Assesses aerodynamic response of road vehicles in crosswind conditions, indicating implications for safety.
Assessing the aerodynamic response of road vehicles under crosswind conditions is essential for understanding vehicle stability and safety. Such assessments require reliable aerodynamic data; however, much of the existing literature is based on experiments performed under disparate conditions or limited yaw-angle ranges. As a result, consistent and comparable reference datasets spanning multiple road-vehicle classes remain scarce. The present paper provides a consistent set of aerodynamic coefficients for the six load components (longitudinal, lateral and vertical forces; roll, pitch and yaw moments) for four vehicle classes: a saloon car (DrivAer geometry), a small lorry, a double-decker coach and an articulated lorry. The experimental campaign was conducted on reduced geometric scale models in the low-turbulence test section of the Politecnico di Milano wind tunnel under uniform flat-ground conditions, covering wind-yaw angles from 0°to 180°. The results show a strong dependence of crosswind aerodynamics on vehicle geometry, with pronounced differences between low-profile and high-sided vehicles. High-sided vehicles develop substantially larger lateral-force and rolling-moment coefficients, reaching up to approximately thirty times the saloon-car values when the double-decker coach or the trailer unit of the articulated lorry is considered. For the saloon car, a dependence of the aerodynamic loads on wind speed is observed. Abrupt changes in side-force and rolling-moment trends occur at specific yaw angles for smoother geometries, whereas sharp-edged configurations (small lorry and articulated trailer) exhibit smoother and more continuous behaviour. Overall, the results provide a coherent dataset for benchmarking, CFD validation and crosswind-stability studies across diverse road-vehicle classes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reyes et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: