|
Kach22i, I largely agree with your points -- the rear fenders in particular are too rounded I think. They need as much surface area on the top for PV cells. I wonder if the rear panel could be redesigned with slightly raised 'V' ridges running longitudinally, that could add more surface area and increase the number of cells that are facing the sun at any given moment?
The Cd could probably be improved by having a "crisper" Kamm back on the rear fenders (around the taillights) and if the rear wheel strakes were narrower and fully tapered to an edge. The windshield could be pushed even more forward, and this could add more PV cells up front. The front of the ideal template is much more blunt, and this helps develop the localized higher pressure which increases the "spring" so the air then returns better by staying attached at higher angles, than with a "pointier" front.
With a smooth underside, I don't think a splitter / dam would help, and there is an optimum ride height -- the Schlörwagen was tested for this (this is in Hucho). Too low and you compress the air under the car (adding lift and drag) and too high and you add more exposure to the wheels. This Bochum car has the height about right I think; though it could go for a lowered stagnant point instead.
I think the underside is already as steep as it can be, and ditto for the top side. The rear wheel track could be narrowed, though -- this would possibly be another tenth or more?
Also, I'm wondering if having a small slightly protruding "nose" has a benefit? This is subtlety different from the whole front being pointy, I think. I'm thinking of the dynamic that happens when you put a sphere out in front of the front of a car -- it gets the air flowing in ways that are not necessarily intuitive. The early models of the Boxfish / Bionic have this, and so does the Prius and the Edison2.
|