User guide
Aerodynamics of an electric scooter as an engineering discipline: F_drag = ½·ρ·v²·CdA, decomposition into pressure/friction/induced/interference, Reynolds regimes (rider Re ≈ 10⁶, wheel Re ≈ 6×10⁴), CdA breakdown (rider 60-75% + frame 10-15% + wheels 5-10% + bag 0-15%), measurement methods (wind tunnel + coastdown ISO 10521 + power-meter Martin 1998), yaw-angle dependence Cy, why wheel aero on 8-10" differs from bike/moto, body-position tradeoffs vs stability, P_drag > P_roll crossover ≈ 19 km/h, fairings engineering and EU L1e, vehicle-class CdA table
Why a standing upright rider posture on an e-scooter is the worst CdA configuration among all personal vehicles (typical 0.55-0.70 m²), and why that means drag power begins to dominate rolling resistance from just 18-22 km/h — whereas a tucked motorcyclist only reaches that crossover at ~50 km/h. This article does not repeat the user-facing wind protocol from [Riding in windy weather](@/guide/riding-in-wind.md) and is not the same as the [energy-budget model](@/guide/real-world-range-energy-budget.md) — it is the **engineering foundation under both**: the formal drag equation F_drag = ½·ρ·v²·CdA with decomposition into pressure/friction/induced/interference, Reynolds regimes for the rider (L ≈ 1.7 m → Re ≈ 10⁶ at 25 km/h: turbulent boundary layer) and wheel (R ≈ 0.1 m → Re ≈ 6×10⁴: subcritical regime, drag crisis Re ≈ 3×10⁵ unreachable); CdA breakdown by component (rider 60-75% of frontal silhouette 0.4-0.55 m² + frame/deck 10-15% + wheels 5-10% + bag/cargo 0-15%), extrapolated from Crouch et al. 2017 J. Fluids and Structures 74:153-176 cycling aerodynamics state-of-the-art review and Bert Blocken et al. (TU/e + KU Leuven) bicycle-pose CFD studies; three measurement methods (wind tunnel low-speed automotive Eppler-section; coastdown ISO 10521-1:2015 + SAE J1263/J2263; power-meter regression Martin et al. 1998 J. Applied Biomechanics 14(3):276-291) with accuracy bands; yaw-angle dependence — Cy reaches 0.6-0.8 at 15-20° yaw, explaining catastrophic crosswind behaviour; wheel aerodynamics on small 8-10" wheels — why disc-vs-spoke difference is <2% drag (vs ~5% on 700c bike wheels) because of small frontal area; body-position tradeoffs — tucked posture possible but constrained by deck length and vibration absorption; power crossover P_drag > P_roll for CdA 0.55 + Crr 0.012 + m_total 105 kg at v ≈ 19 km/h (below it P_roll dominates, above it cubic P_drag dominates); fairings engineering — CdA reduction potential 25-40%, but crashworthiness penalty + EU L1e enclosure rules; vehicle-class CdA table for context (cyclist tucked 0.20-0.25; cyclist upright 0.45-0.55; e-scooter rider 0.55-0.70; motorcyclist tucked 0.30; auto 0.6-0.8). ENG-first sources (0 RU): Wilson «Bicycling Science» 4th ed. MIT Press 2020; Martin et al. 1998 J. Applied Biomechanics 14(3):276-291; Crouch et al. 2017 J. Fluids and Structures 74:153-176; Blocken et al. TU/e + KU Leuven cycling CFD; Hoerner «Fluid-Dynamic Drag» 1965; ISO 10521-1:2015; Anderson «Fundamentals of Aerodynamics» 6th ed. McGraw-Hill 2017; Schlichting & Gersten «Boundary-Layer Theory» 9th ed. Springer 2017; SAE J1263 and SAE J2263.