Quote:
Originally Posted by kach22i
What this tells me is that aerodynamic design is still a fashion statement hired out to some stylist for marketing concerns and fails to get faithfully executed due to poor hand offs and delegation to others that do not embrace the concept and just want to retire early themselves.
|
While I agree with your statement, also remember it doesn't have to sacrifice much to be quite aerodynamic, nor does it have to "look" aerodynamic.
Best example of this is the Vixen motorhome. It had an actual Cd around .30. But, to most folks, it is still a box.
And boy do I wish Navistar published a Cd for the Monaco Vesta / Holiday Rambler Trip. I bet it was similar. And again, very few folks would ever really think it's much more than a big box.
Both these examples follow the simple method of rounding the front corners until the aero doesn't get any better, than taper the rear as much as you can. Didn't take much taper (which is loss of interior space) to get pretty good.
That said, if you don't consider low .30 as good (you didn't really say), getting it lower would indeed require more sacrifice. Being that my own motorhome is probably over .5 (data suggests it's almost .6), I'd take .3 any day.
(Images attached to save anyone who isn't familiar with these the search time.)