it's all about aerodynamics

[aerohead]

If you haven't seen this one it's pretty good, in that the stylists themselves,explain why we won't see really low drag cars.
http://www.autonews.com/article/2012...t-aerodynamics

[gone-ot]

BOATS & FISH "swim" through water (density: 999.97 kg/m^3 ).

AIRPLANES & CARS "fly & drive" through air (density: 1.225 kg/m^3)

[botsapper]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

BOATS & FISH "swim" through water (density: 999.97 kg/m^3 ).

AIRPLANES & CARS "fly & drive" through air (density: 1.225 kg/m^3)

This one can fly AND swim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXchAsxyxjM

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

BOATS & FISH "swim" through water (density: 999.97 kg/m^3 ).

AIRPLANES & CARS "fly & drive" through air (density: 1.225 kg/m^3)

congratulations ....... I have NO EARTHLY idea what any of that means....

[Xist]

Water is denser than air!

[ksa8907]

Ultimately its about what people want. Why buy a 1st gen insight (looks)when you can have a for fusion/chrysler 200/chevrolet malibu?

[MetroMPG]

Kia:

"The whole aero thing, it's kind of like a black art," he says. "There are a few fundamentals we know that will help aerodynamics, but once you get past those things, you have to experiment."

[Vman455]

Funny how it's all these designers always saying aerodynamics are a "black art." Maybe it's because they haven't bothered to learn anything about it?

The whole process is screwed up--

He says designing for aero largely consists of trial and error in the wind tunnel, tweaking the position of, say, the side mirrors, or the height of a rear deck lid, to shave a little off a car's drag coefficient.

When the designers decide what a car will look like, with no regard to aerodynamic efficiency, the only gains possible are minor without disrupting that all-important look. Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot.

"We've been able to do very low-drag designs and retain the hard edges on Cadillacs," Welburn says. "The hard edges on the rear are a huge advantage."

Yeah, let's see here:
-CTS: Cd .29 (CTS-V .36)
-ATS: Cd .299
-ELR: Cd .31
-CT6: none published
-XTS: none published

Looks like you're doing really well with those "very low-drag designs" there, Cadillac. You even had to specify the drag coefficient of the ATS to three decimal places in order to make good on your pre-production claim that it would "start with a two."

Piatti says carmakers "are scared of shocking the customer, and this means cars are going to remain pretty much the same."

That about says it all.

[MobilOne]

Perhaps their reluctance results from the sales disaster of the Chrysler Corp's Airflow designs of the 1930's.

[user removed]

There will be little incentive to really improve aerodynamics until two things happen.

1. The public's "perception" of real aerodynamic improvements is "modified" if that is even possible.

2. Power train designs are much more focused on the ability to actually take advantage of significantly lower drag due to better aero design.

Number two is not easily understood, but when the compounding effect of both systematic improvements is realized and the reality that one can no really succeed without the other can easily be seen, even in today's cars by the manufacturer's refusal to make manual drive trains with out even close to proper overall drive train ratios that would reduce engine rpm by 25-50%.

The really crazy thing is they do it with automatics and cvts, at least to a point.

Drive by wire allows them to eliminate the fear of "lugging" the engine to the point where damage could occur.

regards
mech

edit: apologies to aerohead for the partial thread jack.