Motors car aerodinamics question.

True, and with this in the back of my mind I am really curious as to how the Peugeot 4002 I linked to earlier handles. I sure would love to test drive one! Being a concept it will obviously never hit the factory floor, but I seem to remember reading an article stating that this pug actually was fully functional.

 

Actually the bluemotion didn't do too well in real world testing, it got closer to 45mpg.

 

i was kind of thinking of it vs prius vs non bluemotion VW...

 

Apparently we are all totally wrong about the rain drop shape...

But look at the world record land speed holders - they are pretty much all bullet shaped, and planes. Once you've gotten the air the move apart initially, the relative friction of the wet area is pretty low really.

 

it is also strange how the honda civic is different in the US versus the EU civic..... and how the new fiesta, that people say will be sold in the US, looks like a wale shark with its mouth open..... don't tell me that it needs such a huge front grill for the radiator.....

 

With the teardrop, you're forgetting two things

A) Water is a lot more viscous than a car is

B) Gravity is pulling all the water to the bottom of the teardrop

If you spray water sideways, it does not form teardrops.

A primary concern when designing cars is to reduce lift... the standard car shape, with a very curvy bubble top, and a flat bottom, creates lift through the bernoulli effect. That is why every race car is low to the ground.... the less air traveling below it, the less lift. That's also why NASCARs have 'splitters' - a flat piece sticking out the bottom. Air that hits the grill and is forced downwards hits the splitter and therefore goes to the sides, instead of going under the car.

It's also been established that an end coming to a point is not optimal. The "Kamm Tail" is the most aerodynamic. What that basically is is a sloping tail that ends abruptly, rather than tapering to a point. The air flows the same as it would if it tapered to a point, however without the extra friction that the additional material would cause.

 

I think they design what they think looks good and if it's aerodinamics then that is just a plus for them

 

It's all about who might buy it. They've decided no-one will buy the current-shape over here in the US, so they stuck a bodykit on the Civic Hybrid and put a proper engine in it.

Haven't seen the Fiesta, but the US market gets the shitty-looking Focus compared to ours, the new facelifted one looks stunning.

 

Drag coefficients in the auto industry need to be taken alongside the vehicle's weight. You can have an extremely light and extremely aerodynamic car, but its very low mass makes it much easier to be influenced by air resistance--an oncoming wind gust would either flip it over or stop it completely. Conversely, a high-mass pickup truck, even with high drag, will be almost unaffected by air resistance.

High fuel economy usually maps on the fact that the car is light: lighter and smaller frame, smaller engine made of aluminum, fewer amenities, smaller wheels, brakes, and tires, etc. Everyone can agree that aerodynamics only come into play for higher speeds, but the fact that the car's purpose is an econobox cancels out any chance of lengthening the wheelbase and and lowering the roof and riding stance in favor of lower drag. Going back to an earlier example I used, the Smart ForTwo isn't efficient because of its drag coefficient (which isn't great), but because of its light weight in a small package. The cube is the most efficient shape (aside from the sphere/dome) for maximum volume with minimum material and weight, which is why most econoboxes are so similar in shape.