Mary Barra on aerodynamics
 

In the March,2020 issue of MOTOR TREND,page 28,in an interview discussing General Motor's upcoming,2021 BEV SUVs and pickups,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.'
Obviously,her experts at the Aerodynamics Lab failed to send the memo explaining that the 'science experiment' look would be the performance edge GM won't be able compensate for,without building a truck which looks remarkably like Cybertruck.Extreme irony,in light of Aero-X,Citation,Sunraycer,Impact,Centaur,Ultralite,EV1 land speed record car,Precept,etc.. Pity!

I think tesla and Nissan proved people want regular looking cars although the leaf is kinda funny looking.

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.

The over emphasis on the grile makes me avoid those years.

I think Tesla stole the low stagnation point front end design from the VW Beetle. :)

I still think you are projecting good aerodynamics onto the Cybertruck. I bet a 2020 Silverado is already better, a 2020 Ram even more better. There are certainly things that could improve the Cybertruck and some of those things would also make it look more traditional.

I think it's baked into the architecture. The front chamfers and longitudinal edges are way better than the stylizations and flat cab-backs of those legacy designs.

I think that the original Leaf was supposed to look quirky, as if that would appeal to people.

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

I know that everyone thinks that the top corner is a strength, but if they rolled a curve into the top, they could make air flow in an attached manner.

I hear great things about attached airflow.

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

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

Good one. :D

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.

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.

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.

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.

https://s.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/ada...ler-200-fd.jpg
https://cdn2.autoexpress.co.uk/sites...?itok=BLwb4ClG

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.

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.

https://cars.usnews.com/static/image..._frontview.jpg

https://www.motortrend.com/uploads/s...ound%7C875:492

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

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

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.

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.

Your theory isn't as good as anyone else's. There's very little that's done haphazardly in the automotive world. A reason must exist for a design decision to be reached. We've heard from engineering experts who say that the design may reduce the cost to manufacture. Your pipe dream theory is not as good as that theory.

It remains to be seen if the design has merit, or will prove to be a disaster. My guess is that it will have some strengths and some weaknesses, just like anything else.

It looks like it has the same frontal aera as a standard 1500 US pickup. Bigger than the compacts, smaller than the commercial 2 and 3 tons.

The basis of it's strength is two triangular trusses buttressed by four monocoque box abutments. It's built like a bridge.

The exterior cladding is superficial. And low-cost.

I thought Tesla did things differently, like haphazardly stoned texting and running amok of the FTC.

I'm right there with you on the Trumpian type Tweets. Musk and Trump have some serious character flaws, but they have some incredible character advantages too. Perhaps I have sympathy because I share some characteristics where I'll blurt something out and spectacularly fail. Perhaps being willing to put yourself out there is a prerequisite to spectacular success.

Nobody does 100% of things wrong, and for their successes they should be commended.

that little mouse car?

they should just call it the Nissan Mouse

GM has .34 SUVs since 2008 hybrid trim only*

0.34 was standard on the '15+ model

they all have the same honda civic 2007 design
like a van but a car

I sold auto parts for 10 years with many farm accounts. There are fierce loyalties around truck brands based on performance. Towing capacity, off-road prowess, and fuel mileage are chief talking points. The Cyber truck is not considered in the same bracket as the 3/4 ton models. It reminds me more of the 4 cyl. Dodge Rampages based on the Omni/Horizon models. The CdA is the number to compare. I expect to see diesel electric hybrids as the competition in the truck markets intensifies.

I don't care what they call it. It was cheap doesn't need gasoline or oil changes.

The point is the aerodynamics; not the aesthetics. Mary Barra is completely wrong-headed by equating low aero drag with ugly.

The Tesla Model 3 is the lowest drag vehicle sold at the moment, and people accept its differences - and most think it is great looking.

The Tesla CYBRTRK is (probably) the lowest aero drag pickup to be built in a factory, and it's range performance looks to be at the top of what is possible; at a given price point.

The electric pickup truck market has finally begun. Rivian was the first to show a viable vehicle - and they have had to lower their target price, in reaction to the CYBRTRK. Bollinger, and now Ford and GM (and possibly Lordstown Motors, and others) are all making serious efforts to get into this important market.

As I said, GM has to retain their existing customer base. Even if they engineer an aero truck that looks good, it can't be too radical a departure from their existing aesthetic or they risk alienating their customer base.

I've got practically no knowledge of business strategy, but I always thought it would have been smart to spin off another brand for the EV line. That way you free up the brand to be innovative and not have to worry about existing customer base. Also, there'd be no confusion as to which vehicles are electric, and which are not. It would be divided by brand, not by fine-print.

Possibly their not stellar attempt with en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Corporation?

Score-and-fold was quick and easy for the prototype. I wonder what might be different by the time the production line rolls. Hydroforming comes to mind. I watched this, this morning:

SpaceX Pops Out Starship's Buckled Steel (Time Lapse).

IDK if rolling the longitudinal edges would help or hurt the re-attachment of the vortexes that control the airflow.

I don't know what distinguished the Saturn line that caused GM to want to spin it off. Plastic body panels?

Anyhow, EV is enough different that it deserves its own brand. At least, it has to be more different than whatever set the Saturn line apart from other GM brands. Heck, GM needs to retire some of their brands like Buick and GMC.

But as pointed out, the model 3 is downright normal looking. It's the best aero because it doesn't need cooling. Make the 2015 Chryler 200 and EV, block the grille off and I bet it's super close size and aero to the model 3. I do agree it is good looking, I have long thought the 2015 Chrylser 200 was the best looking car Chrysler had put out since at least the 50s.

Right - aerodynamics are separate from styling. Barra's argument is a bit of a straw man.

The Magnum has the better roofline and rear hatch, IMHO.

Well I'm picky as to a Chrysler being a Chrysler. A agree there have been a lot of good looking Dodges, and going back to the 70s even better looking Plymouths.

Tell Mom! :)

Xist's Mom: Xist really tries, bless his heart.