I did make a post, then thought about it, decided it was going off track, then deleted it.
Anyway, off track or not... the jist of what I was talking about is, Hucho's aero book describes several different instances where blunt forebodies have good aero simply due to having sufficient radii on the leading corners to allow attached flow down the sides/top/bottom too I suppose. The case study of the Gen I Rabbit- a remarkably boxy and squared off appearing front end don't you think?- says through optimization of those dinky leading edge radii they achieved Cd within a few percentage points of that of an "optimal front end"- something that looked kinda like a basjoos front end. Other cited instances of good front end aero on blunt front ends are Microbus development and bus and truck development. In none of them was it proposed that a long pointy nose would improve aero.
I was and remain skeptical of the merits of long pointy noses on slow small cars. I kept pretty silent about this one:
And after it was "finished" the whole thing fell off the end of the earth- what's up with that? I suspect it was getting the same- or maybe worse- fe than the stock version. I know I like the stock version better.
I don't know why I'm responding to this... but your one wheeled half-car will have worse aero for sure. Not only does it lack leading edge radii, the fineness ratio is too small.
P.S. Then there is this thing:
I can't find any good evidence to support the notion that it does any good; although I doubt it hurts aero. It looks to me like it just adds cost, weight, complexity, and a goofy look.