Quote:
Originally Posted by ERTW
Is a 20' long 2 passenger vehicle practical?
|
No, and we're having very few of them on the road.
20' might work in the US, it won't work here.
Quote:
|
The basic shape is an idealisation. The better the basic shape, the better the final car. One of Morelli's stipulations was that it have practical internal volume for passengers and their baggage (his main reason for avoiding the tear drop).
|
Same goes for the teardrop - you'll get most of its benefits even if you cut it short a bit.
But you get more practically useful volume - we just need to rearrange things compared to our current cars.
Smaller more efficient engines need less cooling, take less space, and are lighter so they could go back to where they caused some issues in early teardrops : in the back.
It would help unload today's overburdened front axles .
(driven wheels + engine weight + most of the driver / front passenger weight in typically lightly loaded cars).
Or as Mercedes did in the previous B class and Toyota in the iQ : tilt the engine and put it up front, low down. PLenty of space in a bulbous teardrop nose.
Electric drive solves the whole issue instantly.
Quote:
|
Like the MB bionic car pointed out, current frames are inefficient.
|
The Bionic shows that you can have practically useful volume and good aero together.
The boxy new B class puts it into practice : 0.24 is a good value for this kind of car.