Front fender skirt cars need active suspension to compensate narrower track width?
 

IMO we won't see any production cars, nor even limited production cars, with both front and rear fender skirts like those you see in movies about the future unless cars get some active suspension to compensate their narrower track (width among tire centers).

Even a small decrease in track can have hugely detrimental consequences on handling, comfort and even safety.
Smaller wheels would not be feasible IMO as current and future economic crises result in poorly maintained roads all over the world.

Probably they will even need an active suspension capable of leaning into corners.

skirts
 

Rear skirts have already been included in production automobiles for decades.And articulated front 'spats' are currently in service with production intercity buses.Las Vegas,Nevada has a 'Cervis' bus(I believe it's called) with the articulated front spats.Hucho's book depicts some which have been in service in Europe.
If auto shows and car clinics are bombarded with money-toting consumers who scream for these things I suspect that we'll see them sooner than later.
They're also a potential path to the more challenging CAFE standards which are upcoming.

Narrower track width isn't needed. It's far easier to make the skirt get out of the way than it is to futz with the suspension.

I have mused over the idea of having my cars front end narrowed. Body work that is.
So as to give the cars side profile a sweeping curve to the rear.
Similar to the old hot rod beetles without its front fenders.

I'm not sure what you mean by "active suspension to compensate their narrower track"? Regardless, the variation in track between models from different manufacturers even in the same size class, let alone between different classes, indicates the opposite: it does not appear to have significant safety or handling ramifications, or my Civic (front track: 57.8 inches) would be inherently unsafer than my old 2002 Viper (front track: 59.8 inches). Also, on high-performance cars like that Viper, the rear track is more than an inch wider than the front, suggesting that a lower front-to-rear ratio is not only feasible, but desirable sometimes for performance reasons. I think the real reasons we don't see front skirts on production cars are the same as why we don't see rear skirts anymore: cost, ease of maintenance, and, perhaps most importantly, looks.

Narrowing track width of an existing car would certainly render the suspension geometry created by the manufacturer useless. However, active suspension is not necessary when considering doing your own, new suspension geometry. Suspension geometry is designed around your tire of choice, aerodynamics, and chosen dimensions of the car. (Seems backwards, considering we change to different tires on our road cars all the time... doesn't mean it's the best solution.)

Check out the Nissan Delta Car

Although rather unconventional considering the common racecar methodology, it works well, and is also quite competitive!

several thoughts.
1. potentially as frank lee suggested, it is much easier to design 'adaptive skirts' similar like the technology in adaptiver grille blocks.
2. Bmw is using air as a way to reduce drag over the tire on the 1 series (previously threaded)
3. the greatest problem is consumers removing items. The factory front belly pans come to mind. part of automotive design which is often overlooked is 'consumerablilty'

Is it really? Since track is measured from the center of the wheel (or tire?), often cars with "staggered" tires have narrower tracks in the rear than in the front--sometimes even if the rear wheels stick out further than the front!

-soD

Huh, I thought it was measured from the hub myself:confused: 60.9" rear/59.8" front for the 2nd gens. The dish was the same front and rear on the stock wheels.

the rear is narrower by 1.9 inches..........

viper 2002-2006

Wheelbase 98.8 (2,510)
Track, Front 62.9 (1,598)
Track, Rear 61.0 (1,550)

Viper Specifications and Sizes: 2003-2006 and 2013-?2013 Viper specifications, sizes, and such
ENGINE: 8.4-LITER V-10
Type and Description 10-cylinder, 90-degree V-type, liquid-cooled, 8.4 liter
Bore x Stroke 4.055 x 3.96 (103 x 100.6)
Flywheel Low-inertia aluminum with steel wear surface
Intake Three-piece shell molded, vibration-welded composite for improved flow, reduced weight and improved thermal performance
Valve System OHV, variable-valve timing (VVT), 20 valves, roller-type hydraulic lifters
Construction Aluminum-alloy block with cast-iron liners, forged-aluminum pistons, forged-steel crankshaft, aluminum-alloy heads
Compression Ratio 10.2:1
Power (SAE net) 640 bhp (477 kW) @ 6,150 rpm (76 bhp/L)
Torque (SAE net) 600 lb.-ft. (814 Nm) @ 4,950 rpm (the sign on the engine display reads 4,200 rpm and 813 Nm)
Max. Engine Speed 6,400 rpm (fuel cutoff)
Fuel Requirement Unleaded premium (91 Octane (R+M)/2)
Capacity 11 quarters (10.4 liters) of oil, with filter; 16 quarters (15 liters) of coolant

Alternator 180-amp high-speed


Transmission Synchronized in all gears, electronic 1-4 skip-shift and reverse lockout mechanisms
1st 2.26
2nd 1.58
3rd 1.19
4th 1.00
5th 0.77
6th 0.63
Axle Ratio 3.55
Overall Top-gear 2.24

Axle Frame-mounted hypoid bevel gear with GKN ViscoLok speed-sensing limited-slip differential; 3.55:1

Wheelbase 98.8 (2,510)
Track, Front 62.9 (1,598)
Track, Rear 61.0 (1,550) Overall Length 175.7 (4,463)
Overall Width 76.4 (1,941)