Designing an FE Car from the ground up. - Page 4 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 06-26-2006, 11:02 AM   #31
Registered Member
 
95metro's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 498
Country: United States
I think you are right, Sludgy. I think adapting/improving aero mods to older FE cars is the ticket to the highest gains for the cheapest price. Low tech seems to be the way to go.

Designing a fiberglass body to fit a Civic or something may be another option.
__________________

__________________
95metro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2006, 08:59 PM   #32
Registered Member
 
Mighty Mira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 315
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sludgy
One final thought on an extreme FE car. We should all keep in mind the fact that inexpensive, high FE vehicles have already been built and sold successfully, such as the WV Lupo.
Yes, that's true. The Lupo has a Cd of 0.29, and is capable of better than 3L/100km. Think of what it could do with a Cd of 0.15.

Quote:
There is no magic to it. The easy, affordable way to big FE numbers is low tech rather than high tech. Nobody will buy an expensive vehicle that is so aerodynamic that it's non-ergonomic.
Again, it depends on the price of fuel. If price of fuel outweighs the benefits of ergonomics AND styling, then really good Cd*A figures will make perfect sense. And I suspect that once cars like this are common, the stigma against having one will be removed.

It's like recumbants versus uprights. It's only because the first mover was an upright that people might laugh at recumbants, just like people used to think that those with mobile phones were vain and pretentious. Once something becomes commonplace, the stigma gets removed. Provided that a car fits the required number of passengers in, can accelerate to a given speed, is safe and not difficult to manufacture, then it's the same thing. I don't see why the aerodynamic shape has to be expensive or high-tech for that matter.

Consider that the T77a was manufactured in the 1930s with Cd lower than cars today. Consider the curved surfaces of most new cars, and the possibility of using plastic panels. I.e. It shouldn't be difficult or expensive to make a boattail, even if it is dead space, worst case. But there is this false dichotomy that says econo=small box.

I wonder if (part of) the reason for this is simply price discrimination.

If people were given the option between a heavy "luxury" car and a cheaper, lighter FE car that did almost all the same things, of a similar size, might everyone not buy the cheaper car? I think this might be worth a thread.
Quote:
1) light weight
2) reasonably low Cd / low A,
3) a matched (small) efficient engine, whether gas electric or diesel
4) efficient accessories.
Yes. I'd also add "tall enough gearing", and perhaps automatic engine-off technology (forgot what it's called) if it's reasonably priced.

Also, there is the 3-box design legacy to take into account. Almost all the design out there is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. This is unfortunate, because rather than asking "How can I take the most FE design possible and make it practical?", they go from the other end and ask "How can I take an existing car and tweak it to make it FE?"

The gulf between what is possible through a revolutionary design and what can be attained by an evolutionary process is immense, as is the time it can take.

To get an idea of the problems associated with evolutionary design, look at this.

We have the understanding to design for ultra low Cd. We know the basics of what we need to have in a car - room for passengers, room for luggage, an engine, visibility, etc. If we realize the coming need for improved FE now, then it is possible to have a total rethink of everything with the knowledge that fuel concerns will trump most other stuff in future.

In addition, such a vehicle will open up other possibilities. For example, if your relatives live a few hours away, going to see them is less of an issue if the cost is minimal. Going to far off places by car becomes easier if it costs next to nothing.
__________________

Mighty Mira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2006, 06:36 AM   #33
Moderator
 
GasSavers_DaX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,209
Country: United States
I can't believe someone posted a picture of The Wraith. What a b!tchin' movie.
GasSavers_DaX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2006, 10:05 AM   #34
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Country: United States
Back to the original thought process

In designing a FE car from the ground up, one of the points mentioned is storage space.

I'd like to suggest a matching trailer option. A very aerodynamic trailer.

I've read on here before that some vehicles when followed by a well designed trailer allow the vehicle pulling it to get better fuel economy numbers.

It would be smallish, lightweight etc. and the car would have to be fashioned with a rinky-dink hitch.

something to ponder
chesspirate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2006, 10:26 PM   #35
Registered Member
 
The Toecutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 612
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to The Toecutter
A better idea for storage space is to simply elongate the car, make it bigger.

That way, to can allow a longer taper of the 6:1 fineness ratio in the rear, reducing drag coefficient further.

A full size car can more easily obtain a low drag coefficient than an econobox!

Think of something as long as a Ford Excursion, but with the height and width of a normal midsize car. Imagine all that trunk space that one could have and all the interior room!
The Toecutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2006, 10:39 PM   #36
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Country: United States
okay, COD is one thing, but what about weight?

With a trailer option it could be used when necessary. not all driving is on the freeway

also, vehicle length isn't something i want to add to my perfect FE vehicle
chesspirate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2006, 10:44 PM   #37
Registered Member
 
The Toecutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 612
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to The Toecutter
Much of the weight in today's cars is useless fluff added to the interior. Many new cars are loaded with 400-600 pounds of unnessessary sound deadener, used as an excuse to inflate the price of the vehicle and compensate for the road noise and improper weight districution caused by a poorly engineered design.

Take note that many of the classic musclecars weigh hundreds of pounds less than the 'lightweight' BMW Z4s and Porsche Boxters of today.

Just recently, two cops in my city got into a wreck. The dashboard in their Crown Vic broke and fell onto their legs, snapping their bones like twigs.
The Toecutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2006, 12:04 PM   #38
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 682
Country: United States
I agree, Toecutter.

Cars are getting bigger on the outside, but smaller on the inside. I sat in a rented new Chrysler "crossover" SUV in Florida a few months ago. It had less room inside than my wife's Corolla. So much for progress.
__________________
Capitalism: The cream rises. Socialism: The scum rises.
Sludgy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 09:26 AM   #39
Registered Member
 
Mighty Mira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 315
Country: United States
I had a search around for stuff on aerodynamics. It led me on a search for airplanes, among which the Piaggio P180 and Mike Arnold's AR-5 stood out. It's definitely worth a look at to get a glimpse of where to go to from here.
Mighty Mira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 11:12 PM   #40
Registered Member
 
The Toecutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 612
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to The Toecutter
Be careful withthe airplane designs. They ioperate on the principle of laminar flow, as opposed to turbulent flow. Whereas our skies are often free of debris, our roads are an entirely different matter.

A small scratch or dent, even if difficult or impossible to see with the naked eye, is all that is needed to trip the laminar flow into turbulent flow, and all your aero benefits in regard to efficiency go to crap.

For a car, I'd recommend staying within the domain of turbulent flow and try to minimize drag from there. That means a teardrop shape, as opposed to a giant penis shape.

There is a reason solar cars, designed for low drag, do not adopt laminar flow designs as airplanes do.

If only there were a way to prevent nicks, cracks, rust, and warping from ever occuring. Then laminar flow might become useful in cars.
__________________

The Toecutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fuelly badge not updating for about 2 - 3 weeks Need Fuelly Web Support and Community News 18 07-01-2012 03:01 PM
Fuelly Android App - eehokie Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 07-14-2010 09:59 PM
VW Jetta fast riser coolbreeze General Fuel Topics 5 07-22-2009 12:25 AM
Condensator orevgym General Fuel Topics 0 07-23-2006 11:25 AM
FFI GasSavers_MPGmaker Introduce Yourself - New member Welcome 39 05-30-2006 04:31 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.