Quote:
Originally Posted by wheel_of_steel
Okay, I didn't read enough into that article.
I do counter that all of those benefits fall apart when wheels, mirrors and drivetrain components are attached - it might be even worse than a conventional 'non-optimal' design.
|
I don't have enough data to agree with your assessment or not but I certainly understand your train of thought.
In 1976,when the 1/2-scale CNR body was tested,after slicing successive pieces off the back,they were able to see Cd 0.161,in ground proximity,but without wheels.
In 1978,when they got financing for the full
scale project,when wheels were added to the body,the Cd jumped to 0.35.
Much work was done with the cooling system and wheel integration to get back down to Cd 0.205 or so,and they figured that when all features were added,that they'd end up with around Cd 0.24.
Here we are in 2012 and we're finally at a point where we could purchase a car with Cd 0.24.So Morelli deserves some credit.
When I GOOGLE'd for 'Aptera drag coefficient/frontal area' a website reported it at Cd 0.11.I don't recall the Af.
Love the car or hate the car,Cd 0.11 is around 1/3rd of typical Cds,or 66% lower.On a frontal area -based comparison,at 55 mph,we'd be looking at a 33% HWY MPG improvement.
With the lower frontal area we'd be looking at even larger savings.
It's certainly body-in -white ecomodding!
