Why don't vehicles have aerofoils to partially take the weight of the car?

[aerohead]

That's been addressed in 'Driving on the Moon'.
I believe that the premise behind Virgin's 'hyperloop' is predicated upon this 'technology.'
'Hyperloop' originated inside the mind of Elon Musk, certainly a fella with a track record of never having any useful ideas.
And of course, 'hyperloop' was first completely financed, constructed, tested, and profiting, before it was ever patented, and mentioned as an idea.

[AeroMcAeroFace]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

Maybe because I'm lazy. Since I've joined Ecomodder about the only "ecomod" I ever did was I added a grid plate underneath a carburetor and rebuilt an engine trying to make every eco-friendly choice I could within a budget. My current cars, the Avalon and the Prius, are unmodded, except a lousy OEM block heater on the Avalon and a few grill blocks I've had on three different cars that I don't notice do anything except cause the engine to overheat once I go out of town on the highway.

Another thing too is that I've started a couple of aeromods before and my wife didn't like what I was doing. She doesn't want to drive around in a vehicle that's got a boat tail or wings on it. Maybe once I get the Prius running I'll start modding it. But then again, we always go out of town on the highway together in the same car. Around town the speed limit is 25mph townwide except the 35mph main highway that runs through it. So any aeromods or wings would be pretty much useless, other than to take once on the highway just to try to prove a point and nothing else.

I don't ecomod, purely because it isn't worth it financially, any "aero" mods mean that I turn into an insurance liability, and given the amount of driving I do it would never be worth it financially. The eco in eco mod could stand for economical modding. Basjoos certainly saved money with the aerocivic.

Just because you don't mod yourself doesn't mean your opinions are worthless.

Theoretical discussions aren't worth the electrons they are written on.

Don't take part if you don't want to, we are all here voluntarily. If you feel you must take part then the discussions therefore aren't worthless.

[Isaac Zachary]

One thing to keep in mind, after looking at the differences between the latest NASCAR rules and the previous generation, is that modding cars to make use of aerodynamic can affect cars that are close by. The last NASCAR cars were curved on one side and flat on the other, creating an airfoil effect. Basically, since the cars turn in one direction, and having the body shaped in a certain way helped the car turn always to the left. But that also was giving other cars an aerodynamic advantage since a car that would try to pass another car would have it's aerodynamic flows affected not giving it the same effect. So NASCAR recently eliminated that rule in favor of symmetrically shaped cars.

[freebeard]

Now that's some lateral [on-topic] thinking.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

That's incorrect.

Look I know in your world black is white if you say so, but the US patent office specifically states that you cannot patent an idea.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

I don't think good or even proven ideas always make it into actual production cars. In the end, all manufacturers want to do is make a vehicle that's close enough to what people want in order to sell it and make money.

An example of this is the Aptera. Lots of people here have complained about how they don't like the looks of the Aptera. We know boat tails work, but people don't want them.

There are even a lot of people who don't like the shape of the Prius just because it doesn't look like a normal car.

Car manufacturers are pushing for "coupe" SUVs and CUVs because they are now aerodynamic than the typical box-butt SUV or CUV. But there are probably a lot of people who don't like that either.

Now add a bunch of airfoils on a vehicle so that it lofts party if the weight off the ground... Who wants a car that looks like it was built by a mad scientist.

I would... That's one person in 8 billion. And I'm not a new car buyer.

It's easy to get a lot of lift on a car, and if having a lot of lift gave reduced fuel consumption without downsides then manufacturers would be falling over themselves to implement it. No need for a bunch of airfoils.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

J
21) evidence of any self-attributed 'intellectual rigor', in possession of Julian Edgar, will be lost on anyone unfortunate enough to own a copy of his book on aerodynamic modification of road cars. Some of the logic-reversals are of epic proportions.

Well, you can believe Aerohead on Ecomodder, or you can believe multiple, real aerodynamic experts who read the book, gave feedback on the book, and subsequently endorsed the book.

It takes someone with a gargantuan ego to think they know more than professional car company aerodynamacists, a professor of aerodynamics, an F1 aerodynamicist, etc. I certainly don't, that's for sure.

[j-c-c]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

Look, you wrote something that is pretty silly:



A moment of thought shows that anyone who does this is going to spend their life embracing an infinite amount of rubbish.

Most people let your sort of comment pass (just like they do with: "there are no stupid questions") but if people keep spouting garbage and no one challenges, then it just goes on and on.

I showed the silliness of that notion very easily with my moon/cheese example. If you can't see that, that's fine: keep voraciously chasing mirages. But for me, and most people I professionally deal with, that would be a waste of a seriously finite life.

Instead it is far better to say, "When confronted with a new idea, I ask for the evidence for that idea, and then weigh that evidence up carefully".

[Shrug] I can see lots of stuff here that has taken on a life of its own over the years (eg The Template), where there was a severe lack of evidence but it was adopted wholeheartedly* - so maybe what you say is of no surprise.

*Yes Freebeard, I know you occasionally demurred.

I just see so much rubbish circulated re car aerodynamics that one starts to wonder what intellectual rigor (propositions; evidence for those) people are actually applying. Usually, very little or none, I think.

If you can't understand the difference between "embracing" and "open", this discussion is rather pointless.

But I do have a "silly" idea, you really do understand the difference, and why you are resorting to pejoratives, because you are unable to back away from your original contentious unsupported statement that "ideas alone are worthless", and that is not a shortcoming I share. You have proven that inability rather well, I concede.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by j-c-c

If you can't understand the difference between "embracing" and "open", this discussion is rather pointless.

But I do have a "silly" idea, you really do understand the difference, and why you are resorting to pejoratives, because you are unable to back away from your original contentious unsupported statement that "ideas alone are worthless", and that is not a shortcoming I share. You have proven that inability rather well, I concede.

Why would I want to back away? You keep saying that as if I am suddenly going to see the light you purportedly espouse.

I think ideas without evidence (as I said: ideas alone) are worthless.

There is literally an infinite number of ideas that people can have, and the way most people sort out the ones to follow is when the ideas are supported by evidence.

That all seems to me to be stating the bleeding obvious.

But if you want to be open to all ideas, go for it. I'll ignore the ones for which there is no evidence.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

Look I know in your world black is white if you say so, but the US patent office specifically states that you cannot patent an idea.

Here's a example:
1) Nikola Tesla gets an idea for an Alternating Current power generation distribution network to compete against Edison's DC system.
2) The idea is a complete scientific abstraction. It's never been done before.
3) To actualize the concept will require millions of dollars, something Tesla doesn't have.
4) J.P. Morgan, smelling $ hundreds of millions in profits, underwrites the legal fees for U.S. and International Patents, to protect J.P. Morgan and Tesla against infringement.
5) The U.S. Patent Office grants the patent for the 'idea.'
6) Now protected against piracy of their intellectual property, J.P. Morgan opens his purse strings to, research, develop, construct, and commercialize the AC power industry.
It was all just an idea. Very few people on Earth could even grasp the concept of alternating current, let alone, drop a few million dollars to 'explore' the idea.
A contemporary example is Tesla's 'one-piece' automotive metal castings. A patented idea.