Building a 100mpg consumer vehicle

[pete c]

Originally Posted by euromodder

Did being nice go up in price - or in flames ?

Yes.

No worries though, I take paypal and offer moderator discounts.

[pete c]

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

I'm not really an aero guy, but I wonder if there would be any benefit to taking the air from those side vents and sending out the tail via an internal duct. I wonder if that would increase the low pressure in the wake of the vehicle. Just an idea...

I'm even less of an aero guy, but, my guess is disrupting the air along those nice smooth sides (which, in my opinion look very nice without scoops) and dumping it into the vacuum at the rear is a net loss.

I think continuing the lines to a sharp boat tail would look cool and give you a smidge more rear storage. Hell, might as well just finish it off '59 caddy tail fin style!!!

And yes, that is how I'll build mine.....if I ever get off my lazy butt and build one.

[Frank Lee]

We have discussions on "aero ducting" here.

[pete c]

Was checking out your mid engine civic powered doug buggies. Very nice.

Are they solely for off road use?

If they could be street legal, I would think a shortened 2 passenger roadster style one might get you close to your goals. And it would be a blast to drive.

[drmiller100]

Pete let the rest of us know when you are done posting drivel and wasting electrons.

[pete c]

that could be a long wait, doug.

[Gfleisch]

Originally Posted by drmiller100

I do better when people politely ask questions.

When someone says "you can't do that - engineers have not approved it", or "You must use cast iron roll bars" or "you should have used a motorcycle with no heater, no AC, no reverse and made it 3 feet longer and your project is all wrong" it annoys me.

In terms of length a front engine car setup is about as short as you can get. The engine is in front of the front wheels.

[pete c]

Originally Posted by Gfleisch

In terms of length a front engine car setup is about as short as you can get. The engine is in front of the front wheels.

maybe, maybe not.

in the case of a reverse trike set up for very low drag, it's gonna be kind of tadpole shaped. If the engine is in the rear (a narrow MC engine) the tail of the tadpole can be filled by engine. This means the seats can move forward And frontal area can be reduced a fair bit.

I believe it's a wash, pretty much lengthwise.

[Gfleisch]

Hi Pete. You're right. For the teardrop shape the rear engine allows you to get the seats a little further forward. Nothing wrong with the rear engine design but you are building more from scratch in terms of AC, Heat, reverse and the ability to remove the wheel like a car wheel.

[Ken Fry]

Originally Posted by pete c

maybe, maybe not.

in the case of a reverse trike set up for very low drag, it's gonna be kind of tadpole shaped. If the engine is in the rear (a narrow MC engine) the tail of the tadpole can be filled by engine. This means the seats can move forward And frontal area can be reduced a fair bit.

I believe it's a wash, pretty much lengthwise.

I agree. For simplicity, the Zing POC is rear motored. The next one will be front motored, and the length doesn't change much from the motor location issue. (It does change, of course, from the addition of another seat.) It's always better to have most of the weight on the drive wheel(s). A center drive wheel is especially dicey on snowy roads, giving the rear wheel neither driving nor cornering traction, with potentially pretty good front wheel traction (because the snow tends to pile up in the center of the lane.) This is the reason Aptera did not recommend the first version for mountain roads.