Why are new cars so TALL ?
 

Just wondering why it is that new cars are so tall.
The average small car today has a height of around 60", while small cars such as the Honda Civic from the early nineties had a height approaching 10" below that figure. ( 50.7" )

Why such a tremendous increase in height ? I realize that Americans keep getting larger, but this is usually seen in the gut area versus their height.
Small cars are growing more tall than wide. An example being the Aveo, which is actually 8" slimmer than the '93 Civic, yet is also around 8" taller.

Cuz women and short guys like to try to tower over other traffic.

And the popularity of SUVs, PUs, and Xovers.

And the less flexible aging population.

And Robert Cumberford's insistance of the desireability of wearing a 10-gallon hat while driving. :rolleyes:

And today is the anti-'60s.

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...oI_resized.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...d57ede347a.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...1775-500-0.jpg

Now that you said that, I have to try it.... (now where can I find a hat like that from up here?)


Taller cars are more space efficient, and give the feeling that the car is bigger than it really is. And, of course, automakers trying to pry people off SUVs. My Vibe is a bit taller than my step-moms Corolla, yet the overall shape of my Vibe is much more like the teardrop template than the Corolla.

For one thing, you get a lot more legroom when sitting upright. And you can fit more/taller people in a given length car when the seating position is upright. It has more volume than a shorter car of the same length. As a tall person (I'm 6'-4") I am not able to sit comfortably in many cars much larger than my little Scion xA. My sister had a Legacy a while back, and I needed a shoehorn just to fit, and since it was a standard I don't think I could have driven it at all...

And yes, the visibility out of the car is helped when you see over the hoods of the SUV's/minivans/etc.

I own an '09 Aveo, and I don't think it is much slimmer if you are factoring in the side mirrors. Yes, it is taller as I can attest from washing it. :rolleyes: It also stands higher off the ground than a Fit or a Yaris, which is desirable to some of us as we get older. (I and my wife aren't getting taller or fatter, but we are getting older.) One reason I bought it is that it is easier to get in an out of a car that stands higher; also it is less likely to bottom out on driveways and bad roads.

It seems it is just the trend in recent years to make small cars resemble bigger cars or look bigger than they actually are. This is especially true in American auto design.

It's probably about fashion and appealing to what people wanna be or
pretend to be... ("Big hat, no cattle"?) :p

You can also get more legroom and volume by lengthening a low vehicle. Then the frontal area gets to stay small, and it's easier to design in a smaller wake area.

Cd -

I agree with KITT222 that you get more interior volume with taller cars, but I don't like the "tall" proportions of today's cars. One of the reasons I liked the 1st-Gen Pontiac Vibe was that you could get it with an unpainted lower section. For me that made it appear as if the Vibe wasn't as tall as it was, and got away from that "wash of metal" I like to complain about.

But I like what Frank said even more, that the aero benefits too.

CarloSW2

It does get a little silly some times though...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...t_20080302.jpg

Look at it this way.

If you want to lower the roof line and still accommodate the same height passengers, then you have to tilt them - and that results in a longer chasiss, longer doors and a longer roof - all of which add weight - and more weight than would be saved by using a lower roof.

And as we all know, reducing weight probably has the largest effect on fuel economy.

The height of the Tata Nano and the Smart drive me crazy when i see all that frontal area.

I agree that it's a visibility thing.

I think people just need to man up and learn to drive their vehicles without seeing the end of the hoods/bumpers. People managed for 60 years. I truly think 99% of modern production cars look like crap. And I'm a buyer in the sub 30 age group....

That just isn't so. You have LESS legroom, because the uncomfortable (to me, anyway) bolt-upright seating posture forces you to keep your knees bent at about a 90 degree, instead of being able to stretch them out as you could if the car was designed to allow a proper semi-reclining posture.

(I'm not exactly short or small, but I'm far more comfortable in cars like the late 50s-early 60s Austin-Healey, my old CRX, or even the Insight than I am in any of today's muffin-cars.)

For the reason, I think it's just another facet of the reason so many people buy SUVs or oversized pickups: insecurity. They're just not confident in their own abilities (or for men, their masculinity), so they try to compensate by buying big/tall cars.

I laugh when I see some shorty in, say, a Range Rover; they're sitting in there with about two feet of headroom and I wonder if the room was required because they are planning on doing some jumping jacks at the driver's seat at some point? :confused:

Pretty much all RRs near me are driven by 5ft bad tempered women, so probably they are.

The taller a vehicle is, relative to it's width, makes it more prone to roll over. Center of gravity...

The design is logical if you are driving in rough terrain (which was what the RR was designed to do - go where roads are primitive or non-existent). It gives you two feet of headroom so you won't smack your head against the ceiling when you hit something nasty.

Of course people who buy RR's for use in countries that have well paved roads have different motives. :rolleyes:

Not really, these rarely fall over.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...r_RCL_2233.jpg

I think its more to do with weight distribution and height.

In fact, how about 'drifting buses', - not so much The Fast And The Furious Tokyo Drift, more like The Sluggish And The Slightly Grumpy - Chiswick Snake :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVq9Gk08lLo

From the age where everyone in Britain called hands "hends"...

That's right, look at pickup trucks, if you get the extended cab on a truck you have to have a heavier frame to be able to handle the same amount of weight because the frame wants to torque and twist, the closer you can make a vehicle to being a bubble the easier it is going to be to make the body stiff and strong.

HMMMMMMM :confused:

A seating position that is nearly bolt-upright is far more comfortable than a semi-reclined seating position.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/60376566@N00/5379691944/Here is my stock height Civic between two 'small' cars. ( A Versa and an Aveo )
http://www.flickr.com/photos/6037656...n/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/6037656...n/photostream/
Hey... why is the image not showing up ?

Thanks for posting that. That was interesting and entertaining.

Maybe for you. Not for me. I hate having to ride in other people's cars that force me to sit like that.

^Agreed.

And Capri's comment about weight being the biggest factor in fe... I don't think so.

And ya need more glass and metal to go taller too.

In city yes, at speed weight has little to do with it.

Consider competition sailplanes, which are pretty much the ultimate in fuel economy. The cockpit has reclining seating and is usually quite tight, but is comfortable enough to sit in for hours, while weight (water ballast) is often added for increased performance.

I think the main reason is the tall driver design... People feel safer when they are higher up. Plus there seems to be a downsizing in the general populace, out with suvs (a little) in with the tall car (I own a vibe so +1). On top of these, the new european standard for pedestrian safety dictates a tall hood which dictates an even taller roofline (dictates isn't the right word...).

While this is true about sail planes the correlation is not quite there.

The engine out glide ratio for a most planes stays the same across it's entire weight range (from nearly empty to full gross weight) more weight means the rate of decent is higher, but higher airspeed means you cover ground faster. So the distance traveled per altitude lost says the same.

So knowing that an aircraft goes just as far in a glide heavy or light why bother with the water ballast?

An airplane balances on the wing. The lever arm forward of the wing must equal the lever arm aft of the wing. you can do this a couple ways. Most aircraft have a smaller wing in the back providing down pressure to lift the weight forward of the wing. This situation is very stable from the pilot's perspective and easy to learn on. The down side is that by creating this negative lift we make induced drag. If weight is added aft of the wing we can balance the aircraft without the induced drag. If we add a bit more we can make the tail plane (horizontal stabilizer) make a bit of lift to make up for the parasitic drag it already has without inducing much more. This situation is very good for performance but is unstable. Water can be dumped and the plane made more stable.

It's part of the same sales pitch that was used in commercials for SUV's: they said you will "feel" safer. Marketing is all about massaging the customer's ego and making him feel good.

I think its more than that, I think if you got in a tallish car you'd "feel" safer without any marketing. Good vision mosty, I think. But a tall car isn't always big FA. I think in this case "tallness = safety" is the egg and any marketing is the chicken...

Length of cars matters more than length in sailplanes. There are not many cars under 13 feet long that can fit four people ~6'-4" tall, in relative comfort. My Scion xA does.

Sure frontal area matters, but if the Cd is lowered from X to Y, then that matters about 3 times more.

As for weight, a sphere encloses the most volume inside of the least surface area, and a cube encloses the next most volume for a given surface area. Less surface area means less metal, glass, and plastic. Elongated rectangles have more surface area for a given interior volume.

So, a longer length, lower height car with the same interior volume as another car that is shorter length and greater height; the longer, lower car will weigh more, all else being equal.

I fit much better in a Honda Fit than a Civic, and the legroom / headroom dimensions reflect this. Their interior passenger volume is virtually identical -- within 0.1 cu ft. The cargo volume is much larger on the Fit -- 8.6 cu ft more.

The height difference is only ~4" anyway; and the Fit is a little more than 2" narrower. That's about 1.8 sq ft greater frontal area for the Fit; a tenth or two in Cd would offset this (though I don't know what their relative Cd's are?). The Fit weighs about 140 pounds less (base models with manual shift), and it is ~10" shorter length.

So the Honda Fit is case in point.

Cd times A...

Well, they won't if every turn they take is at a very low speed.

Center of gravity is also a major factor. You might find this link interesting: The Physics of Sports Utility Vehicle Rollover Accidents

I sense we are destined to disagree forever, so apart from the videos showing the buses not taking the corners at low speeds, I will stay out of this. :D

An example of how this taller vs other ploy failed is the European version of the Ford Fusion.

Yes, I know those you are thinking of the US version of the Ford Fusion - a mid sized, 4 door car designed to fight the Accord / Camry with a home made, good product.

Meanwhile in the 'old world' Ford used the same name for this :

http://www.aftonbladet.se/bil/skrivb...neve-MEDEL.jpg

Which was sold specifically on the basis that it was taller than other hatchbacks, including their own Fiesta of the time

http://www.automotoportal.com/media/.../061218009.jpg

Not surprisingly the only Fusions sold were those discounted at dealers, not any ordered by real punters. And the current Fiesta is quite a sleek vehicle...

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Tango yet.

Neil - so you fit better in a Fit ? Nice use of a pun :-)

What about the true safety factors involved, not just perceived?
A tall car is safer IF you are hit by a tall car or truck - bumper heights, etc.

A longer, wider car is safer in all kinds of crashes, all else being equal.

I don't want to be in the fit/versa if I'm rear-ended. Maybe with a hefty structural Kammback! :)

I purposefully added 8" to the front of my car with my front bumper/air dam I made from (crumplable) metal conduit. My Kammback also elongates my car's crumple zone by almost 2 feet beyond the bumper. (it's exactly 1 meter from the top of the hatch).
Looking at safercar.gov can give you a good look at general trends, and longer cars tend to outscore shorter cars from the same vintage and technology era. The very long camaros and firebirds always score well in frontal crashes; their noses are LONG!

that is subject to conjecture

my brother has a fit. it is orange, it looks like a basketball and bounces just like one - even if filled with full size americans.
wonder if the computers were down the day Honda designed it?

This talk about airplanes is very interesting, but I wonder which takes more energy: To lift a heavy plane to 10,000 feet or to lift a light weight plane to 10,000 feet. If the engine off glides are the same, then the only critical phase is what happens when the airplane is climbing.

And wouldn't this apply to taking a vehicle at rest and accellerating it to a speed? More weight would take more energy. And of course, if you use the brakes, all that energy is lost.

We know weight penalizes fe if the trip has a lot of stop and go... but not much at all otherwise.