Wind Noise & Buffeting Fixes

[kona61]

I'm down to help test!

I modeled a little thing that fits on the mirror plate like on a Porsche. However, there's no piece that pops off there, other than the whole plate. You would likely have to remake that entire piece unless you are okay with a tacked on diffuser.

Sponsored

 

[larrymz3]

I modeled a little thing that fits on the mirror plate like on a Porsche. However, there's no piece that pops off there, other than the whole plate. You would likely have to remake that entire piece unless you are okay with a tacked on diffuser.

Any pics?

 

[DesmoSD]

I modeled a little thing that fits on the mirror plate like on a Porsche. However, there's no piece that pops off there, other than the whole plate. You would likely have to remake that entire piece unless you are okay with a tacked on diffuser.

https://www.suncoastparts.com/product/PK9X1MIRROR.html

That might help a little but the problem is being generated from the A pillar. You'll need A-piller diffusers similar to the RUF 930 CTR. You could mock something up out of flexible 90 degree PVC trim then transfer it to fiberglass.

 

[LS3Twins]

Ok I took 20 min or so and fabbed up a piece to sit on the triangle trim piece. I made it with about a 45 degree bend and it comes 2" out. I'll get a mirrored piece for the other side and see if it reduces the buffeting on my way home.

 

[s219]

Don't expect much out of any modification to the gusset area. A proper fix needs to go on the A-pillar.

 

[LS3Twins]

Don't expect much out of any modification to the gusset area. A proper fix needs to go on the A-pillar.

Without CFD or taking the car to a wind tunnel with different prototypes it's almost impossible to define what the "proper" fix is. I work directly with race teams designing parts that end up at the Aerodyn wind tunnel here locally and in my experience that's the proper way. We understand the A-pillar is what causes this issue, but small aero changes can sometimes lead to big results.

On that note with just the driver's side modification on the triangle trim piece it actually removed 100% of the buffeting, mine would usually start at 40-45mph and get pretty severe at 50mph but now it's completely gone. I was able to test it up to 70mph without any buffeting at all. It was actually a pleasure to drive with both windows completely down. The prototype was aggressive at 2" out from the trim but again it removed all of the buffeting with just a driver's side modification. I think bring that back to 1-1.5" and adding a passenger side mirrored piece would be the way to go.

A couple of things to note:

• The end product needs to not extend too far that it interferes with the folding mirrors, which could possibly damage one of the motors.
• The trim has a unique shape that this needs to be 3D scanned for a nice fittting/looking product. I have some other parts going to 3D scan soon and hopefully can bring my car to the session. I have some scans from SEMA but they were focused more on the body panels and quickly went over trim/mirrors leaving much to be desired.
• I think the final product should be carbon fiber because who doesn't like carbon. Plus if you wanted to color match it you could as well.

If there is sufficient demand for this which I think there is I can continue working on this and get something developed.

 

[larrymz3]

Without CFD or taking the car to a wind tunnel with different prototypes it's almost impossible to define what the "proper" fix is. I work directly with race teams designing parts that end up at the Aerodyn wind tunnel here locally and in my experience that's the proper way. We understand the A-pillar is what causes this issue, but small aero changes can sometimes lead to big results.

On that note with just the driver's side modification on the triangle trim piece it actually removed 100% of the buffeting, mine would usually start at 40-45mph and get pretty severe at 50mph but now it's completely gone. I was able to test it up to 70mph without any buffeting at all. It was actually a pleasure to drive with both windows completely down. The prototype was aggressive at 2" out from the trim but again it removed all of the buffeting with just a driver's side modification. I think bring that back to 1-1.5" and adding a passenger side mirrored piece would be the way to go.

A couple of things to note:

• The end product needs to not extend too far that it interferes with the folding mirrors, which could possibly damage one of the motors.
• The trim has a unique shape that this needs to be 3D scanned for a nice fittting/looking product. I have some other parts going to 3D scan soon and hopefully can bring my car to the session. I have some scans from SEMA but they were focused more on the body panels and quickly went over trim/mirrors leaving much to be desired.
• I think the final product should be carbon fiber because who doesn't like carbon. Plus if you wanted to color match it you could as well.

If there is sufficient demand for this which I think there is I can continue working on this and get something developed.

I'm in to help test now and going forward!

 

[LS3Twins]

I'm in to help test now and going forward!

Sounds good. Mine will be down for 2-3 weeks for a couple of upgrades and if I have prototypes at that point I'll send them your way.

Trying to fund my Supra build and the LS3 twin turbo build at the same time doesn't leave much left to put towards R&D on this, but I'll see if I can cash in some favors.

 

[larrymz3]

Sounds good. Mine will be down for 2-3 weeks for a couple of upgrades and if I have prototypes at that point I'll send them your way.

Trying to fund my Supra build and the LS3 twin turbo build at the same time doesn't leave much left to put towards R&D on this, but I'll see if I can cash in some favors.

Sounds great, thank you!

 

[kona61]

Without CFD or taking the car to a wind tunnel with different prototypes it's almost impossible to define what the "proper" fix is. I work directly with race teams designing parts that end up at the Aerodyn wind tunnel here locally and in my experience that's the proper way. We understand the A-pillar is what causes this issue, but small aero changes can sometimes lead to big results.

On that note with just the driver's side modification on the triangle trim piece it actually removed 100% of the buffeting, mine would usually start at 40-45mph and get pretty severe at 50mph but now it's completely gone. I was able to test it up to 70mph without any buffeting at all. It was actually a pleasure to drive with both windows completely down. The prototype was aggressive at 2" out from the trim but again it removed all of the buffeting with just a driver's side modification. I think bring that back to 1-1.5" and adding a passenger side mirrored piece would be the way to go.

A couple of things to note:

• The end product needs to not extend too far that it interferes with the folding mirrors, which could possibly damage one of the motors.
• The trim has a unique shape that this needs to be 3D scanned for a nice fittting/looking product. I have some other parts going to 3D scan soon and hopefully can bring my car to the session. I have some scans from SEMA but they were focused more on the body panels and quickly went over trim/mirrors leaving much to be desired.
• I think the final product should be carbon fiber because who doesn't like carbon. Plus if you wanted to color match it you could as well.

If there is sufficient demand for this which I think there is I can continue working on this and get something developed.

Awesome job! I noticed when I made mine that the triangle piece isn't actually flat which made it very difficult for me.

 

[s219]

Without CFD or taking the car to a wind tunnel with different prototypes it's almost impossible to define what the "proper" fix is. I work directly with race teams designing parts that end up at the Aerodyn wind tunnel here locally and in my experience that's the proper way. We understand the A-pillar is what causes this issue, but small aero changes can sometimes lead to big results.

On that note with just the driver's side modification on the triangle trim piece it actually removed 100% of the buffeting, mine would usually start at 40-45mph and get pretty severe at 50mph but now it's completely gone. I was able to test it up to 70mph without any buffeting at all. It was actually a pleasure to drive with both windows completely down. The prototype was aggressive at 2" out from the trim but again it removed all of the buffeting with just a driver's side modification. I think bring that back to 1-1.5" and adding a passenger side mirrored piece would be the way to go.

A couple of things to note:

• The end product needs to not extend too far that it interferes with the folding mirrors, which could possibly damage one of the motors.
• The trim has a unique shape that this needs to be 3D scanned for a nice fittting/looking product. I have some other parts going to 3D scan soon and hopefully can bring my car to the session. I have some scans from SEMA but they were focused more on the body panels and quickly went over trim/mirrors leaving much to be desired.
• I think the final product should be carbon fiber because who doesn't like carbon. Plus if you wanted to color match it you could as well.

If there is sufficient demand for this which I think there is I can continue working on this and get something developed.

I don't disagree with you, and should mention that my day job is as an aerodynamicist/aeroacoustician working both CFD and tunnel testing across the speed range. Let me be more specific -- I think the best and most minimal solution will involve the A-pillar, and could be as simple as a low profile trip strip sticker or trip dot stickers applied to the A-pillar or the inside edge of the A-pillar trim where it meets the windshield. Some vehicles integrate this solution into the side windshield moulding and you never even realize it's there or why it's there. Generally these are 1/8" or thinner in size. Some run the whole length of the A-pillar while others are applied in 1-2 strategic locations.

A fence, vane, or tab on the gusset may also work, but that is attacking the problem downstream of the source, and there are already many many challenges with aero noise in the mirror and gusset area. What might fix the buffeting problem with windows down will likely increase overall wind noise with the windows up and at other conditions.

Normally when you see a flow device on the gusset it's more of brute force fix that is done after the fact. It may be effective, but for A-pillar noise you can get a more optimum solution on the A-pillar. Done right, it won't be noticeable or create additional noise, and in fact it could give an overall noise reduction across the range with windows up or down.

I wouldn't give up on the proper solution and jump to using a gusset device until someone has tried simpler and more strategic solutions on the A-pillar.

 

[LS3Twins]

I don't disagree with you, and should mention that my day job is as an aerodynamicist/aeroacoustician working both CFD and tunnel testing across the speed range. Let me be more specific -- I think the best and most minimal solution will involve the A-pillar, and could be as simple as a low profile trip strip sticker or trip dot stickers applied to the A-pillar or the inside edge of the A-pillar trim where it meets the windshield. Some vehicles integrate this solution into the side windshield moulding and you never even realize it's there or why it's there. Generally these are 1/8" or thinner in size. Some run the whole length of the A-pillar while others are applied in 1-2 strategic locations.

A fence, vane, or tab on the gusset may also work, but that is attacking the problem downstream of the source, and there are already many many challenges with aero noise in the mirror and gusset area. What might fix the buffeting problem with windows down will likely increase overall wind noise with the windows up and at other conditions.

Normally when you see a flow device on the gusset it's more of brute force fix that is done after the fact. It may be effective, but for A-pillar noise you can get a more optimum solution on the A-pillar. Done right, it won't be noticeable or create additional noise, and in fact it could give an overall noise reduction across the range with windows up or down.

I wouldn't give up on the proper solution and jump to using a gusset device until someone has tried simpler and more strategic solutions on the A-pillar.

I don't think we need to jump to conclusions and assume anyone is giving up on anything considering that nothing has been started. I am just providing proof of concept. I don't think many have the resources to fabricate these parts or understand how they work. The goal yesterday was to see if a gusset modification would reduce or remove the buffeting, which it did. I just stated if the market was strong enough for this I would be happy to look further into it.

Whether or not the A-pillar would be more effective or is what caused this is not in question here. It is understood that the gusset modification is combating this downstream. Does that matter to the consumer? Not at all. The end goal for them is something that reduces or removes the buffeting that is cost sensitive and looks good.

You provide a strong knowledge base for the aero side but going to market is a different animal and I'm not saying you don't understand that but it is just as, if not more important. The manufacturing side is what will make this available to the public and take these ideas and start manufacturing parts. Anyone can throw ideas out but only a few can actually do the R&D, develop a production drawing, absorb tooling costs, and provide 1st articles well before moving forward with production units.

You and I have the same end goal here. If you'd like to assist the process feel free to provide drawings in .step file and I'd be more than happy to look at them and share ideas. The other point of view to take is the end customer and would they rather install something across the entire A-pillar...probably not, I know I wouldn't. I think they would be more inclined to purchase a smaller product and install on the gusset, it would be easier to manufacture and it would cost less. The shape and smaller size would open it up to additive manufacturing which would also speed up the prototyping. You also mentioned two smaller modifications to the A-pillar instead of a full A-pillar piece, feel free to send me drawings of what you think would be a better solution. We can put our heads together and determine if that's something that's also worth looking into. I think the consumer wants something that either blends well with the styling of the car or is barely noticeable, some of the modifications I've seen to the A-pillar (Audi R8) draw your eye to them and I don't think that looks good. AWE makes a gusset piece for Porsche that looks good and is made by injection molding plastic so it looks more OEM.

 

[s219]

What I would love to have is a detailed CAD model of the Supra, then I could get some CFD solutions running and we'd have some good guidance on both the problem and potential fixes. I am all for cut and try aero (it's how things were done in the old days) but I feel like some credible CFD would help quite a bit, both in getting to a viable aftermarket solution and passing data to Toyota. Imagine if the fix was just a serrated trip strip taped to the inner edge of the A-pillar trim. That would be super easy to manufacture and distribute, not to mention unobtrusive.

 

[LS3Twins]

What I would love to have is a detailed CAD model of the Supra, then I could get some CFD solutions running and we'd have some good guidance on both the problem and potential fixes. I am all for cut and try aero (it's how things were done in the old days) but I feel like some credible CFD would help quite a bit, both in getting to a viable aftermarket solution and passing data to Toyota. Imagine if the fix was just a serrated trip strip taped to the inner edge of the A-pillar trim. That would be super easy to manufacture and distribute, not to mention unobtrusive.

I totally agree and would love to have that too, but SEMA doesn't even have that. That was my first option before going back to the old school way. Basically they are saying you are on your own to get the scan done and then get it converted to the correct file type. They have a repository for the scan files and .step files but nothing in there worth using for the Supra as of Monday this week. When SEMA doesn't have the info they request it from the OEM's and they said that they would not be receiving anything on this chassis. Unfortunately it just doesn't make financial sense to fund a detailed 3D scan unless you were going to build body kits for it and recoup the R&D costs with your margins.

None of the SVT vehicles for Ford have the CAD data available but every other Ford vehicle does. So that means that any parts developed on the GT350, Raptor, etc. are all done the manual way or you have to physically remove the parts and have them scanned individually on your own dime.

So unless you know someone with deep pockets, has a 2020 Supra, and access to a 3D scanner then we are back to the old days. I only have 2 of those and it's not the deep pockets. Haha

 

[s219]

I totally agree and would love to have that too, but SEMA doesn't even have that. That was my first option before going back to the old school way. Basically they are saying you are on your own to get the scan done and then get it converted to the correct file type. They have a repository for the scan files and .step files but nothing in there worth using for the Supra as of Monday this week. When SEMA doesn't have the info they request it from the OEM's and they said that they would not be receiving anything on this chassis. Unfortunately it just doesn't make financial sense to fund a detailed 3D scan unless you were going to build body kits for it and recoup the R&D costs with your margins.

None of the SVT vehicles for Ford have the CAD data available but every other Ford vehicle does. So that means that any parts developed on the GT350, Raptor, etc. are all done the manual way or you have to physically remove the parts and have them scanned individually on your own dime.

So unless you know someone with deep pockets, has a 2020 Supra, and access to a 3D scanner then we are back to the old days. I only have 2 of those and it's not the deep pockets. Haha

I wonder if it would be worth approaching these guys and see if they have a usable outer mold line for the Supra that they'd be willing to share (in a non-compete way):

https://www.supramkv.com/threads/prl-motorsports-introduction.1797/#post-52435

I did see a few 3D models online geared towards graphics and game development that might work. They seemed to be fairly high fidelity but there's no way to really inspect the geometry without paying first.

Sponsored