Mary Barra on aerodynamics

[freebeard]

It's a very shallow angle. Once again, it works like this:


https://images.hgmsites.net/lrg/cybe...00726782_l.jpg

Air is migrating around the ends of the ridge. There's nothing to be gained. It would add cost.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Xist

............
I hear great things about attached airflow.

Good one.

Originally Posted by aerohead

....GM Chairman and CEO,Mary Barra made a comment relative to buyers of the BEV pickup,'They don't want something that looks like a science experiment.'

Looks like GM is destined to be a follower and not a leader as long as she's around.

Remember AMC?

They took chances as the underdog, but where are they now?

I don't have her responsibility and she is accountable to so many people, one could have guessed she would error on the side of caution.

[redpoint5]

She has likely erred on the side of profitability. They have a hugely successful pickup line, and they can't go around offending the existing customer base. Wild departures from traditional design is for newcomers, not for established players. The oldtimers incrementally change so their loyal customers don't get shocked.

Reminds me of my grandfather who would get angry at Sheri's and write to corporate about the switch to Applewood Bacon. He'd go from twice a day visits to eating elsewhere for months on end. Whenever the menu changed significantly enough, we'd go through the process of eating elsewhere.

Anyhow, GM has the electronics figured out for EVs/PHEVs. battery tech gets good enough, they are ready to dust off that tech and start cranking out vehicles in volume. I'd say GM is well positioned for the future.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The tonneau alone makes the CT more aero than any other traditional truck.

But you could add that easy to the traditional designs without the dunce cap look of the Cybertruck.

The most detailed models of the Cybertruck and all it's projected greatness show it to be exactly the same as a 2019 Ram 1500 at best. Musk himself said it would take a ton of work to get it to .3 which is only marginally better than the current .36 a Ram has. Certainly a lot of work on the Ram could also hit a .3 as well, and yet still look like a Ram.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The Model 3 sells pretty well despite the unconventional appearance. Tesla achieved a good aesthetic by tossing aside the current trend to over-emphasize the grill. This will become the design trend everyone else follows.

Nissan botched everything from the get-go. They designed an unattractive and un-aerodynamic vehicle, didn't develop thermal management for the hugely costly battery, and then built something with ho-hum performance.

The thing with GM is, they have to fulfill a different niche than Tesla. Their designs can't look too similar otherwise people would just get a Tesla. There's probably a decent market for people that want a conventional looking truck that runs on electricity.

A model 3 looks just like a 5 year old Chrysler 200 or a bunch of older Mazdas. I'd call a model 3 normal, but good looking.

[redpoint5]

We get it, you don't like Tesla, and especially the aesthetics of the CT. You might even be right that people's estimate of the Cd are off quite a bit.

The point of the design wasn't just to maximize range. It's supposed to cost less to manufacture, and is meant to fill an aesthetic different than traditional trucks, which all look the same.

I thought it was hideous when I first saw it, now I would prefer that look. I'm looking forward to exploring logging roads and not worrying about scratching the paint.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

A model 3 looks just like a 5 year old Chrysler 200 or a bunch of older Mazdas. I'd call a model 3 normal, but good looking.

I think I misinterpreted what oilpan was saying. Perhaps he was saying Tesla sells well because it is conventional looking (as opposed to what?).

The Model 3 looks way different from the front though.





My guess is the rear end of a vehicle leaves less on the plate for design when aerodynamics and utility are top priorities.

[Hersbird]

Not way different in the front, just the grille blocked off, otherwise almost a clone.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

We get it, you don't like Tesla, and especially the aesthetics of the CT. You might even be right that people's estimate of the Cd are off quite a bit.

The point of the design wasn't just to maximize range. It's supposed to cost less to manufacture, and is meant to fill an aesthetic different than traditional trucks, which all look the same.

I thought it was hideous when I first saw it, now I would prefer that look. I'm looking forward to exploring logging roads and not worrying about scratching the paint.

But the OP disparaged the GM chief with the guess that the only way to make something aerodynamic would be to follow Teslas pattern. I think you are also projecting as to why the Cybertruck looks like it does. It may have nothing to do with costs or ease of building, or strength, or aerodynamics. Musk may have literally been stoned and sketched something on a napkin at dinner and said, "Give these assholes this! You know I hate F-ing trucks!" so they built a prototype and threw out some possible dream numbers. My theory is as good as anyone else's. I do like the Cybertruck if it is delivered on time with all the features promised at the price listed. I also like any other makers delivering what they promise. Even better when they deliver more than promised sooner than promised.

[freebeard]

My theory is as good as anyone else's.

My theory is that it's not [as good as...]

It assumes that getting stoned and sketching something on a napkin can not be as consequential as Ben Pon's microbus. For one thing.

For another the 'they' he threw it to are stacking rings of 30x stainless in Boca Chica right now.

You can argue Cd all you want but the equation has an A as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLvopc9oI4A

I never new there were so many pickup truck to choose from.