Quote:
Originally Posted by MazdaMatt
You can't confuse hydrodynamics and aerodynamics. They work pretty differently. We're not trying to pull your leg here. Simply google "lowest cd shape" and you'll find a million references to an airfoil (aka teardrop). Dig deeper and you'll see why the bulb is better than a flat front or a pointy front. Better yet, search around this site. This dead horse has been beaten into a unrecognisable bloody spatter.
|
Well the lowest cD shape would be an infinitely long cylinder with 0 diameter, so any real world discussion of optimal shapes would involve length and volume constraints.
The way I see it is that the shallower the angle of the rear taper of the object, the lower the cD. But the front end also has to cut into the fluid and then allow smooth transition to parallel flow, and then stay attached to the rear taper.
If you have a constraint on length, sometimes the best thing to do is to get the rear taper as gradual as possible, which means less length available for the front end, so you end up with a hemisphere.
But if the hemisphere itself was the optimal shape for a front end, planes would be designed that way-- but they aren't. Their noses are shaped more like a half oval, or parabola. They are
pointier than the theoretical teardrop.
In car design, you don't get to use as shallow a rear taper as physically possible, because you have to deal with design constraints. So you get it as shallow as you can, and then you design the front of the car based on the constraints created by mechanicals, windshield, driver, etc. There isn't much disadvantage to making the front pointy, because you'd only be adding a little more length. Compromising with a blunt front doesn't allow you to make the rear any shallower.
Since the pointy front would normally take the shape of a horizontal crease, it's not really affected by crosswinds.