Funny how it's all these designers always saying aerodynamics are a "black art." Maybe it's because they haven't bothered to learn anything about it?
The whole process is screwed up--
Quote:
|
He says designing for aero largely consists of trial and error in the wind tunnel, tweaking the position of, say, the side mirrors, or the height of a rear deck lid, to shave a little off a car's drag coefficient.
|
When the designers decide what a car will look like, with no regard to aerodynamic efficiency, the only gains possible are minor without disrupting that all-important look. Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot.
Quote:
|
"We've been able to do very low-drag designs and retain the hard edges on Cadillacs," Welburn says. "The hard edges on the rear are a huge advantage."
|
Yeah, let's see here:
-CTS: Cd .29 (CTS-V .36)
-ATS: Cd .299
-ELR: Cd .31
-CT6: none published
-XTS: none published
Looks like you're doing really well with those "very low-drag designs" there, Cadillac. You even had to specify the drag coefficient of the ATS to three decimal places in order to make good on your pre-production claim that it would "start with a two."
Quote:
|
Piatti says carmakers "are scared of shocking the customer, and this means cars are going to remain pretty much the same."
|
That about says it all.