"E Meyer" <epmeyer50@msn.com> wrote in message
news:C37D942A.2AFCE%epmeyer50@msn.com...
>
>
>
> On 12/6/07 10:26 AM, in article
> 4758221d$0$27497$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net, "NoOneYouKnow"
> <NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote:
>
>> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
>> news:newscache$khgksj$fhk1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>>> If you take the tailgate off of it or put on a tonneau, it becomes a
>>> fairly
>>> fuel efficient single-passenger commuting vehicle - not as good as a
>>> sedan
>>> of
>>> course, but if you don't have to commute a great deal, so what.
>>
>> Pickups get better mileage with the tailgate up, and no cover. The bed
>> creates a vortex behind the cab that maximizes the aerodynamics. With no
>> tailgate and/or a cover, the vortex cannot form.
>>
>> ---JRE---
>>
>>
>>
> Consumer reports debunked that several years ago. They tested a number of
> different pickups with and without tailgates. The results depended on the
> truck. Some did better with the tailgates in place, some with them
> removed.
> Its not a given that removing the tailgate improves mileage.

From CR Online:

Truck tailgate
Q. My neighbor told me to remove the tailgate of my truck for better
mileage. What is your take on this matter?
A. Several years back, CR said that lowering or removing the tailgate gate
made only a marginal difference in gas mileage and in most cases simply does
not improve mileage. We are still sticking with that report. Also, the
tailgate is part of the structure of the vehicle and when removed, makes the
bed of the truck weaker.

You might aslo want to review:

http://web.archive.org/web/200303101...ffner/base.jpg
http://web.archive.org/web/200304142...affner/Net.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/200304142...emove_gate.htm

 

E Meyer wrote:
>
>
> On 12/6/07 10:26 AM, in article
> 4758221d$0$27497$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net, "NoOneYouKnow"
> <NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote:
>
>> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
>> news:newscache$khgksj$fhk1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>>> If you take the tailgate off of it or put on a tonneau, it becomes a
>>> fairly
>>> fuel efficient single-passenger commuting vehicle - not as good as a sedan
>>> of
>>> course, but if you don't have to commute a great deal, so what.
>> Pickups get better mileage with the tailgate up, and no cover. The bed
>> creates a vortex behind the cab that maximizes the aerodynamics. With no
>> tailgate and/or a cover, the vortex cannot form.
>>
>> ---JRE---
>>
>>
>>
> Consumer reports debunked that several years ago. They tested a number of
> different pickups with and without tailgates. The results depended on the
> truck. Some did better with the tailgates in place, some with them removed.
> Its not a given that removing the tailgate improves mileage.
>

few people know that... i'm impressed.

 

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:13lat59kpldif26@corp.supernews.com...
>> "My Name Is Nobody" <nobody@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:Vme5j.7711$o_6.2647@trnddc08...
>>
>>>> I suppose the one exception is the "all new" Camry for 2007. But then
>>>> Ford had an all new Mustang in 2004, all new 500 in 2005, and all new
>>>> Fusion in
>>> Come on now Ed, the Mustang was all new for 2005. :-)
>> You are correct.
>>
>
> Whall, you see part of the problem is that most of the auto pundits out
> there,
> like the people that write the reviews in Car and Driver and such, have not
> reconciled to the fact that a basic truck is extremely utilitaritian and
> functional.
> You can haul plywood, a motorcycle, a couch, move across town, you name
> it. If you take the tailgate off of it or put on a tonneau, it becomes a
> fairly
> fuel efficient single-passenger commuting vehicle - not as good as a sedan
> of
> course, but if you don't have to commute a great deal, so what.
>
> There's enough of the new car buying public that recognize this that light
> and
> mid sized trucks are always going to sell well in the US.
>
> Personally I can't stand the look of the things - any pickup truck after
> 1955
> looks like a Mexican/white trailer trashmobile in my book - and I'll never
> be
> caught dead owning one. I do my hauling with a trailer. But I see the
> point
> that dealing with hauling out a utility trailer from the shed and linking it
> up takes
> a lot more time than just walking out to the street and tossing whatever
> piece
> of crap you need to haul into the truck bed then driving off.
>
> New car buyers generally either buy for image reasons (ie: Prius) or for
> functionality. Trucks are extremely functional, it's no wonder they are as
> popular as they are. Most of the auto pundits out there are so focused
> on the image thing they have lost touch with the functionality end of it.
>
> Ted
>
>

Image reasons in a prius?

right

 

"Picasso" <Picasso@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:475b30d7$0$5271$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...

> >
>
> Image reasons in a prius?
>
> right

Apparently you missed the Prius commercial where the guy buys one
to be able to get ed by the girl who regularly attends the "Save the
Whales" conventions.

There's all kinds of images out there. The Prius owners are no different
than the 50 year accountants who run out and buy Harleys and black
leather jackets with fringe. Just because both are equally silly doesen't
mean they don't exist.

Ted

 

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:00:55 -0400, Picasso <Picasso@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Consumer reports debunked that several years ago. They tested a number of
>> different pickups with and without tailgates. The results depended on the
>> truck. Some did better with the tailgates in place, some with them removed.
>> Its not a given that removing the tailgate improves mileage.
>>
>
>few people know that... i'm impressed.

Best way to improve mileage when you own a pickup: sell the friggin
thing unless you really _need_ a truck and buy a car instead.

 

"E Meyer" <epmeyer50@msn.com> wrote in message
news:C37D942A.2AFCE%epmeyer50@msn.com...
>
>
>
> On 12/6/07 10:26 AM, in article
> 4758221d$0$27497$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net, "NoOneYouKnow"
> <NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote:
>
>> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
>> news:newscache$khgksj$fhk1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>>> If you take the tailgate off of it or put on a tonneau, it becomes a
>>> fairly
>>> fuel efficient single-passenger commuting vehicle - not as good as a
>>> sedan
>>> of
>>> course, but if you don't have to commute a great deal, so what.
>>
>> Pickups get better mileage with the tailgate up, and no cover. The bed
>> creates a vortex behind the cab that maximizes the aerodynamics. With no
>> tailgate and/or a cover, the vortex cannot form.
>>
>> ---JRE---
>>
> Consumer reports debunked that several years ago. They tested a number of
> different pickups with and without tailgates. The results depended on the
> truck. Some did better with the tailgates in place, some with them
> removed.
> Its not a given that removing the tailgate improves mileage.

It'd be interesting for them to do it with newer trucks, which are more
aerodynamic than trucks from "several years ago". While pickups aren't
really sold for their fuel efficiency, the better aerodynamics contribute to
increased towing capacity and acceleration - things trucks are sold for.

Perhaps if I phrase it this way: pickup trucks are designed to produce less
drag with the tailgate up and no cover. That's how they're wind tunnel
tested, and if you watch one of those tests, it's pretty easy to see the
vortex and resulting slipstream. All things being equal, less drag usually
means better mileage.

In reality, it probably has more to do with speed than anything. At highway
speeds, you're probably better off with the tailgate up so the
vortex/slipstream can form. At slower speeds, it's less likely a vortex
will form, so you're probably better off with the tailgate down.

The point being that the OP's assertion that taking the tailgate off or
putting a cover on would increase your mileage is more or less a myth.

Speaking of, I'll see your CR and raise you a Mythbusters. :-)

---JRE---

 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:38:15 -0600, "NoOneYouKnow"
<NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote:

>Perhaps if I phrase it this way: pickup trucks are designed to produce less
>drag with the tailgate up and no cover. That's how they're wind tunnel
>tested, and if you watch one of those tests, it's pretty easy to see the
>vortex and resulting slipstream. All things being equal, less drag usually
>means better mileage.

You have any illustrations of this alleged vortex? I'm having some
difficulty visualizing how a deep bed interrupting airflow can produce
less drag than a smooth surface cover from an engineering point of
view. I could see it having weight/force distribution advantages, but
from a drag viewpoint, it doesn't seem to make logical sense.

 

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acrvl31bcq5fphdl5spnaci42ked6l0hqq@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:38:15 -0600, "NoOneYouKnow"
> <NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps if I phrase it this way: pickup trucks are designed to produce
>>less
>>drag with the tailgate up and no cover. That's how they're wind tunnel
>>tested, and if you watch one of those tests, it's pretty easy to see the
>>vortex and resulting slipstream. All things being equal, less drag
>>usually
>>means better mileage.
>
> You have any illustrations of this alleged vortex? I'm having some
> difficulty visualizing how a deep bed interrupting airflow can produce
> less drag than a smooth surface cover from an engineering point of
> view. I could see it having weight/force distribution advantages, but
> from a drag viewpoint, it doesn't seem to make logical sense.
>
>

Go check the back episodes of Mythbusters, they did an episode on that.
Tailgate up produces less drag than tailgate down. They even did a
miniature model test in water and used oatmeal flakes to show the pattern.

Charles the Curmudgeon

 

still just me wrote:
>
> You have any illustrations of this alleged vortex? I'm having some
> difficulty visualizing how a deep bed interrupting airflow can produce
> less drag than a smooth surface cover from an engineering point of
> view. I could see it having weight/force distribution advantages, but
> from a drag viewpoint, it doesn't seem to make logical sense.

Throw some tissue in the back and go for a ride. On many trucks, the
tissues will move in a circular fashion, forward along the floor, up the
front wall, backwards in mid-air, and back down to the floor. At the
right speeds, the debris will continue around and around.

I've seen it with cans, paper, leaves, etc...

 

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acrvl31bcq5fphdl5spnaci42ked6l0hqq@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:38:15 -0600, "NoOneYouKnow"
> <NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps if I phrase it this way: pickup trucks are designed to produce
>>less
>>drag with the tailgate up and no cover. That's how they're wind tunnel
>>tested, and if you watch one of those tests, it's pretty easy to see the
>>vortex and resulting slipstream. All things being equal, less drag
>>usually
>>means better mileage.
>
> You have any illustrations of this alleged vortex? I'm having some
> difficulty visualizing how a deep bed interrupting airflow can produce
> less drag than a smooth surface cover from an engineering point of
> view. I could see it having weight/force distribution advantages, but
> from a drag viewpoint, it doesn't seem to make logical sense.

Drive around in a pickup with a few dry leaves in the bed. Notice that,
while some fly away, many blow upward behind the cab then fall back to the
bed towards the back, even at highway speeds.

The thing to remember is that the air caught by the tailgate has to go
somewhere. Since it can't go upward due the additional air being caught by
the tailgate, it goes down, then towards the front of the bed, then up the
back of the cab and back into the bottom of the main airflow... where much
of it is caught by the tailgate again. This is called a "locked vortex" and
it essentially creates a differential pressure zone within the bed that the
main airflow rides upon as it goes over the bed.

---JRE---

 

still just me wrote:

> You have any illustrations of this alleged vortex? I'm having
> some difficulty visualizing how a deep bed interrupting
> airflow can produce less drag than a smooth surface cover from
> an engineering point of view. I could see it having
> weight/force distribution advantages, but from a drag
> viewpoint, it doesn't seem to make logical sense.

Presumably by creating an "air bearing", like the indentations
in golf ***** are reputed to do. The circulating mass of air
moving along with the object is supposed to reduce frictional
losses overall.

Whether it works that way with the more irregular shape of of a
pickup tray is another matter.

John

 

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:20:57 -0600, "NoOneYouKnow"
<NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote:

>This is called a "locked vortex" and
>it essentially creates a differential pressure zone within the bed that the
>main airflow rides upon as it goes over the bed.

Thanks. I guess if it creates a high enough pressure that it could
hold the other airflow in a better pattern. Maybe :-)

 

on 12/12/2007 6:58 PM still just me said the following:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:20:57 -0600, "NoOneYouKnow"
> <NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote:
>
>
>> This is called a "locked vortex" and
>> it essentially creates a differential pressure zone within the bed that the
>> main airflow rides upon as it goes over the bed.
>>
>
> Thanks. I guess if it creates a high enough pressure that it could
> hold the other airflow in a better pattern. Maybe :-)
>
The best way to decrease pickup turbulence would be to use a torneau
cover on the bed that starts from the top of the cab to the top of the
tailgate, like a military hummer, making the PU a fastback.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

 

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$zy2ssj$dgw$1@news.ipinc.net...
>
> Apparently you missed the Prius commercial where the guy buys one
> to be able to get ed by the girl who regularly attends the "Save the
> Whales" conventions.
>
> There's all kinds of images out there. The Prius owners are no different
> than the 50 year accountants who run out and buy Harleys and black
> leather jackets with fringe. Just because both are equally silly doesen't
> mean they don't exist.
>
> Ted
>
>

I don't want a Prius for the "Image" I want it for the electronic goodies
and minimal maintenance. The fact that it has one of the cleanest emissions
ratings is a nice bonus but I realize it wouldn't make a dent for me for 3
reasons: 1. I don't have a running car so I have to walk wherever I go for
now and any vehicle with an ICE (engine) would sort of be a step backwards
even if it is SULEV/AT-PZEV rated. 2. I live in southeast Iowa where most of
the population doesn't give a rat's *** about pollution and many either have
a carbureted vehicle that is out of tune, one that isn't running on all
cylinders, one that is burning oil, one that is leaking various fluids, or
one that has the "Check Engine" (MIL) either constantly on or on within a
few minutes of starting. 3. Iowa doesn't have vehicle inspections or
emissions testing.

Other than that I want it for the ability to draw up to 1KW from the 12V
battery continuously or up to 10KW (5-6KW is more realistic) from the
HV/hybrid/traction battery as long as the car is in Ready mode (started and
"running") and has gas in the tank. My house lost power for roughly 18
hours due to the ice storm here and having a Prius and an industrial UPS as
described here http://www.priups.com/ would have really come in handy.

 

but a good generator is about $18,000 cheaper, and will make that power
available in real world ac power that you can use without a very expensive
power inverter.
"Daniel Who Wants to Know" <danielthechskid@merrychristmasi.com> wrote in
message news:bye8j.247369$Fc.176252@attbi_s21...
> I don't want a Prius for the "Image" I want it for the electronic goodies
> and minimal maintenance. Other than that I want it for the ability to
> draw up to 1KW from the 12V battery continuously or up to 10KW (5-6KW is
> more realistic) from the HV/hybrid/traction battery as long as the car is
> in Ready mode (started and "running") and has gas in the tank. My house
> lost power for roughly 18 hours due to the ice storm here and having a
> Prius and an industrial UPS as described here http://www.priups.com/ would
> have really come in handy.
>