Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
The numbering system helps.
Nos. 1 and 2 should be as flush as possible.
No. 3 is where you could apply a radius. A counterexample is the Cybertruck. It has a sharp crease. Either would be better than the exposed raw edge.
Subject to aerohead's confirmation, of course.
|
The Tesla is a unique case. It's entire greenhouse is inclined ( raked ) such that, for it's entire length, incuding the vault, it's attacking the flow, always in a favorable pressure negative gradient of accelerating flow, even past the maximum cross-section, where it would ordinarily transition to an adverse, positive pressure gradient.
And since it has five widths in plan-view, with subtle body camber on the entire upper body, and there's actually not a 'straight' surface, except underneath, Fran Von Holzhauzen's getting away with murder in plain view, and no one's figured it out.
The roofline contour is also 'curved' and it's so 'relaxed' that, with respect to the body sides, he's put in enough tumblehome that, edge vortices, and attached longitudinal vortices aren't going to spin up as most fear. The shear isn't there like some imagine. It's not going to produce rear lift either. Quite the contrary. The folks at Loughborough University have figured this out already this year.
Legacy carmakers will be crying into their champagne glasses when they figure it all out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever edge radii exists on the cab of the Maverick would probably suffice on the shell. Transitioning to 'more' is better, says Morelli. But there again, we're talking about the most 'expensive' shapes to fabricate known.
You can't create cardboard mockups for testing in a few minutes. You want to come out of the shoot 'close' to the final architecture.
Like I said, duplicating the 1972 Porsche 911 Carrera RS 2.7 'Ducktail' spoiler is going to cost $94,000 in today's Dollars, if you're gonna do it like Hermann Burst and Harm Lagaay.
