MikeInNH 8:30AM edited 8:31AM Just the opposite. Aerodynamics easily trumps style.Yet, Honda, Toyota, GM, Ford, et al don't make any cars that look like this.
I agree with Mike in this case. It’s getting hard to tell one brand from the other because they all have similar aero designs. You often have to get close to tell what brand it is. Certainly there are exceptions, but compact sedans are often quite similar.
@BLE
No one wants to drive a car that looks like a torpedo…
Imagine how much room there is inside a torpedo. A box is roomy; topedos loose, boxes win. Viva les Element and Scion xB.
Torpedos are supposed to strike underwater vessels
Somebody should drive that “torpedo” right into one of those submerged Subarus
LOL
OK, so it looks like Cd’s in the .25 range will forever be “as good as it gets” simply because we insist that cars must be shaped like boxes. Millions of dollars of wind tunnel reseach can certainly give us the most aerodynamic box possible but it is still a box and it’s only aerodynamic for a box.
The Aptera I linked a picture of was largely influenced by the designs of speed record setting human powered vehicles, designed mostly by college engineering students, not industry experts. How can these guys make vehicles that achieve Cd’s in the .10 to .15 range? Mostly because they are free to make vehicles that don’t look like boxes.
On piston powered airplanes, cooling drag accounts for about 15% of the power consumed. Cooling drag is minimized by using cowl flaps that are open during high horsepower/low speed use, i.e. takeoff and climb, and are closed during high speed/reduced horsepower use, i.e. cruise. Why don’t cars use this idea? There may come a day when a car without a closable grill is just as unthinkable as a car without a lockup torque converter or overdrive high gear.
OK, so it looks like Cd's in the .25 range will forever be "as good as it gets" simply because we insist that cars must be shaped like boxes.
You’ve taken a completely left turn on your argument.
No one ever said that cars can’t be more aerodynamic. I’m sure they can. But cars today are designed with aerodynamics as one of it’s KEY factors…50 years ago…you had one maybe two cars that aerodynamics were even considered. Style was THEE most important thing. And cars from the 30’s thru the 50’s were far more stylish then cars today. With the first gas embargo when all of sudden gas prices tripled in less then a year…manufacturers started to really pay attention to aerodynamics for the daily commuter vehicle. There was some aerodynamics design into the muscle and sports cars back then…but not the daily commuter cars.
Also prior to the 70’s doing wind tunnel tests were more like trial and error. Mathematical computer models for aerodynamics was just starting to make it’s way into the automotive industry. And now with computers being a lot faster…and there’s a very good understanding of aerodynamics…wind tunneling can be simulated on the computer. No more need to create clay models and run tests to see what the wind resistance is. It can all be simulated.
Back in the 40’s and 50’s aerodynamics was difficult and costly.
But when you consider aerodynamics, IMHO, designers look at the intent of the vehicle, then work around it. So, you have an off road 4Runner that needs to carry 5 people and gear. There is not a heck of a lot you can do aerodynamically to a 4 runner that hasn’t already been done. I’m talking about the new ones. Do they really “look” much differnt from the those 10 years ago ? The ugly for sure FJ Cruiser looks like aerodynamics have been considered for this good off roader. So, what is the mileage…it still stinks ! It’s perhaps slightly better then a comparable Jeep model…but not much. Jeeps typically want the total box look which is very attractive in an off roader, but poor aerodynamically. Look at practical pick ups. Auto companies would jump at the chance if a change in aerodynamics made a 15% or so difference. And yet, they change grills every ten years. Why ? Functionality trumps aerodynamics in most cars especially trucks… It’s that simple.
That’s why Smart cars suffer and really good high mileage cars like my 2002 Prism is not still sold which had great aerodynamics years ago and got and easy 40 plus mpg highway…better then newer Corolla models. But, it was claustrophobic ! You can’t sell a car with really great aerodynamics if you can’t comfortably seat, at least 4 big butt adults. Practicality in use and Obesity trumps the best aerodynamics, every time.
The bottom line is that people buy Smart cars because they think they’re cute. They make no sense economically or from a utility standpoint. And I wonder…what’s the trade in value of these things? Depreciation is probably through the roof.
I support the right of people to buy whatever they want. But they’re clearly not targeting the people who think seriously about their purchases.
Our family dentist lives in town, not far from his practice. He sees his Smartcar as an alternative to walking or riding his bike. This man is a real envronmentalist, and believes in minimizing energy use. He first saw the vehicle in europe and just had to have one. He also has a regular family car used for trips and other uses where he needs at least 3 seats.
Him and I compete in minmizing home energy use without compromizing comfort or convenience.
@Docnick You win the “minimizing energy use " , hands down !
I will argue that…A Camry or Fusion Hybrid could serve both purposes, easier. Even a Corolla would do nearly as well for real short trips as the total gas used difference would not be as great, and double as a much more efficient car then his family car for intermediate use. There are all sorts of less expensive and easier on the environment options then smart cars. They are for parking ease or vanity.“he first saw it in Europe and had to have one” says it all ; vanity. I could posdible see it if he spent an hour a day, driving through a city. But if he doesn’t live " that far” a cheap any older compact would be better long term for the environment. He’s a great candidate, possibly, for an EV. Anything works better then a smart car…IMHO.
A vote for @same’s logic.
@dagosa I quite agree with you! However this guy is a very competent and reasonably priced dentist and I won’t argue with him.
However, he is not an engineer and does not get the fine points of energy economics. During the first energy crisis everyone wanted a small car. The late Henry Ford II, who hated small cars, quipped the “People will pay almost anything for an economy car”!
P.S. The dentist’s family needs two cars.
@doc
You’re a smart man. I would never disagree and/ or argue with a man who spent most of our together time with a drill in my mouth. My dentist can " do nothing wrong" also.
Back in the 40’s and 50’s aerodynamics was difficult and costly.
@MikeInNH-During WW II, an engineer for Nash motor company, Nils Eric Wahlberg, did extensive wind tunnel tests on different car shapes. When the new Nash models were introduced for the 1949 model year, the Nash cars were based on his design and called the “Airflytes”. The Nash Airflyte had the lowest coefficient of drag of any car on the U.S. market at the time. I wonder how that 1949 Nash 600 Airflyte would compare with the cars today with respect to the coefficient of drag.
@Tri,the figures should be around somewhere,any takers?-Kevin
Not only didn’t the manufacturing technologies exist in the '40s and '50s to make affordable aerodynamic cars, people didn’t want them. After WWII came the “baby boom”, and everyone wanted big cars with lots of room. And fins. Gas was dirt-cheap, families had multiple kids, and nobody had yet heard of air pollution.
During WW II, an engineer for Nash motor company, Nils Eric Wahlberg, did extensive wind tunnel tests on different car shapes.
And it wasn’t cheap. With the advent of Cafe’ numbers manufacturers were forced to do this same type of analysis on ALL vehicles they manufactured…The cost just went up 100 fold.
Today any high-school student with less then $1000 in hardware and software can do BETTER analysis on their home computer.
But yet, manufacturers are constrained by having to hit multiple criteria simultaneously: emissions, reliability, safety, cost, etc…
You’d have to get up awful early to beat a manufacturer at their own game WITHOUT sacrificing other desired qualities…BUT…any one metric can be easily improved if you can accept making multiple others worse. You can up HP with non-smog-compliant cams and headers; you can up dry skidpad if you can accept trashing tread life, NVH, cost, etc…and yes, Virginia, you CAN increase aero IF you can tolerate making the car “worse” across a variety of other metrics.
You can up HP with non-smog-compliant cams and headers; you can up dry skidpad if you can accept trashing tread life, NVH, cost, etc...and yes,
Cars today have MORE hp, BETTER gas mileage…pollute LESS…weigh MORE…are SAFER…handle BETTER…and MUCH MORE reliable then cars in the 50’s thru the 90’s.
Car manufacturers have had a few decades to do this. It’s not easy or cheap. But it’s proven it can be done if you have the time, money and expertise.
My grandparents had one of those upside down bathtub Nash cars. What impressed me most was that Nash bothered to use a four speed automatic transmission back when two and three speed automatics were the norm.
@B.L.E–That 4 speed automatic transmission in the Nash was the GM Hydramatic. Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Cadillac used that transmission as well as GMC pickup trucks and Chevrolet pickup trucks. Hudson, and Kaiser also initially used the GM Hydramtic. Interestingly, the Lincoln bought the automatic transmission from GM and became available in mid-1949. The Lincoln used the GM Hydarmatic even after Ford developed its own automatic transmission as the Ford-O-Matic wasn’t considered stout enough for use in a Lincoln. Nash bought its automatic transmissions from GM until 1958. At that point, Nash installed the Borg-Warner 3 speed automatic. I believe that American Motors, which was formed when Nash and Hudson moved, used the Borg-Warner transmission until 1972 when the automatic transmissions were purchased from Chrysler.