Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:07 pm Post subject: Expect way more aerodynamic cars in 3-5 years?
Should we expect way more aerodynamic cars in the future? I am thinking we will see them and in models that we normally don't think of such as Cadillac.
I just bought a Chevy Impala yesterday. Its in town mileage is only one better than the Chevy Equinox but its highway mileage is like 5 mpg better. When I test drove them the Impala's computer showed it getting 5 to 6 mpg better on the highway. The real difference in the two is the shape and thus drag.
If you can take a 35 mpg Honda Civic, not super aerodynamic I know to start, and get 70 mpg, why can't an Impala that get 28 be made to get 35 to 40 mpg. I think it can, we just have to be tolerant of some odd "styling".
That is what I think we will be seeing in the future. Instead of some miracle engine we'll see radical styling so that true 4 person cars will get 40 mpg or maybe even 50.
The real stying nightmare would be making a pickup that can get 35!
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:11 pm Post subject: Re: Expect way more aerodynamic cars in 3-5 years?
I think there'll be heavy gas rationing before this matters much. _________________ Massive Human Dieoff must occur as a result of Peak Oil. Many more than half will die. It will occur everywhere, including where you live. If you fail to recognize this, then your odds of living move toward the "going to die" group.
Joined: Jan 03, 2005 Posts: 1159 Location: western Wisconsin
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:50 pm Post subject: Re: Expect way more aerodynamic cars in 3-5 years?
TreeFarmer wrote:
If you can take a 35 mpg Honda Civic, not super aerodynamic I know to start, and get 70 mpg, why can't an Impala that get 28 be made to get 35 to 40 mpg. I think it can, we just have to be tolerant of some odd "styling".
That is what I think we will be seeing in the future. Instead of some miracle engine we'll see radical styling so that true 4 person cars will get 40 mpg or maybe even 50.
The real stying nightmare would be making a pickup that can get 35!
Our Chevy Metro gets 40 to 50mpg, and can carry 4 people. It may not be what many folks think is "luxurious" or "comfortable" but it is fine for me, my wife, and whatever son happens to go with us. And I and two of the boys are 6 feet and over 200 pounds, and we fit okay. We just don't go more than a couple of hundred miles in a car--no real need to go gallavanting all over the country.
And, yes, I think that steamlining will become more important, along with smaller and lighter vehicles in general. Maybe we will see the return of actual small sized pickups--none of the smaller trucks available for highway use in the USA today are "compact" sized, but "mid-sized".
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:10 pm Post subject: Re: Expect way more aerodynamic cars in 3-5 years?
TreeFarmer wrote:
Should we expect way more aerodynamic cars in the future?
Well, of course. Just not so aerodynamic that they provoke the herd toward any radically different aesthetic. The only thing standing between you and greater fuel efficiency is your sense of style. And when we talk about "your" sense of style, we're really talking about a "collective" sense of style, since your considerations of the same don't really have any relevance in a vacuum.
So, in order to have mass-produced dorkiness become mainstream chic, and therefore worthy of mass-production, we'll have to reorient the aesthetic ideals of the entire community.
I would submit that you bought the Impala over the Equinox simply because you thought it was a prettier, more attractive car. I am saying that, despite what you might claim about mpg, efficiency, or any other factor, your decision was the largely unconscious process of the multiply represented reflexes of your lower, reptilian brain that actually "sold" you on this particular model.
Sure, your "higher" mammalian brain is going to object to what I just said and come up with all kinds of hiney-hiding rationalizations and explanations consistent with the delusion that you make decisions based upon economic and technical reasoning, but the fact is that you don't, just like the fact remains that there is little in the technical details you just mentioned that add up to significant differences.
You're justifying your decision to buy the slightly more attractive option between two choices based on technical criteria with very little difference. Which leads me to question that this is the criteria that formed the basis of your decision.
For example, if I told you I chose the Denali over over the F-series because the Denali got 13 mpg and the F-series 12, am I making a distinction between relative efficiencies? Or am I simply isolating the variable that defines a certain class of vehicles in terms of "fuel efficiency"?
If you said, I bought an Impala because the F-series gets 12 vs. its 25, that is a meaningful distinction. The distinction between 23 and 27 is much less meaningful.
A more accurate statement would include all the criteria that "drove" you to compare the Equinox and the Impala. That criteria would include all of the criteria that seperate this particular class of vehicle from all other vehicles.
My argument is that the given criteria, gas mileage, isn't sufficient to describe why you bought the Impala over the Equinox, because there is little difference there. Many other vehicles of its ostensible class get better mileage. And if mileage is the key factor, you wouldn't even be shopping IN that class.
The full list of criteria would be needed to explain it, and that would include things like
- Leather Seats
- Cup holders
- Color/Style
- Rebates and incentives
- opinions of friends and relatives
- subjective impressions
- relative prestige
- brand loyalty
- BIG-ness
etc.
So, there would be a fair number of quantifiable criteria, but also a whole load of subjective criteria whose relative weight on the final decision would be determined largely by the more primitive parts of your brain, like the feel of the leather seats (creature comforts), subjective measurement of power "by feel" (physical feedback), unconscious affiliative inputs (tribal and social factors), and of course, the salesman's influence, (which would be the engineering of the sale based upon careful persuasion and manipulation of your rational mind in verbal and non-verbal ways.)
Somehow, you were sold on the efficiency of a vehicle where the vehicle's efficiency is not what it was designed for. Your frontal cortex has been hijacked. This thread is the frontal cortex's attempt to make itself heard by appealing to a group (again an attempt couched in the processes of the primitive brain.)
Somehow the frontal cortex, which was in the "driver's seat", so to speak", isn't completely satisfied with the purchase. Going into the situation, you were prepared to find the best, most satisfying solution to the criteria the F.C. thought relevant. Coming out of the transaction, its like someone who has been drugged and kidnapped- Amnesia! The F.C. initiated the search, and evaluates the outcome, but cannot connect A and B. Its search for "fuel efficiency" is not satisfied. It is presented, post-hijacking, with the desired object without the desired traits.
Do you get what I'm saying here? Your higher brain is saying, HOW did I get stuck with a car with absolutely mediocre fuel efficiency? Your brain's higher functions prompt internet searches. Its like the movie 'Memento'. Its looking for answers.
The process started as the cascade of physical, emotional, and visual feedback starting coming in as you started your selection process. The more leather you saw, the more it came to influence the desired outcome. The more computer doo-dads, the more ad copy you read with its tricky superlatives, the more it influenced the outcome.
Whereas at first the criteria might have been: EFFICIENCY-RELIABILITY-COST-LOOKS-DOODADS
Through this process of being swamped with suggestion, subjective experience, and so forth, it ended up looking like this:
LEATHER-CUPHOLDERS-STYLE-SEXY-STRONG-POWER
... After a lengthy negotiation between the frontal cortex and your amygdala, where the amygdala is like a sleazy Russian tycoon, spiking your drink and sending hookers to your hotel room.
The answer is your crododile brain cold-cocked your decisionmaking process. POW. As it is VERY effective at doing most of time in just about everybody. Thats part and parcel why people buy so much crap.
TreeFarmer wrote:
I just bought a Chevy Impala yesterday.
Owned....
And now your poor F.C. is looking up efficiency porn on the Internet.
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:03 pm Post subject: Re: Expect way more aerodynamic cars in 3-5 years?
Wow Blistered, that is the longest, most well thought out, well written piece of drivel I've ever read!
Things like:
- Leather Seats
- Cup holders
- Color/Style
- Rebates and incentives
- opinions of friends and relatives
- subjective impressions
- relative prestige
- brand loyalty
- BIG-ness
are all the same, i.e. available on both models. As for price, there was negligable difference but as for ride the Impala won hands down.
The real bottom line for us was that the Impala gets significantly better mileage, and yes 29 vs 24 on the highway is significantly better. If I was being ruled by creature comforts and such I would have bought the Buick Lucern for 8K more.
For you to think you "owned" me is hilarious. Dude my dick is plenty big and I don't need viagra either so such crap as, and I quote "LEATHER-CUPHOLDERS-STYLE-SEXY-STRONG-POWER" is not needed as some surrogate penis extension.
Finally, for my parting shot, this is the wife's car which she picked out, all I did was haggle and write the check so factor that into your analysis.
Joined: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 3140 Location: Boston Suburbs
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:00 pm Post subject: Re: Expect way more aerodynamic cars in 3-5 years?
Have you ever heard of the term convergent evolution? That's pretty much what happens when you pursue aerodynamics with cars. Everything evolves towards bubble cars with teardrop rear-ends like the Aptera, EV-1, and Honda Insight. There is a lot of market pressure against going in this direction.
a) For better or worse, the public has a visceral hatred for this look.
b) Auto stylists hate it because it ties their hands. They can not make cars unique anymore.
Cars to this day are much more than utilitarian devices. They are moving sculpture, and fashion items. This works heavily against efficiency. The public and the industry wants to have its cake and eat it too and unfortunately something's got to give.
The Volt prototype was a case in point here. It had grotesquely oversized wheels and a chop top body style that performed poorly in the wind tunnel. The production Volt is going to look quite different. People on GM-Volt.com are already whining in disapproval. They want it to look like a hot rod and have the Cd of an EV-1. NOT GONNA HAPPEN. _________________ Peak oil is sort of like a mental Everlasting Gobstopper, except it tastes like ass and you can't get it out of your mouth.
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:19 pm Post subject: Re: Expect way more aerodynamic cars in 3-5 years?
mos6507 wrote:
Have you ever heard of the term convergent evolution? That's pretty much what happens when you pursue aerodynamics with cars. Everything evolves towards bubble cars with teardrop rear-ends like the Aptera, EV-1, and Honda Insight. There is a lot of market pressure against going in this direction.
The smaller the vehicle, the more inclined I am to agree w/ ya here, but larger cars have quite a bit more room to work with and can look "normal" w/ drag coefficients near what the "funky" looking cars have. For instance, the new Camry Hybrid looks like a Sedan, and it's drag coefficient is .27 compared to the Prius at .26. Same goes for the HCH. Granted, it's easier to just make something teardrop'ish for better aero, but it doesn't have to be. _________________
Joined: Jun 20, 2008 Posts: 67 Location: Quebec/Ottawa, Canada
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject: Re: Expect way more aerodynamic cars in 3-5 years?
There are good markets for the hybrids such as Prius etc., and EVs and Smart Cars.
I think there is now a good market for inexpensive high MPG, highly aerodynamic highway vehicles. Cars for people who must commute long distances and for whom driving 70 MPH vs. 55 gives them more time with their families.
I own a Prius and it's great in the city but it has little advantage driving at steady high speeds.
70 MPG on that Civic is wonderful but it's hideous as it's a quick and dirty home-made project. Aerodynamics CAN be made sexy and auto manufacturers have the economies of scale to do it IMO.
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:01 am Post subject: Re: Expect way more aerodynamic cars in 3-5 years?
My buddy just bought a minivan. Why do you think that happened? Because he has a defective Y chromo? No, because it is a great big Egg that fills certain requirements, all detailed below:
Quote:
Women tell us they prefer a car that's agile, has good visibility, and isn't a chore to drive. Many like to sit higher and most rightly insist on plenty of storage space, reasonable prices and low running costs. Space for growing families is essential in many cases and safety is a major factor. Furthermore, many women tell us that a high fun-to-drive factor is important.
Start with your theoretical 70 mpg baseline.
Fun-to-drive? - 10mpg
Space? - 10 mpg
Reasonable price and low running cost? Only if she's feeling guilty. Women think in relative terms. Reasonable price, which is: higher than the woman she is currently envious of, but not so high it make hubby grumble. Low running cost? I doubt this is real criteria.
Storage Space - 15mpg. Need Big Egg
Sit higher - 15mpg The Cd zooms skyward with her Power Perch.
Where we at?
70mpg-50mpg=25mpg.
I've mentioned this before- a study that showed that women polled said that they regarded safety as the highest factor in an choice of car, yet in test groups preferred the car with the smallest rear window (limiting visibility and hence safety). Why? Because the larger window made them feel "vulnerable". This was theorized as the result of the lower-order impulsive thoughts about survival overriding the higher, logical, and rational mind.
This polling experiment resulted directly in the PT Cruiser- a hit with women, with its conspicuously small rear window (based upon the "lowest in class" safety rating of the Dodge Neon (which it is based on).
Dodge made the PT Cruiser the way they did because they knew that, beyond any rational measure, sales would depend on their succesful exploitation of people's brains.
Marketing shows again and again that convincing someone of anything requires a shot to the gut, not the head. The works against men, too. Just look at all these big truck f*cktards.
Again, the reptilian mind at work. A part of the brain associated with modifying the proprioceptive system. You pick up a golf club and your body interprets the new appendage as "part of self". The bigger the appendage, the greater power one's reptile brain is titillated with. A bigger truck is not itself bigger, the driver is bigger.
A person wants a car to be slathered in leather, filled with amenitites. A car that causes a drop in systolic blood pressure the second its owner's chair fits itself to the human's ass bones. These are not vehicles anymore, they are prosthesis of our bodies. Surrogate dicks and uteruses is a valid comparison.
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:05 am Post subject: Re: Expect way more aerodynamic cars in 3-5 years?
My buddy just bought a minivan. Why do you think that happened? Because he has a defective Y chromo? No, because it is a great big Egg that fills certain requirements, all detailed below:
Quote:
Women tell us they prefer a car that's agile, has good visibility, and isn't a chore to drive. Many like to sit higher and most rightly insist on plenty of storage space, reasonable prices and low running costs. Space for growing families is essential in many cases and safety is a major factor. Furthermore, many women tell us that a high fun-to-drive factor is important.
Start with your theoretical 70 mpg baseline.
Fun-to-drive? - 10mpg
Space? - 10 mpg
Reasonable price and low running cost? Only if she's feeling guilty. Women think in relative terms. Reasonable price, which is: higher than the woman she is currently envious of, but not so high it make hubby grumble. Low running cost? I doubt this is real criteria.
Storage Space - 15mpg. Need Big Egg
Sit higher - 15mpg The Cd zooms skyward with her Power Perch.
Where we at?
70mpg-50mpg=25mpg.
I've mentioned this before- a study that showed that women polled said that they regarded safety as the highest factor in an choice of car, yet in test groups preferred the car with the smallest rear window (limiting visibility and hence safety). Why? Because the larger window made them feel "vulnerable". This was theorized as the result of the lower-order impulsive thoughts about survival overriding the higher, logical, and rational mind.
This polling experiment resulted directly in the PT Cruiser- a hit with women, with its conspicuously small rear window (based upon the "lowest in class" safety rating of the Dodge Neon (which it is based on).
Dodge made the PT Cruiser the way they did because they knew that, beyond any rational measure, sales would depend on their succesful exploitation of people's brains.
Marketing shows again and again that convincing someone of anything requires a shot to the gut, not the head. The works against men, too. Just look at all these big truck f*cktards.
Again, the reptilian mind at work. A part of the brain associated with modifying the proprioceptive system. You pick up a golf club and your body interprets the new appendage as "part of self". The bigger the appendage, the greater power one's reptile brain is titillated with. A bigger truck is not itself bigger, the driver is bigger.
A person wants a car to be slathered in leather, filled with amenitites. A car that causes a drop in systolic blood pressure the second its owner's chair fits itself to the human's ass bones. These are not vehicles anymore, they are prosthesis of our bodies. Surrogate dicks and uteruses is a valid comparison.
Many men's phalluses were aesthetically trimmed to an aerodynamic shape shortly after birth. Probably for some BS reason of efficiency. Perhaps men are scared to accept new aerodynamic shapes for previously loved if inefficient shapes for this reason.
I would therefore predict the owner of the Civic to either be circumsized, or uncut. Either way, the video's narrator made clear that he thought the vehicle was ugly and would never attract women.
Oh-ho, what's this? Now the automobile has to attract the opposite sex, acting as surrogate pheronome and hormonal system. - 10mpg.
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:17 am Post subject: Re: Expect way more aerodynamic cars in 3-5 years?
Lol, my wife looked at crash rating and MPG for the main factors. As for styling, she said "not white." Then again, my wife is not the typical woman that we see protrayed on TV, she is quite frugal and is interested in safety for herself and the kids. The Impala has a 5 star crash rating all the way around and side curtain airbags.
The only hedonistic pleasure we insisted on was by me, I insisted that we have XM radio and radio controls on the steering wheel. That was not only would there almost always be something worth listening to on the radio, I would be able to surf and find it without having to take my hands off of the wheel. Really this is a combination safety feature and luxury feature.
Really dude, I've learned that cars are just an expense, they are in no way some sort of penis extension for me, now if you want to talk about my collection of trophies from hunting all over the world...
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:21 pm Post subject: Re: Expect way more aerodynamic cars in 3-5 years?
I'd choose the unsafest car out there and load up the insurance policy, but thats just me.
Really though the Impala could makemuch higher mpg. All you have to do is rip out the 3.5L V6 and drop in a 1.3-1.5L I4. Sure, your acceleration and top speed will suffer but whatever. Then, drop the car's suspension a couple inches.
Still has the XM radio, leather, and airbags but gets twice the mileage.
You might think slower acceleration is less safe but I would argue the opposite. Faster, more powerful gets drivers into trouble, not slower, less powerful.
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:32 am Post subject: Re: Expect way more aerodynamic cars in 3-5 years?
BlisteredWhippet wrote:
I'd choose the unsafest car out there and load up the insurance policy, but thats just me.
Really though the Impala could makemuch higher mpg. All you have to do is rip out the 3.5L V6 and drop in a 1.3-1.5L I4. Sure, your acceleration and top speed will suffer but whatever. Then, drop the car's suspension a couple inches.
Still has the XM radio, leather, and airbags but gets twice the mileage.
You might think slower acceleration is less safe but I would argue the opposite. Faster, more powerful gets drivers into trouble, not slower, less powerful.
I'm going to dispute that you would get much better mileage with a smaller engine. All modern car engines are very efficient, any difference in mileage for in town driving can be made up by driving with a light foot on the accelerator, as for highway driving the gas mileage there is determined by wind resistance not engine size.
This is why I brought up this thread, as car companies fight for market share, and market share being influenced heavily by mileage, the only way to go for higher highway mileage is greater aerodynamics. I still think that soon we will be seeing a 5 to 6 passenger car from one of the big car companies that is very bubbleish or at least has some sort of semi radical styling to greatly cut wind resistance.
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:03 pm Post subject: Re: Expect way more aerodynamic cars in 3-5 years?
[quote="TreeFarmer"]
BlisteredWhippet wrote:
I'd choose the unsafest car out there and load up the insurance policy, but thats just me.
Really though the Impala could makemuch higher mpg. All you have to do is rip out the 3.5L V6 and drop in a 1.3-1.5L I4. Sure, your acceleration and top speed will suffer but whatever. Then, drop the car's suspension a couple inches.
Still has the XM radio, leather, and airbags but gets twice the mileage.
You might think slower acceleration is less safe but I would argue the opposite. Faster, more powerful gets drivers into trouble, not slower, less powerful.
Quote:
I'm going to dispute that you would get much better mileage with a smaller engine. All modern car engines are very efficient, any difference in mileage for in town driving can be made up by driving with a light foot on the accelerator, as for highway driving the gas mileage there is determined by wind resistance not engine size.
All joking aside,
Wind resistance increases dramatically above about 40 mph. Ergo, gear the vehicle for a 40-50 mph cruise. Drop the vehicle as close to the ground as possible- the easiest reduction in Cd you can make.
The smaller engine will save fuel! You need only a relatively low amount of power to maintain speed. The extra power that large engines produce, the torque, is totally extraneous at cruise speed. The engine becomes a serious drag at those speeds- pumping losses, heat losses, etc.... These engines are very efficient for quick acceleration at any speed- thats the tradeoff- and what they were designed for.
Quote:
This is why I brought up this thread, as car companies fight for market share, and market share being influenced heavily by mileage, the only way to go for higher highway mileage is greater aerodynamics. I still think that soon we will be seeing a 5 to 6 passenger car from one of the big car companies that is very bubbleish or at least has some sort of semi radical styling to greatly cut wind resistance.
And it will be a hybrid. Notable hybrid trait- using the electric for torque means the engine only has to be in the single liter range. # cylinders, small bores, etc.
I am saying this is possible today.
Case in point (I'll find the link later), a 55mph, 75+ mpg machine home-made with aerodynamic bubble. Gas only, engine size = 150cc. (That is .15 Liter, single cylinder scooter engine).
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:26 am Post subject: Re: Expect way more aerodynamic cars in 3-5 years?
TreeFarmer and BlisteredWhippet, you are both right to an extent. What matters in terms of engine efficiency is maximizing load. As a good rule of thumb, between maximal and minimal load, energy efficiency differs by ~300-400%. So at maximal load ICEs can operation about three to four times more efficiently than at minimal load. At high loads, there are also differences in engine efficiency, but these tend to be ~20-50%. For instance, at very low load, fuel consumption is ~1.7/.42=4.02 times what it is at high load, while, otoh, at very high speed fuel consumption is ~.6/.42=1.43 times what it is at moderate speeds.
On one hand, smaller engines tend to be more efficient in the same vehicle because they are operating at a higher load more of the time. On the other hand, a larger engine w/ appropriate gearing such that load is maximized at some speed, can see more or less the same efficiency as a small engine operating at peak efficiency, and a smaller engine operating at less than peak efficiency. The trade off is available power compared to fuel consumption at some speed.
For instance, this VW is bigger in every way, and faster, than the bubble car. But w/ an engine ten times larger, it gets about the same mileage. Why? Probably because the little 150cc engine in the bubble has to be rung out to do ~40-50mph, while the engine in the Ecoracer, w/ likely suitable gearing, is probably operating more efficiently. That being said, as the average speed and load drop, the smaller engine and smaller vehicle would probably start seeing a greater advantage, analogous to how 50-150cc scooters/mopeds can see ~100-150mpg at ~20mph. _________________
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
