Why have the Automakers refused the boat tail design?
 

Just wondering what peoples opinions were on why automakers have not started adding boat tails? Seems like it would be a low hanging fruit to increase FE without adding much cost or retooling.

Could it be the marketing gurus objections?

Problems parking a whale tail in the supermarket lot?

Reluctance to change? I remember the huge, non functioanl tail fins from the 50's & 60's?

Why not start a new trend here and actually change the worlds dependance on fossil fuel.

I was hoping some folks from the industry could shed light on this question.

Mainly because fe is so far down on the list of priorities. Heck, $4 gas is BARELY able to get people out of sub-20mpg pickups and SUVs... and for many, fuel expenses aren't the biggest operating expense after the loan, insurance, repairs, and such are combined. We will probably have to wait for much higher fuel prices and/or a "worse" economy (in quotes because in spite of all the media hype and water cooler talk, a look around reveals quite a lot more people than ever before enjoying the trappings of wealth than the sufferings of hardship) and/or some sort of catastrophic event to see a widespread attitude shift that values fuel efficiency.

People are still in ego-driven mode, that is, logic isn't the dominant factor in their vehicle selection; what they think will impress the opposite sex or the people at church is still the biggest factor. Current mass psychology favors aggression over efficiency.

In talking to a guy that was curious of my Songi electric bike, I pointed to a nearby SUV and mentioned that to drive that thing downtown (less than a mile from where we were) and back would cost over a dollar... you could tell by the look on the guy's face that the notion of cents/mile cost had never entered his consciousness before in his life... and even when it did, he was rationalizing how to justify paying over a buck to go a distance easily and quickly walked... :rolleyes:

For vehicles that make fuel efficiency a highly visible priority (Insight, Prius, VW L1) I think the tails could be longer but for sure there was an analysis of the pros and cons of such a move like parkability/garagability vs the incremental fe gain. The bias will change in favor of longer tails AFTER the consumer indicates they accept it and vote that it's worth it by buying such a design, or when there gets to be competition among manufacturers to have the slipperiest design, or something.

Some things are not done mainly because they don't really show up on the EPA mpg testing. :mad:

Frank, I gotta say, you're rational and excellent response leaves me wondering...Who are you and what have you done with the real Frank Lee?

Your responses in the past tended toward being rather biting and short worded but always conveyed a real intelligence at work. Lately though you expound more, and I have to say, are a joy to hear from. A very nice change indeed. Just my 2¢, FWIW. You have a full measure of respect from me.

Despite their fuel saving abilities, there are a few practical issues with boattails, too.

It's a lot longer.

Loading stuff in the rear of a boattail would put a lot of weight far aft of the rear axle, which is bad for stability. A long boot is fine, but you need to be able to get to the forward end of it to really use it.

Towing is effectively out - the hitch would need to be far forward under the tail, leading to long booms to get to the hitch. Clearance would become an issue. Putting the hitch at the aft end of the tail is completely out, the moment arm during swaying would seriously upset vehicle stability.

A boattail adds weight.


At least in NEDC, Europe's official fuel consumption numbers, it brings nothing as these tests are done on a dyno, not on the road so aerodynamics play no role.

My vehicle was selected because it got decent mileage for being an auto with 4 doors and still looking very sharp to all people whether they cared about mileage or not. Lets face it no one is going to know it has a 4 banger in it until we go to race which I would never put myself in such a situation with this particular 4banger for being an auto

If car manufacturers made something to the "best" of the specific cars abilities, then they have nothing to sell... They make a product based on the needs and style of today/and the near future, where car trends and manufacturers "think" the road is going to lead too. We as a consumer in our entirety Really determine where the market goes...
They Price what we pay based on what were Willing to pay For.

They make profit over the smallest things that "add" to the overall efficiency, or convenience of there Base Product creating the illusion that efficiency is an ongoing developement. (where we know it exist for YEARS, and is fairly easy to empliment) In a country where the ideaology is (go big or go home), nobody wants just an (effiecient car) to handle everyday needs, they Want the "Wants" and have to, have everything. We dont need some things, but in those (once in a life-time situations) we like to have the capability(cause its Cool) and the manufacturers can create that in no time instead...

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.

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

How many people really tow with their car?

I think Frank hit it best Gas is cheap and people do not really car about MPG. Look at how many drive around in big SUV's and trucks everyday.

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

Gas doesn't seem cheap when you bought it for 19 cents a gallon. I guess people just don't see $4 a gallon as expensive anymore, must be that I am getting close to 62 in a few months. Looks like I can cover 210 miles on about $8.40 on the bike. About 4 cents a mile compared to less than a penny 45 years ago. I guess when you consider I was working 40 hours a week for under $23 take home pay in the summer of 1969 and gas was 32 cents a gallon, it would be the equilivant of minimum wage today.

It just baffles me that people drive anything that gets 12 MPG these days. Just grab a roll of quarters and throw one out the window every mile the odometer clicks off. Now add another nickel for the recent hike in prices.

That's $60 a week instead of my $8.40. There is a lot you can do with $51.60 a week besides paying those who hate us to do us harm.

regards
Mech

Not quite as old as you but yes I remeber the days of cheap gas to. But in the big picture $4 is still cheap. Every thing cost more since I was a kid.