Modern Rolls Royce Phantom vs Aerodynamic Coupe
 

We had a Rolls Royce Phantom in one of our latest music video shoots. There is no question it has to be one of the nicest car i have ever seen. To apreciate it you really have to get up close to the car.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7dxk-V3Ij4

http://i315.photobucket.com/albums/l...o/DSC_0296.jpg

http://i315.photobucket.com/albums/l...DSC_0320-1.jpg

The only other Rolls Royce i admire is the 1925 Aerodynamic Coupe but this got me thinking. The Aerodynamic Coupe looks just that, Aerodynamic but looks can be decieveing

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/rol.../25Rolls01.jpg

Just how Aerodynamic is this car compared to the modern Phantom that looks to be very non aerodynamic. Can computer design and wind tunnels get good results despite the un-airodynamic appearance compared to 1930s stile and intuition.

Are we relying on computers too much and not just using intuition to design cars?

That 1930s car doesn't look aerodynamic at all. It looks like it's pretending to be aerodynamic, just like other cars from the period.

If Rolls had access to modern materials and manufacturing techniques in 1930, they could have brought about enormous weight reduction. That would allow a less powerful engine, smaller radiator grille, and smaller, more aerodynamic engine compartment. Add body-integrated headlamps and curved safety glass, and you'd have a rather nice old car. Nobody's going to mistake that thing for a Prius, but I dig the rear wheel skirts and smooth wheel covers.

Nope! Computer-assisted design is responsible for some of the most aerodynamic concepts and HPVs out there. It's just that the new-car-buying public does not demand amazing fuel economy, and values appearance over aerodynamics.