COMPUTER GOT IT WRONG?

Status
Not open for further replies.

peregrine

Active Member
Lifetime Premium Member
Back in the 1990s a computer spat out the message that the wedge shape was the ideal for car design, for aerodynamics. I said then and I say it now They got it wrong! A computers response can only return a result in relation to the information fed into it So I'm not saying the computer made a mistake. My belief has always been that what they should be looking at is in fact a reverse teardrop with a flattened bottom because of restricted airflow dew to low ground clearance. You just have to look to the people who design items that are absolutely critically reliant on aerodynamics, look at the water line of a sailing boat to a racing yacht you see a reverse teardrop, or the latest wind tunnel results on today's cars, greater slopes to front and curved windscreens, Bobbed round tails and round edges admittedly with a bias for down force. Classic examples being, the likes of many of the more exotic makes and some lower end makes to see this trend. Sharp edges and strait lines maybe become relevant at supersonic speeds but that is beyond my comprehension. Who got it wrong?
 
I hazard to guess aerodynamics quite often comes second to looks, packaging, cost, safety, regulations, ergonomics and a whole host of other features. Quite simply an ideal reverse truncated tear drop is quite a difficult shape to sell. I'd also like to see some references to any journal article containing this 90's result on wedge shaped cars.
 
homer_15.jpg
 
I don't think all car design is based off what one computer in the 90s calculated
You are right. The wedge only forms a base from which car designers can use and gives them a starting point to work from, a guide to follow to keep within, to maintain as aerodynamic a shape as they can, within the parameters of their concept
in order to maintain a shape that will among other things, result in better economy and performance. One thing you can notice in cars evolving from the 1990s on-ward's, is the high rear end of cars compared to the front and the effort made by designers to disguise this feature that gets in the way of the aesthetics they are trying to achieve. Aerodynamics is but only one of many parameters in car design, as suggested elsewhere and like all of them forms just one hurdle to overcome.
 
Last edited:
Most automotive manufactures don't really care about much as long as their end product sells to create profit. The other side to that is that if economy, or aerodynamics, or technology, or other is going to sell many many cars, then that will be taken into consideration in the design phase of production.
 
Have a look at a Prius. All aerodynamics there. Looks come second. Also a car designed with perfect aerodynamics in mind only would be a *mum* to drive at any speed.
Down force required = bad aerodynamics

Very low drag force. Looks awesome.

vw-xl1.jpg
 
Last edited:
What even is this thread?
Prius is designed to have a low coefficient of drag as it helps lower fuel economy and therefore becomes a selling point. And yet this is still only as low as the drag is allowed to be within the constraints of packaging, cost, safety, regulations, ergonomics etc. Also aerodynamics is simply how the airflow interacts with the car, not just the drag coefficient, so depending on the aim, a car with 'good' aerodynamics is not necessarily the one with the least drag. That said I'd also argue downforce plays very little part at any legal road speed, and thus any lack of it is inconsequential. A car producing excessive lift may be an issue but will a low drag car actually produce lift, anymore than a regular car?
Aerodynamics really is something that you can't just make assumptions about, it can be very tricky to pin down with proper testing and design let alone conjecture and guesses.
 
Most automotive manufactures don't really care about much as long as their end product sells to create profit. The other side to that is that if economy, or aerodynamics, or technology, or other is going to sell many many cars, then that will be taken into consideration in the design phase of production.[

Re issues All OK. Thanks. Re the above I totally agree. eg: Massive power and Godzilla machines, just about every car is capable of exceeding the speed limit by anything from just above which is a needed by product, to a useless up to over 100kph plus above what can be used sensibly and legally. Turbos that wear out engines faster (smaller engines with turbos produce less emissions at idle than bigger engines?) The must haves and want factors, witch include cant be used factors but sells cars for much. higher profits and form an IMAGE.
 
Last edited:
Someone lock this rubbish

I was initially denied the right of reply but for what ever reason I have thankfully now been granted that right to reply.

This thread has taken off on an unexpected tangent and my attempt to reply to the responses has only taken it further off the path. Enough said.

So yes, I agree, lock this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top