Gordon Murray's T27 EV

[NeilBlanchard]

Another point is that the same frontal area can be configured in many ways (tall & narrow ranging to low & wide) but the interior *volume* is not the same for these. A square (or round) frontal area of a given size will, by definition provide more interior volume than a narrow rectangle.

If you consider the passenger space above the floor on the Murray cars, they are nearly square, which means they have more interior space than a low and wide design with the same frontal area.

[tortoise]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Another point is that the same frontal area can be configured in many ways (tall & narrow ranging to low & wide).

Low and narrow beats both. I like a 2 seater with the passenger seat beside, but slightly rear of the front, for shoulder room, like many '20s race cars. Guess I'll have to build it.

[NeilBlanchard]

Low and narrow has less frontal area, sure, but the volume also varies with the proportions of the width and height; and the length too, of course.

The newest VW XL-1 has a staggered tandem seating arrangement; as did the tandem version of the Edison2 VLC. The passenger seat can be moved closer to the driver's seat, because the legs are narrower than the hips...

[niky]

Tall and narrow is how they fit three people within a smaller footprint than a SMART ForTwo. Granted, they could get more aerodynamic with a longer design with a proper tail, but the whole point is to give it the smallest footprint both in terms of wind resistance and road usage, while giving it usable interior space.

Granted, it's possible to design something more fuel efficient and more aerodynamic, but difficult while meeting the same safety and space targets.

[NeilBlanchard]

Gordon Murray's T.25 and T.27 microcars headed for production - Autoblog

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Apart from the not-so-practical canopy, its concept seems to be overall better than the Smart, not just due to its design being more efficient but also more sporty-looking which seems to attract people who see the current eco-cars as not manly enought.

[sheepdog 44]

The Smart fortwo has the same horrible drag coeficient as the VW Beetle, 0.38. Which is why the 1 litre Smarts have lower highway mpg then a 4 person sedan. The T-25 has a smaller frontal area, but i doubt it's CD isn't far off. All that engineering, and little thought to aerodynamics. Thats the only bad thing i have to say about it.

I'm sure it's a fantastic city car.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by sheepdog 44

The Smart fortwo has the same horrible drag coeficient as the VW Beetle, 0.38. Which is why the 1 litre Smarts have lower highway mpg then a 4 person sedan. The T-25 has a smaller frontal area, but i doubt it's CD isn't far off. All that engineering, and little thought to aerodynamics.

Aerodynamics in a shorter vehicle are a higher challenge than it might appear initially, but the T25/T27 seems to be actually better than the Smart regarding this matter.

I'm sure it's a fantastic city car.

Eventually it might still be also not bad in short-to-medium road trips.

[niky]

The Twizy's cd is worse than a Jeep's.

This one might be at around 0.40 or 0.45... they're remarkably coy about it...

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by niky

The Twizy's cd is worse than a Jeep's.

Wasn't its hamster exercise ball shape supposed to improve the aerodynamics?

This one might be at around 0.40 or 0.45... they're remarkably coy about it...

At least in the pictures its cd seems to be lower than the Smart.