You are exactlty right. It is quite obvious that none of you haters of this "different" or "rice" style VG have ever looked at something much more aerodynamic than a 4 door econo box. Next time you're around an airport or airplanes look at the trailing edge (back part pn top) of the wings. On some, you will see these VG's and amazingly, they look nothing like the "non-rice" OEM Mitsu VG. They are very thin much like the Vortekz VG.

As for me, I have the OEM VG. But you can't hate on something because it is different. Things don't always have to cost $$$ to work equally or better.

Definitely not rice. Good find.

 

According to previously done research you can put as many VG’s that will fit the surface as long as they are placed 100MM apart. Which is the exact distance our guides allow.

Therefore another advantage to the Vortekz VG's they allows for 2 extra vortexes on the evo.

Matt
Vortekz.com

 

"According to research I have done your bulky fatter vg's will not do as good of a job as the Vortekz models, they slice the air much better and will cause less drag."

You cannot factually say this without testing of you own. Please post your own wind tunnel research.

"According to previously done research you can put as many VG’s that will fit the surface as long as they are placed 100MM apart. Which is the exact distance our guides allow.

Therefore another advantage to the Vortekz VG's they allows for 2 extra vortexes on the evo."

Can you tell how you came to the conclusion of 100mm being the minimal vortex distance. Who is your source and who was the primary investigator of this research?

 

I am affraid I do not have any access to a wind tunnel.

Here is the Mitsu reasearch that explains just about everything you need to know.

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/cor...004/16E_03.pdf

 

I never said he was blind. Just said they were off and i will stick to that statement.
Since when am I not entitled my own damn opinion? I think they look like ***, are ricey and not my cup of tea. While I think you may have struck gold with the Honda crowd with these, I could not see myself buying something that Mitsu has already offered us to begin with.

As for the testing. Even if Mistu "bit" it off airplanes, they were knowledgeable enough to go and run it through THEIR OWN TESTS, to prove it works.


LMAO, so you copied this off Mistsu, but they are wrong with their tests and you have more conclusive tests that yours are better?

I'll take my chances with the Mitsu ones.

<<<< Grabs some popcorn.

***If you get butt hurt by opinions, please don't post pics of your car then.

 

My bad, it was another poster that said he was blind.

It would be imposable to tell if he is off unless we have 10 shots 1 each VG perfectly centered above each VG. But this is not happening and they do look symmetrical on each side to me. If he used the guides supplied which I am sure he did then there is no way any of those are off by more than 1-3 degrees and that is nothing you defiantly could not tell unless you were standing on his trunk looking down on the VG's.

Sorry if I offended you with my post but some nasty things have been said without any substantiation am just defending myself.

I do not think there is any reason to get these in a wind tunnel because they are almost exactly the same and the Mitsu VG and they already did that. I can tell you with complete confidence that you could put razor blades, folded biz cards, etc… and it would do the same thing if not better than the mitsu design because they are going to cause less drag but have the same vortex effect.

Matt
Vortekz.com

 

what is the height, length, thickness and rear slope angle of your VGs Matt? And where in the research does it say that more VGs are better?

 

Mechanical engineer here. Took a number of classes with wind tunnel labs, mainly fuild dynamics. This thought process on a standard spacing between fins and more being better etc is laughable. Actual aerodynamic research is so complex and difficult even in todays age its considered a black art. Ferrari has what is considered to be the best sim program for aerodynamics (millions upon millions invested), yet Toyota F1 stole it and hardly gained anything.

My point? Unless you mimic some one elses design COMPLETELY, you cannot justify your design off the test data of some one elses similar (but not exactly the same) system...

From an engineering and mechanical design standpoint, the justification of this product hurts my brain...

 

The height, length, and slop are the exact same as the Mitsu design but I made them only 5MM thick so that they will slice the air better and cause less drag. I also made the slope curved so that it will supply more of a rolling effect on the trailing air, allowing the votex to form faster and cleaner. I can't prove it works better than the Mitsu design without testing it but you must admit by thinking logically it is as good if not a better design.

Matt
Vortekz.com

 

By this logic a golf ball that was completely smooth would fly further than the typical one with dimples. This is completely not true, many experiments and data have shown a dimpled ball flies significantly further.

My point? You CANNOT simply apply "common sense" theories to aerodynamics, like I said before it is a very complex and unique area of engineering. Your changes to the VG might actually make it useless.

 

According to Mistu's work, 100MM separation is the closest they can be without having vortexes interfere with on another. With more vortexes in the correct spacing and angles comes more fast moving air. With the research at our disposal that is simple logic. Did you read the Mitsu pdf before posting this?

A grad student from Embry-Riddle and an engineer from China that helped BMW with their VG antenna design did all the technical work on this Vortekz design.

Both would agree with you on the fact that aerodynamics is a black art and there is much to learn but they both helped come up with this improved design based on what they know. I am not saying in the future there will not be a better design than ours and I am not saying that our design for sure better than Mitsu's. But I am saying based on what we know this design should be better.

Matt
Vortekz.com

 

looks good but the only thing i dont like is the turbo timer in that location

 

 

Actually it is easy to understand. A smooth circular design has no real flow separation points for the ball to operate in a straight line. Therefore the small movements that the smooth circular ball does going left to right, right to left, up and down makes it hit much more air space as a ball flying in a straight line, pretty simple really. Also the trailing end of the dimpled ball has a much shorter air flow convergence point than a smooth ball due to the hundreds of vortexes created by the dimples.

In fact I would bet if you could measure the left right up down distance and add it to the straight line distance that a smooth circular ball travels in it would probably equal out to around the same distance as a dimpled ball traveling in a straight line minus whatever effect the vortexes have on the rear flow convergence.

Matt
Vortekz.com

 

Did I read the PDF? Did you read what I wrote? Better yet how many fluid dynamics classes have you taken and completely successfully from an acredited engineering school? (example:Purdue University) For the record yes I read.

First off, I dont care how many supposed engineers helped you. Mitsu researched and designed a concept to help create tubulent flow at the transition point between the roof and the trunk. Their design maximized the efficiency of controlling the boundry layer of air flow DUE TO THE FRONTAL AREA OF THE CAR. None of what they did introduced the side-determined flow charateritics of the vehicle. They stopped their fins from being towards the very side of the roof for a reason.

Whats that mean to you, the non-engineer? By changing the shape of the VG fin, you have effectively created a product that has no right being justified by Mitsubishis research. You changed the leading edge of the fin, the most important part of any object being driven through the air. You also changed the width, again a very important issue in aerodynamics of an object. The point of the vortex generator is like the golf ball dimples (I missed that the first time I read the Mitsu report, I cant believe I used the same example, ), it 'dirties' up the air flow in a controlled manner to obtain better flow charateristics further down the line. You changed the fins ability to manipulate air flow, and what research or calculations do you have that prove these changes work as well or better than Mitsus?

I wont even get started how the individual base on each of your fins also was not accounted for in aerodynamic desin studies by Mitsu. Whats my point? To be honest, on a production vehicle that is optimized for space and safety, splitting hairs over pieces that control laminar-to-turbulent flow is rediculous and a sign of overthinging a scientific concept. To a race car the VG might mean a significant amount. To a production car with side mirrors, large pannel gaps, antennas, etc its overkill. But for you to call upon Mitsubishi's design study to prove validity to your design, change the shape of the VG fin, introduce more fins on a system where they have not been designed for (a fin that would optimize flow near the left and right side of the car would be shaped differently), not account for the area on the base of your fin, and they say your product is as good or better than Mitu's? You not only insult me and every other engineer that understands aero, you cloud the thought process of the buying public that doesnt have a technical background by claiming something that can neither prove or dis-prove.

If you keep making these claims, your sales will suffer. Trust me. If you have calculations to prove your design, let me know. Personally, I think you made a false claim and now your back-pedaling.

Do not take this as a personal attack. I just dont want to see members here or any other people in the general public be lead wrong by what adds up to be false advertising.