View Single Post
Old 02-05-2012, 04:13 PM   #278 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
The "excessive" rounding behind the rear wheels was the second thing that stuck out to me.

The first thing was how far the roof extends in front of the driver's head- I understand they wanted the space for cells, but out in the real world, the driver will not be able to see traffic lights, I'd bet on that. Heck, I've driven a Solstice and sat in a new Camaro and I couldn't see traffic lights unless I scrunched waaay down. I would NOT push the windshield even further forward for this reason; another reason would be the "back seat driver" feeling you get when the windshield is unnaturally far away, like in the dustbuster GM vans. I suppose you get used to it, but GM had a real problem with people damaging their vans' bodywork because they had no sense of where it was in parking maneuvers.

The third thing I noticed was that the skirts appear to be fixed, leading to the same problem the Schlorrwagen had, that of more frontal area than necessary. It could probably be slimmed down a bit with articulated front skirts.

Not worried about the trailing angle of the roof- perhaps it could be a bit steeper for aero, but they don't want that for better angle of cells to sun?
__________________


  Reply With Quote