|
KamperBob and Neil,
Yes the boxfish is amazing, but keep in mind it was designed by nature to scoop up food from near the bottom. Cars do not need to do that.
If my recollection of Cd of .065 for the ideal boxfish is right, and that seems credible since even nature has to give up something for functions like eating.
In the 1982 Morelli paper, Morelli shows the shark as a form that is also very effective in nature. And it is more of a cruiser than the boxfish. Still the shark has near bottom cruising requirements that are enhanced by the camber of its body for low level cruising, and this camber is adjustable by the shark himself (or herself). So Morelli is more interested in emulating that shape, which he does with his
But still, the rectangular form of the boxfish is advantageous, especially since it can be jammed into the preconceived notional box that is the hundred year old tradition of automobiles, which is driven by the absolute demand that an empty right front seat must be carried; I guess because we all hope to have some sort of friend riding along. Yup, that is the crime that needs to be fixed; maybe we all should go to psychiatrists to figure out that friends do not really want to ride with each other, to work and back every day.
I call it a crime because we were headed in a better direction in 1915 with the 'cycle cars' which commonly involved tandem seating. It is said that Henry Ford conspired to slime the cycle cars, putting out rumors suggesting they were dangerous. And of course as new machines, they had their problems. And the mass production accomplishments of Ford hit the magic quantity where fashion could be set by public recognition and big advertising campaigns. And of course, oil was subsidized with the investment tax credit and high speed was not important on roads then, so who cared about efficiency?
|