Quote:
Originally Posted by CFECO
Take off that front mess, and make the back the front.... like the old Thule car top carrier thread from long ago.
|
I concur, and have to say that real wind tunnel images would bear this out.
Here are the designers thoughts.
Design website of Daniel Fitzgerald
Quote:
Reduced aerodynamic drag allows us to drive efficiently, saving on fuel and emissions. Downforce, a type of drag, provides traction, allowing you to corner safely. The aerodynamics of your car is the result of a compromise between these two factors.
Laminar 2 is the second iteration of a design concept that investigates the use of a adjustable front wing system to increase a vehicles aerodynamic efficiency and down-force without a compromise on either.
The Laminar 2 concept is a blend of these two aerodynamic profiles. When its front wing is rotated down to a 40 degree angle to the road, air is deflected upwards pushing the car into the ground for safer cornering. Rotating the wing up to a 0 degree angle allows oncoming air to flow easily around the streamline cabin increasing efficiency for straight freeway driving.
Features such as driver to passenger mirrors, a central driving position and large glass cockpit have been retained. Along with some new features such electroluminescent hubcaps for night visibility, and a rear panorama camera and HUD to replace the rear-view mirrors.
|
Clicking on the "show more" buttons provides more.
Quote:
|
- Adjustable wing sits on a curved bearing system, with the wing being adjusted by a series of motors for quick transitions between streamline and down force modes.
|
Quote:
Development Notes Show / Hide
- After the completion of the first of this series of concepts, there were a number of things that worked well and a number of things that needed to be addressed. Namely complexity in the doors and front wing that were unnecessary and the open wheel format would be unsafe for pedestrians. The original concept also had unfeasibly large wheels with the front wheels running on orbital rims, which would be both impractical and inefficient in this application.
- The major change has been to the styling. As the original concept was for a competition, and styled to an existing brand, this one would have its own unique styling aspects.
|
It was only a styling exercise - thank goodness.
I think considering the designer's goals, air braking would have been a better direction.
Example:
Mercedes-Benz C112 | Hemmings Motor News
Click on band of thumbnails below main image.
Quote:
|
Active aerodynamics gave additional assistance to the driver when the C112 reached its limit of traction in either cornering or braking. Sensors measuring g-forces in the front, middle and rear of the car gave information to the ECU that controlled the C112's actively variable aerodynamics. When triggered by their control system, a front spoiler and a small rear airfoil were deployed in one-tenth of a second. Combined, these created a high level of overall downforce with an inevitable increase in drag. At the car's theoretical top speed of 192 mph, they were calculated to increase downforce from an insignificant figure to around 2,200 pounds.
|
http://www.ign.com/articles/2007/06/...des-benz-c-112
http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive...ar-technology/
