Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrstphrR
Cars are also travelling at sub-sub-sub Mach speeds, ergo, the shape simply need not be like a plane that's Mach one, two, or three capable, to be efficient. Or, more aptly: efficient enough.
In addition to that, not having a huge schnoz on a car that makes it efficient for straight ahead travel, but a tad inconvenient for turning corners, or parking in a standard parking lot space.
Both aspects of this are most certainly compromises. Die a little on the inside if you so choose, but people trying to sort out optimum shapes are deciding that one somewhat inconvenient extension of their car is better than two very inconvenient extensions.
|
What makes me die is that they use the teardrop template to guide what they do on the rear, when it's completely arbitrary how the curve falls on the photo. For example, the way people use it here, a lifted truck supposedly has a shallower optimal aerocap angle than a stock one.
The template also has no way of knowing what the actual airflow over the car is like, or the speed that it's travelling at.