Why have the Automakers refused the boat tail design?

[ksa8907]

Cheapest gas I've ever seen was 89¢ a gallon and I was in a car seat. Cheapest I ever bought was $1.99 when the market crashed in '08.

But back to the topic, because people don't want them. But designers are compromising, notice the rear hatches on new suv's? Also, truck tail gates have a small extension on them now. On a side note, the new '13 ram will have start/stop among other goodies, possible mid 20's combined score.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by ron22

There is no reason that the rear axle could not have a much narrower track and be farther back in the tail.

Like this!

[niky]

I think it's safe to say that most consumers value form over function. That gives us 18-20 inch wheels on cars that will never attack a corner in anger and belt lines so high that to actually see traffic lights or gutters, you have to stick your head out the side window... If your head fits.

A lot of people are already reluctant to switch to hybrids because they "look stupid", with the aero-efficient shape applied to a relatively conservative two-box design. Imagine trying to get those poeple into something at looks even more unusual than a Prius hatchback or a Volt?

[Sven7]

Originally Posted by JethroBodine

There are less than 10 boat tails on this forum with 1,400 active members. That's less than .8% where pretty much everyone is concerned with fuel economy.

If a boattail were a $1500 option on a new hatchback and put you from 40mpg to 50 while your friends and enemies talk behind your back, would you buy it?

If a boattail were to cost you $500+ and take 200 hours of fairly skilled labor and body work while alienating you from your regular social groups, would you do it?

If a boattail were to be cobbled together (no offense to anyone) from random cheap or free materials while displaying a surface finish akin to a spray painted rock, who but we FE nuts is going to want it on their cars? We do because we understand the implications. Most people wouldn't be caught dead.

The fact is that to make a really quality looking boat tail (hat tip to 3Wheeler) you are looking at some SERIOUS time and money investment for a few extra MPG. The only way I see this working out for people is if:

1. You buy it new from the OEM designed to "work" with the car and removable when not needed, ie, a different hatch on your hatchback, seeing it as a ten year investment.

2. Make it fashionable like it was in the 30's...

Originally Posted by ron22

People buy what they think looks good. Get enough scifi movies to have them in and maybe people will think they are cool.

Exactly. Cars are on the downturn right now as a hobby and people don't really look up to them for inspiration. Educate people and make economy something desirable- and for Dog's sake stop calling it "economy"! It sounds so cheap, like you're buying silverware from Goodwill! To make boat tails acceptable they're going to need a pretty substantial media spin.

You'll also need lots of accountability on aero claims. As we saw in the 80's (well you did, I was a baby) lots of companies like to make big claims or to put up a facade of progress while keeping things status quo. It's easier for them that way. You can't slide backward into better aesthetics and worse design/aero. You can't rely on EFI and engine shutoff to save your butt.

Right now, you can rely on consumers to blindly trust their emotional reactions.

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by JethroBodine

There are less than 10 boat tails on this forum with 1,400 active members. That's less than .8% where pretty much everyone is concerned with fuel economy.

BRAVO!!!!
It is stating the obvious but VERY spot on!

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by Vman455

Like this!

oh yeah, that car!
I see hundreds of those a day.........

example:

Back in the 80's, chrysler got a bad rating on the Omni (built to bring the company out of bankruptcy) becasue when consumer report JERKED the steering wheel back and forth, the car continued to oscolate(sp) back and forth.
Chysler said it was an unfair test because:
1. No one drove like that
2. The light weight front wheel drive w/ uneven axles where inherently less stable than rear wheel drive cars that the test was designed for.
Consumer report said:
In the rare 'emergency' a consumer would perform that manuver.

I promise you that "RANDOMLY" narrowing the rear will have unintended negative results.
The car in the picture could not servive the lowest comon consumer.

Example: my 1999 Jag Vanden Plas had a stretched body (7-8 inches in the passenger floor board) I could feel the difference when turning on the rear tires.

SOme here may find this hard to believe but there actually is science and engineering that goes into every part of car design.......Things are where they are for a reason. (physics, marketing, regulations, dynamics, aero etc)

[Sven7]

Remember that those are not yet available in the US. And they have a very low center of gravity, making the width not such a problem. Do you think people have trouble driving kei cars around in Japan? I haven't seen dimensional specs on the XL1 but would bet it's not wider than Japan's ubiquitous city cars. Look at the coveted Autozam (Mazda) AZ-1

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by mcrews

oh yeah, that car!
I see hundreds of those a day.........

It's not on sale yet, and still undergoing testing: 2014 Volkswagen XL1 Caught Testing - First VW XL1 Production Mule Photos - RoadandTrack.com

[shovel]

It's not that they don't make "boat-like" tails, it's that manufacturers can't always get people to buy them. Many of the 70s and 80s hatchbacks have awful reputations these days, because some sort of negativity got associated with them and it stuck. The Ford Pinto for example is synonymous with bad reputation because it got stuck in the public's mindset that closing the door too fast would make it blow a crater in the earth... but for its day it was a pretty aerosleek car. I grew up with Pintos (parents had four, I had two more) and not only did none of us die (I was in the car for two hard collisions, we were not injured and there were no fires) - they were fantastic workhorse cars that did quite well on carbureted 1.6L and 2.0L 4cyls.


What else was relatively slippery in the back? This thing was designed with the idea of being slippery, and went a step farther than the Pinto by curving inward in three dimensions - from the sides as well as the roof line. But they were "too dorky" apparently, so again like the Pinto, hated and seen as a joke.


The 80s were like the decade of the hatchback, with all sorts of non-square-backed hatches that may not have been boat tails exactly but had an anachronistic slope to their hatch we barely see anymore - but because they seem endlessly associated with pimple-faced pizza delivery guys and such they'd be a tough sell today:

(kinda has a prius-like profile)


^ that was my first horse... a little vanity here if you'll indulge me

Pontiac tried to aero the tail end of a minivan, but like the Pinto, the Pacer, the Scirocco, the Escort.... the Aztek was a highly functional car that everyone decided they hated because to the buying public automotive coolness is inversely proportional to practicality.

It's not as though there is zero boat action going on today though, many of the newest hot hatches are finishing a bit narrower in the greenhouse than the windshield - leaving the car itself short and easy to park, the cargo area tall enough to easily access and fill, enough head room in the back... yeah it's not a basjoos or anything but it's not ignorant of aero:


I don't think we'll see a full on submarine for the road... cities aren't getting any more spacious and while a few people are willing to make boat tail compromises, it would be naive to deny that the compromises exist.

[DonBarletta]

This question could just as easily be stated, "Why don't manufacturers make ____ ?" And you fill in the blank.

Manufacturers state that it costs them millions to bring a new vehicle to market. And no matter how many methods they have to make vehicles more fuel efficient, lighter, lower cost, or whatever you particular desire might be -- the bottom line is that car manufacturers are in business to sell the most vehicles and to make as much money as possible.

So they are typically very conservative, adverse to risk, and inclined to only make cars that would hopefully have mainstream appeal and generate massive profits.

Otherwise manufacturers would be making the Aptera, or a VW 1-Liter type car, or perhaps a clone of one of the winners of the Progressive Automotive X-Prize competition of recent years.

For the most part, for all of us ecomodders, we should NOT look to auto manufacturers to make anything of any signifigance relevant to our interests in our lifetime.