chainwheel? Why doesn't it form a nice teardrop shape as per all
    other
    aeordynamic theory, with the flap on the leeward side of one's leg? Or if
    non-teardrop behaviour is ocurring, why doesn't the flap form on the
    non-chainwheel side once in a flippin while. Perhaps once properly
    studied
    and understood, this knowledge could be harnessed for the good of
    mankind.
    One thing I've noticed: The newer and lighter coloured the trousers, the
    stronger the pull towards the oil.

    Good question. Perhaps we could coat aeroplanes in beige chino material
    and
    then fix really big, REALLY oily chainrings at airports around the world,
    thereby providing zero-pollution air travel as the planes are sucked
    inevitably towards the oil?

    The Americans have already done it, with B52's to Iraq.

  5. Dransfield said:

    What magic quality of trouser bottom aeodynamics is it that creates a big
    flap of fabric which 'reaches out' sideways trying to make contact with the
    oily chainwheel? Why doesn't it form a nice teardrop shape as per all other
    aeordynamic theory, with the flap on the leeward side of one's leg?

    It's turbulent airflow. It not only mucks your trousers up, it adds
    drag. You need to tuck your trousers into your socks or use cycle
    clips to achieve a low drag laminar airflow when not wearing proper
    cycling kit. In the old days we often used a spare toestrap, which we
    thought looked less geeky than trouser clips, although we had not
    heard of the word "geeky".

    Quoted message said:

    Or if non-teardrop behaviour is ocurring, why doesn't the flap form on the
    non-chainwheel side once in a flippin while.

    That is just the famous law of sod. Or it may be that you're more
    likely to notice your trouser leg flapping when it gets violently
    shredded in your chain than when it folds itself neatly out of harm's
    way.

    --
    Dave...

    Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

  6. Quoted message said:

    achieve a low drag laminar airflow

    Wot's laminar?

  7. "Dave Kahn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:16:59 GMT, "Dransfield"
    <[email hidden]> wrote:
    It's turbulent airflow. It not only mucks your trousers up, it adds
    drag. You need to tuck your trousers into your socks or use cycle
    clips to achieve a low drag laminar airflow when not wearing proper
    cycling kit.


    My local postie has supplied me with hundreds of elastic bands. They are
    just the right size for holding my flares in and as soon as I get off the
    bike I slip them around my trainers so I don't lose them.

  8. Mrs X <[email hidden]> whizzed past me shouting

    Quoted message said:


    "Dave Kahn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    It's turbulent airflow. It not only mucks your trousers up, it adds
    drag. You need to tuck your trousers into your socks or use cycle
    clips to achieve a low drag laminar airflow when not wearing proper
    cycling kit.


    My local postie has supplied me with hundreds of elastic bands. They are
    just the right size for holding my flares in and as soon as I get off the
    bike I slip them around my trainers so I don't lose them.

    Now that's geeky.

    --
    Sue ];(🙂

    What goes down must come up again - Confucius' Law of Mountain Biking

  9. On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 22:32:58 +0100, "Mrs X" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    "Dave Kahn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:16:59 GMT, "Dransfield"
    <[email hidden]> wrote:
    It's turbulent airflow. It not only mucks your trousers up, it adds
    drag. You need to tuck your trousers into your socks or use cycle
    clips to achieve a low drag laminar airflow when not wearing proper
    cycling kit.


    My local postie has supplied me with hundreds of elastic bands. They are
    just the right size for holding my flares in and as soon as I get off the
    bike I slip them around my trainers so I don't lose them.

    Any postie will supply you with hundreds of elastic bands. Just follow
    them on their round and pick them up.

    --
    Dave...

    Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

  10. Mark Thompson said:
    Quoted message said:

    achieve a low drag laminar airflow

    Wot's laminar?

    <http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/LaminarFlow.html> Simple,
    innit? Why a child of seven could understand this. Quick, run out and
    get me a child of seven.

    --
    Dave...

    Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

  11. Dave Kahn popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on and
    said

    Quoted message said:
    Mark Thompson said:
    Quoted message said:

    achieve a low drag laminar airflow

    Wot's laminar?

    <http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/LaminarFlow.html> Simple,
    innit? Why a child of seven could understand this. Quick, run out and
    get me a child of seven.

    The really scary thing is that I understand that .
    (part of my degree was on boundary layer flow
    laminar v turbulent etc).
    Turbulent is 'better' [1]by the way it results in less drag
    hence "turbulators" on the wings of gliders.

    [1] For high speed (relatively) applications laminar flow is "better"
    P-51 "Mustangs" and B-19 "Liberators" had laminar flow wings

    --
    yours S

    Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

  12. Dave Kahn wrote in news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/LaminarFlow.html

    So it's a flow of air that does not become turbulent. I'm guessing that a
    'normal' flow of air around a wossname becomes turbulent as it passes,
    creating low pressure behind the object and slowing it down?

  13. Quoted message said:

    The really scary thing is that I understand that .
    (part of my degree was on boundary layer flow
    laminar v turbulent etc).
    Turbulent is 'better' [1]by the way it results in less drag
    hence "turbulators" on the wings of gliders.

    Why's that then? (in near baby language please)

    Quoted message said:

    [1] For high speed (relatively) applications laminar flow is "better"

    And why's that?!

  14. soup said:

    The really scary thing is that I understand that .
    (part of my degree was on boundary layer flow
    laminar v turbulent etc).
    Turbulent is 'better' [1]by the way it results in less drag
    hence "turbulators" on the wings of gliders.

    That's an over-simplifaction. Vintage gliders have wing profiles that
    give a turbulent flow. These wings produce high lift but are quite
    draggy. Modern wing profiles give a laminar flow with a vastly
    improved lift/drag ratio over a greater range of speeds. However, the
    air flow even on a laminar wing does become turbulent at some point.
    It was found that using turbulators towards the rear edge stabilises
    the point at which the flow becomes turbulent, stopping it from
    creeping forward, and resulting in a further improvement in L/D.

    Incidentally if you fly vintage gliders you can often outclimb the
    modern "Tupperware" ones in thermals, but the plastic flies much, much
    faster between them, and with a much better glide angle. When it
    rains, however, the water droplets seriously disturb the airflow over
    the laminar profiles so that their stalling speed rises and their L/D
    decreases. Vintage gliders OTOH are barely affected. Of course you
    don't want to put your wooden glider away wet so you just keep flying
    until the shower is over and your glider has been blown thoroughly
    dry. Meanwhile you can be entertained by the sight of twenty or so
    high performance machines trying to land at the same time as they are
    washed out of the sky.

    --
    Dave...

    Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

  15. Mark Thompson popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on
    and said

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Turbulent is 'better' [1]by the way it results in less drag
    hence "turbulators" on the wings of gliders.

    Why's that then? (in near baby language please)

    Mmm cos' laminar flow is 'sticky' so causes more drag in itself
    and at low(ish) speeds the drag from the flow being turbulent
    is greater than the drag from accelerating the air.

    {aside:- thats why golf balls are dimpled they go further than
    smooth spheres as the dimples make the laminar boundary layer
    into a turbulent one}

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    [1] For high speed (relatively) applications laminar flow is
    "better"

    And why's that?!

    In any flow the air close to the wing has to be
    speeded up to the speed of the wing, with turbulent
    flow the air is 'turbulent' close to the wing so new
    air has to be continously speeded up so more power
    required so wing tends to go slower for a given
    power so in that case laminar(or smooth) flow is
    desirable next to the wing (in the 'Boundary layer).
    At high speeds the drag caused by this speeding
    up is greater than that caused by laminar flow so
    laminar flow is desirable at high(ish) speeds

    NOTE this explanation is very simplified so don't pick it to bits

    Very crude representation of the drag varying with the
    speed attached :-

    http://www.sidtech.co.uk/iu/soup19491739430.JPG

    --
    yours S

    Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

  16. Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    And why's that?!

    <snippity explanation>

    Weird but fascinating. Cheers for that!

  17. On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 11:33:26 GMT, Dave Kahn <[email hidden]>

    wrote in message : said:

    f course you
    don't want to put your wooden glider away wet so you just keep flying
    until the shower is over and your glider has been blown thoroughly
    dry. Meanwhile you can be entertained by the sight of twenty or so
    high performance machines trying to land at the same time as they are
    washed out of the sky.

    Tee-hee :-) Is this why brick pilots always have that gnomic "I know
    something you don't" smile?

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

  18. Dave Kahn said:

    Why a child of seven could understand this. Quick, run out and
    get me a child of seven.

    When you've finished, pass him on to me - I'm having trouble operating
    the video.

    d.

  19. Mark Thompson said:
    Quoted message said:

    Turbulent is 'better' [1]by the way it results in less drag
    hence "turbulators" on the wings of gliders.

    Why's that then? (in near baby language please)


    You can have laminar or turbulent boundary layers. Laminar are
    smooth, thin, low friction and not very sticky. Turbulent are
    turbulent (you don't say), thick, high friction and sticky.

    There are two components to drag - the drag arising from teh boundary
    layer, and the drag arising from boundary layer separation.

    Separation is where the boundary layer gets pulled away from teh
    surface, and still air creeps in behind. For example, if you have a
    flat plate moving through the air, flat face-on, the air strikes teh
    front face, flows across teh face to teh edge, but then it doesn't
    manage to get round the edhge and flow across teh back face - the
    boundary layer separates at teh edge of the plate and there's stil air
    behind.

    Dare I try ascii art? The [censored] is the plate, and I've drawn two
    'stream lines':

    -----------------------
    / X
    | X
    | X still air
    ===========< X in here
    | X behind plate
    | X
    \ X
    -----------------------

    By bernoulli (or, as observed and codified by Bernoulli), teh still
    air has higher pressure than teh flowing air, so there's a pressure
    differential on each side of teh plate. This gives a force, which is
    part of the drag force.

    IF separation occurs at all, it is almost invariable that the pressure
    differential is the major part of teh drag force - the friction of teh
    boundary layer on teh front of teh plate is very very small compared
    to teh effect of the pressure differential. The friction of the
    boundary layer is small regardless of teh type of boundary layer.

    I don't know actual numbers, but a laminar flow on teh front plate
    might be 1 unit, if it were turbulent it might be 2 units, but the
    pressure differential is 100 units.

    Now, consider a sphere ('cos the plate is not so good for the next
    bit). If you have a sphere with a laminar boundary layer, you get
    separation of teh boundary layer near the widest point (maybe even
    just ahead of teh widest point). There'll be a full pi r^2 of area
    for teh relatively high-pressure still air inside the separation to
    act on - high drag.

    If you have a turbulent boundary layer, it's stickier, and stays
    attached to teh surface - it might get 20 or 30 degrees past the
    widest point before it separates. Now there's less area - maybe half
    as much area for the pressure differential.

    So using similar number as the plate - suppose laminar had 1 unit on
    teh front of teh sphere, and 100 units due to pressure differential,
    giving 101 units of drag.
    Turbulent is twice the friction, and it goes further round teh surface
    - it might have 3 units of drag. However, the pressure differential
    is halved - so we have 53 total drag.

    I'm not doing that in ascii - try this:

    http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/pictures/R_combined.GIF

    picture on the left - separation near the widest point, wide wake.
    Picture on teh right - a trip-wire turbulator is added, forcing a
    sticky turbulent boundary layer that stays attached further round teh
    sphere, and a narrow wake.

    In fact, you could look at the whole of
    http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/bicycle_aero.html for an
    on-topic discussion of aerodynamics! (now why didn't I find that when
    I started typing).

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  20. On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:50:49 +0100, davek <[email hidden]>

    wrote in message : said:
    Quoted message said:

    Why a child of seven could understand this. Quick, run out and
    get me a child of seven.

    Quoted message said:

    When you've finished, pass him on to me - I'm having trouble operating
    the video.

    Q: How do you tell there's a child living in a house?
    A: The clock on the video isn't flashing.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.