In 60 years...

[G2TDI]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

This is interesting (for this thread) - I would be interested to know why you think this is the case ?

Well I did say "it seems" and "not much" but hey I welcome anything that will prove me wrong! .

It would be IMHO that MAINSTREAM automotive manufacturers in fact did not focus much on aerodynamics much until very recently (in the 60-70 year perspective) and that we only in the past decade or even less(?) have begun to see vehicles that have more "extreme" aerodynamics (as the VW above) as potential mass-production vehicles and not just some proto for some fancy showroom floor?

Not sure if you're asking why *I THINK* this is the case or *WHY* I think this *IS* the case?

Now if you're asking WHY I think this IS the case, I guess the obvious would be the current concern for energy costs and the fear of certain energy forms not being available in "unlimited" qty as we might have looked at it in the past.

[Arragonis]

It's interesting from a perception point of view and maybe it's location, or something else - I'm interested to find out.

Here in the UK mainstream makers (GM and Ford included) have taken a lot of time with Aero since WW2 - in the 80s is was a "hot" selling point. Maybe in the "Internet" things are different

Their application of the technology and knowledge of the science involved at the time was probably less than the average EM Aerodynamics thread reader today though.

[G2TDI]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

It's interesting from a perception point of view and maybe it's location, or something else - I'm interested to find out.

Not sure what you mean by location? I'm a very mixed individual when it comes to location, my native language, where I'm born, where I grew up, where I lived the longest consecutively, and one of my citizenships are all in/from different countries so my point of view is a little all over the place. With more focus & experience on/with the continent where the car was supposedly "invented" and less on the continent where it started to be mass-produced and which frankly has a VERY limited selection today in an international perspective, one of the reasons why I have to "build" the car I want (see my other threads )

I see (I think) now what you mean by "location" and I put that on there on my profile on purpose both for privacy purposes *and* for the simple reason as explained above, I'm rather mixed for good and bad

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Here in the UK mainstream makers (GM and Ford included) have taken a lot of time with Aero since WW2 - in the 80s is was a "hot" selling point. Maybe in the "Internet" things are different

It's foreign to me to hear you use the term GM in a European setting I am more used to hearing the actual brands Vauxhall and Opel being used

I am not sure what Fords or Vauxhalls you are thinking of that would have been mainstream models and have FOCUSED on Aero after WW2? Surely Opel/Vauxhall (they're basically the same thing) had a few very nice ones like the Omega and Calibra for their time but those are also fairly recent. Now yes it was trendy to have rounder cars up until the 80's or so but that was mainly for styling more than aerodynamics.

Again though I was talking about "extreme" aero, where you so to speak START with a very aerodynamic style and try to make it as "acceptable" as possible to the consumers, and not vice versa as I believe has been the case for the past decades, again referring to the pics first posted as reference on this topic, fact is we STILL don't see any mass produced cars resembling that VW ready to purchase anywhere yet, aside from a few exceptions maybe like the EV1 by GM and Honda Insight Mk1?

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Their application of the technology and knowledge of the science involved at the time was probably less than the average EM Aerodynamics thread reader today though.

...aah yeah but as the pics I've posted earlier here both BEFORE and AFTER WW2 it's pretty obvious that the benefits of aero was far from foreign.


Here is a link to some interesting Cd & CdA values I just ran across:
http://rc.opelgt.org/indexcw.php that I just posted in another thread too, and to me it would seem it supports my perception that in the "early years" there were a number of vehicles achieving astonishingly good numbers, but aside from the few "exceptions" in the past few decades, we don't see MAINSTREAM cars on there before very recently. When I say exceptions I am talking about the numbers are so low vs the whole lineup during the same time frame that it would be considered "noise" in a statistical world.

[G2TDI]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Here in the UK mainstream makers (GM and Ford included) have taken a lot of time with Aero since WW2 - in the 80s is was a "hot" selling point. Maybe in the "Internet" things are different

Here are a "GM" and Ford example that I am sure you agree belong to UK mainstream of the era(?) how "aero" do they seem to you?

[Arragonis]

You need to look slightly after the period of those cars, GM.

GM UK (aka vauxhall) did various "Droop Snoot" versions of their cars, which resulted in production models - e.g. the Opel Ascona went from this



to this in Vauxhall Cavalier form



GM then went on with a load of other "Aero" models -

Carlton / Opel (something )


which got more "Aero" later



Royale / Monza Coupes


Senator


And of course the Astra Mk2

(also known as Pontiac LeMans, Opel Kadett and various Daewoo models).

The current Astra


and Insignia


Are as aero as you like - Ford in the next post...

[G2TDI]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

You need to look slightly after the period of those cars, GM.

Are as aero as you like - Ford in the next post...[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but that was exactly my point, those are all fairly recent in the 60-70 year perspective or if you want the 100 year perspective of the history of the car, the ones that have SOME focus on Aero are in the past 2 decades and less, just as I was pointing out.

I also if you look pointed out the Omega and Calibra from the same era and very similar design as the Senator and Kadett/Astra but those were rather EXCEPTIONS than the norm.

ALL these cars that you are showing are MODERN rather new cars in the perspective I am talking about! When you are showing cars that are a decade or two old, they've all looked fairly similar when it comes to aerodynamics, globally, but again I am not talking about such "new" cars at all...

But none of those not a single one of them have what I would call extreme focus on Aero, which is now SLOWLY but surely creeping into mainstream, with cars like your Prius etc and "efforts" now finally seen by mainstream to incorporate things like kammbacks into the car designs and sealing up gaps in the car body.

I think you are missing the point totally, so I will try to rephrase it. Take the NEWEST models you have posted, and take their general overall design, and I believe you will see that they have VERY LITTLE in common with the cars they "replaced" from the previous decades and have a lot more in common from the rather "early age" of the car as such. 30-40-50's had a lot more rounder and "aero" vehicles than the following decades. So as my thread topic states "In 60 years.." the mainstream auto industry have been at a fairly stand still when it comes to AERO improvements when comparing to other improvements we've seen in the automotive industry!

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Are as aero as you like

Actually even the most modern ones of those you posted do NOT outperform CdA values achieved in the 30-50's my point is, that despite such values having been achieved some 60 years ago we STILL drive (most car owners on the globe currently) cars that are FAR from the achieved values back then....

[Arragonis]

Ford started later with Aero - with the Mk3 Escort, the same as the one in the US got the ball rolling - the overall shape was intended to be much better than the competition target VW Golf Mk1 - which it was.



You have to remember the car before this was flat fronted and had a live axle and cart springs when VW was already selling the Golf.



the Escort was followed by the more radical Sierra, which was sort of based on the some of the Probe prototypes of the late 1970s. This replaced the last car in your post - imagine the difference between that and this :



The aero on this was very advanced, so advanced that Ford created some "stability" problems with early models and had to add small air dams in the 3rd rear window to push the airflow out so the centre of pressure was safely behind the car at speed.

And then the Granada / Scorpio



which was an enlarged Sierra in some respects but used mechanical bits from the old (European) Granada.

The follow up Escort (remember the US got a Mazda based thing, Europe didn't) still had decent Aero but by then the mechanical bits were awful and the styling was very boring.



Which of course led Ford to get it's act together and make the Focus.

[G2TDI]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Ford started later with Aero - with the Mk3 Escort, the same as the one in the US got the ball rolling

Escort in Europe and the US never had anything in common aside from the name. I also wouldn't call this getting the "ball rolling" when it was released some 40 years after the very aerodynamic design I posted from 1939 on pg1?!

Originally Posted by Arragonis

- the overall shape was intended to be much better than the competition target VW Golf Mk1 - which it was.

..and yet nothing compared to what had been achieved even BEFORE WW2!?

Originally Posted by Arragonis

the Escort was followed by the more radical Sierra, which was sort of based on the some of the Probe prototypes of the late 1970s.

I know all this, I grew up with all these, but what (most likely?) was attained before both your an my time, was still way beyond any of these MAINSTREAM cars!

I never said car manufacturers totally ignored the aerodynamics, but when you look at the numbers that had been achieved long before cars were even a common household "product" it is frankly despicable the values of any of these cars including the mainstream cars of TODAY! That is *MY* point, that the "prototypes" and "idea cars" shown at car shows now 60-70 years later (and more!) are barely reaching the already achieved values, with as you pointed out yourself a lot less refined technology! With that in mind our everyday cars today should MEET the best values seen in the 30's!

Could you imagine if someone had been able to create the most powerful smartphone we have today in our pockets in the 30's and we'd been using something that's decades behind that still today in our every day life's? THAT is what I am talking about, that's what we have been sold by the automotive (and oil companies?) industry!

Originally Posted by Arragonis

The aero on this was very advanced, so advanced that Ford created some "stability" problems with early models and had to add small air dams in the 3rd rear window to push the airflow out so the centre of pressure was safely behind the car at speed.

In this context I must say the comment of "very advanced" makes me smile, because it was exactly what the automotive industry WANTED you to think and believe, but their focus was NOT on making the most aerodynamic car but to sell you something for a DECENT PROFIT!

Also it sounds to me you are focusing on Cd values and not CdA where the latter actually has some meaning, because you can take a Mk1 VW Sharan and it has equal Cd to a VW Vento, however their CdA values are far apart. S

Sure Ford of Europe was in the front of this styling trend and sure they were doing some "progress" compared to the other brands of the era, BUT it can hardly be called progress when the Ford Sierra of 1982 had a CdA value of 0.67 when from the same manufacturer the Ford Capri of 1978 had CdA of 0.641 and you can find cars from the 60's with 0.22 CdA values!

reference:
Groe Cw-Werte-Sammlung von Autos und ... zum Mitmachen

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by G2TDI

Yeah, but that was exactly my point, those are all fairly recent in the 60-70 year perspective or if you want the 100 year perspective of the history of the car, the ones that have SOME focus on Aero are in the past 2 decades and less, just as I was pointing out.

Well, 3 decades actually starting in the 1970s. The NSU Ro80 started the trend at the end of the 1960s but was let down by poor engine choices. Citroen started with the DS and then the CX in the 1950s-70s. A limitation in this is the technology available to put these cars together.

Originally Posted by G2TDI

I also if you look pointed out the Omega and Calibra from the same era and very similar design as the Senator and Kadett/Astra but those were rather EXCEPTIONS than the norm.

Not really, a lot of cars from that period were designed with Aero in mind - Audi 100/200, 80, 90, Citroen CX, Renault 25, SAAB 9000, Mercedes W124 etc. All of these got close to, if not better than the GM cars. The Calibra was the most aerodynamic production car at the time, and it was a volume product. I just focussed on GM and Ford.

Originally Posted by G2TDI

ALL these cars that you are showing are MODERN rather new cars in the perspective I am talking about! When you are showing cars that are a decade or two old, they've all looked fairly similar when it comes to aerodynamics, globally, but again I am not talking about such "new" cars at all...

But none of those not a single one of them have what I would call extreme focus on Aero, which is now SLOWLY but surely creeping into mainstream, with cars like your Prius etc and "efforts" now finally seen by mainstream to incorporate things like kammbacks into the car designs and sealing up gaps in the car body.

The Insignia has a Cd of 0.27 according to your list, the Prius is 0.26. The Prius is supposedly state of the art in terms of economic design, the Insignia is a mid-range GM 4-door car. The Sierra definitely was extreme at the time.

Originally Posted by G2TDI

I think you are missing the point totally,

I must be

Originally Posted by G2TDI

so I will try to rephrase it. Take the NEWEST models you have posted, and take their general overall design, and I believe you will see that they have VERY LITTLE in common with the cars they "replaced" from the previous decades and have a lot more in common from the rather "early age" of the car as such. 30-40-50's had a lot more rounder and "aero" vehicles than the following decades. So as my thread topic states "In 60 years.." the mainstream auto industry have been at a fairly stand still when it comes to AERO improvements when comparing to other improvements we've seen in the automotive industry!

You would need to give me examples of how they are the same as much earlier periods - maybe this is what I'm missing ?

Originally Posted by G2TDI

Actually even the most modern ones of those you posted do NOT outperform CdA values achieved in the 30-50's my point is, that despite such values having been achieved some 60 years ago we STILL drive (most car owners on the globe currently) cars that are FAR from the achieved values back then....

I think there has to be a difference between production cars and prototypes of some kind - without examples I'm wondering what those might be. Currently people have fuel record prototypes getting extreme figures but they have no practical value outside those competitions.

I love geeking out

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by G2TDI

...

I checked your link, the Sierra was 0.34 - which column are you looking at ?

Which mainstream cars from pre WW2 got better aero than production cars of today ?

EDIT - Escort Mk3 was the world car escort, it was the same. The US just got a 1.9 version of the CVH which Europe didn't, and Europe got the 1.3 rattler OHV, Diesels and a Turbo CVH instead.