Fuelly Forums - Uh... An aerodynamic wth for all auto manufacturers.

Fuelly Forums (https://www.fuelly.com/forums/)

- General Fuel Topics (https://www.fuelly.com/forums/f8/)

- - Uh... An aerodynamic wth for all auto manufacturers. (https://www.fuelly.com/forums/f8/uh-an-aerodynamic-wth-for-all-auto-manufacturers-2945.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by omgwtfbyobbq

Would just about every car have better aero backwards? The front ends of most cars in the past couple decades seem to have the gradual taper associated with most streamlined designs I've seen, while the rears have much more abrupt leading edge seen. Kinda like the top and bottom of a teardrop, except for cars it's backwards. Especially for hatches. :p

I mean, Flipping most cars around puts them closer to this than they are now.
https://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodyna...line_Shape.GIF

Buckminster Fuller had something to say about this in 1933 :

https://www.washedashore.com/projects...mages/car3.jpg

I found it here :

https://www.washedashore.com/projects/dymax/

And here :

https://shl.stanford.edu/Bucky/dymaxion/

CarloSW2

Talk about stylish......:D

Probably the best present-day examples of rear-streamlined cars are Porsches. They (except the Cayenne) all taper towards the rear.

I'll bet that Porsche could take a production Boxster, slap on a set of skinny LRR tires, mount a Volkswagen turbodiesel in the *** end, and get higher mileage than a Prius. And it would still go over 100 mph.

Hi Sludgy

I wouldnt bet on that.
Most rear engine Porsches barely crack 0.3 Cd which is equeal tro this very ordinary looking Audi sedan.

https://www.auto4u.cz/new2/forum/foto/6P8161239kvvv.jpg

Just because something looks slippery it doesnt mean it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onegammyleg

I guess I need a wind tunnel.

Porsches could be much more aerodynamic than they are. Subtle changes in the windshield rake and rear slope of the car can have drastic effects on Cd without noticably altering the aesthetic appeal of the car.

The Opel Eco Speedster had a .20 drag coefficient. It did 0-60 mph ~8 seconds, top speed of 160 mph(governed), 112 horsepower 4 cylinder diesel, weighed ~1,500 pounds, and got ~96 mpg(113 mpg imperial). Imagine if Porsche designed a sporty car like it with carbon fibre body and ultra low Cd*A, put a 200+ HP turbodiesel in it, and gave it the proper gearing to achieve its max theoretical top speed. There could be an 80+ mpg supercar that accelerates like a Porsche 911 and has a top speed of 180+ mph.

Quote:

Originally Posted by omgwtfbyobbq (Post 26564)

Would just about every car have better aero backwards?

Sorry to revive an older thread, but reading this reminded me of a video I saw LONG ago from the 1930's, in which the driver of a typical looking car of the period explained how auto design was backward for best aerodynamics, and that we should be driving backwards, which he then proceeded to do (the car had been modified to allow this safely). I did some looking around, and can't find the video, but I believe what I must have seen was a clip of the publicity stunt (or a prelude thereof) mentioned here:

"In 1933, Chrysler was ready to debut their new car. As a marketing stunt, an Airflow was built with reversed axles and steering gear allowing the car to be driven backwards throughout Detroit."

The Chrysler Airflow has been brought up here in these forums before, and is also mentioned on MetroMPG, but I thought it worthwhile to bring up again. The 1934 model was also the first automobile to be equipped with an overdrive transmission. Interestingly, it suffered from the same problem as modern aero-styled vehicles - poor sales. A "Safety Test" video was even shown in theatres to convince the public that despite it's odd (!) appearance it was very rugged. It was eventually changed to look more "normal".

Seems it managed 16-18 MPG, which, considering it weighed over two tons (4,166 lbs) and was using 1930's tech, isn't half bad. Really goes to show how very far we've come, which is to say, not very far at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maillemann (Post 43338)

...Seems it managed 16-18 MPG, which, considering it weighed over two tons (4,166 lbs) and was using 1930's tech, isn't half bad. Really goes to show how very far we've come, which is to say, not very far at all.

Yup, exact same thing (with out the aerodynamics) is what I'm driving :(

I remember seeing those all over Europe in the 60s.