Also, it's only early spring. Still a bit cold over there.
It's a little surprising to me that it shaved that much off the range, though.
Poll: Do you have, or plan to get, an electric car?
- Thread starter Oldpaddy
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk:
- Status
Also, it's only early spring. Still a bit cold over there.
It's a little surprising to me that it shaved that much off the range, though.
The Hyundai Ioniq 5 is UGLY!!!
That does seem to be the consensus opinion...with which I agree.
No idea what the heck the design team was thinking with those angular accents...
No idea what the heck the design team was thinking with those angular accents...
This?
It isn't that radically different.
This?
It isn't that radically different.
Look at one live and up close. Basic lines are fine. But upon inspection every design element is "omg let's be futuristic!" for absolutely no reason.
It looks like it was designed by a 10 year old boy who reads too much sci fi.
![Craft A Brew - Safale S-04 Dry Yeast - Fermentis - English Ale Dry Yeast - For English and American Ales and Hard Apple Ciders - Ingredients for Home Brewing - Beer Making Supplies - [1 Pack]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41fVGNh6JfL._SL500_.jpg)
Vehicle looks are constantly changing. Back when my wife and I bought our first Jeep, a Patriot, she complained that the Compass looked strange. She pretty much complains about how any vehicle looks if it doesn't look like it was designed before 2005.
I've never understood how people get so caught up in vehicle aesthetics. There are some paint colors I don't care for, a few I would outright refuse, but I can't recall a vehicle from a major manufacturer since 2000 that I've absolutely hated the look of. Dislike, sure. I even found the look of the cybertruck amusing.
I guess I just don't care about the looks that much, unless their air resistance is terrible as a result of gaudy design. There are several other attributes that I care more about.
I've never understood how people get so caught up in vehicle aesthetics. There are some paint colors I don't care for, a few I would outright refuse, but I can't recall a vehicle from a major manufacturer since 2000 that I've absolutely hated the look of. Dislike, sure. I even found the look of the cybertruck amusing.
I guess I just don't care about the looks that much, unless their air resistance is terrible as a result of gaudy design. There are several other attributes that I care more about.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 4,691
- Reaction score
- 7,170
- Location
- At home, in the brewery in Maryland.
Yeah, kinda' reminds me of the old 'Walter White mobile' from Breaking Bad: a Pontiac Aztec, or some such thing. Or maybe like the Volkswagen Thing from the early 70s (as well as WW2). Angular, boxy, butt-ugly.
Yeah, I thought about the Aztec. I considered quipping: "So that's where the Aztec designer went." But this doesn't look (from the pic above) quite as ugly as the Aztec.
Brew on
Well, the basic lines of most vehicles are the same... They're all designed by the same computer programs for optimal Cd I'm a wind tunnel. About all the designer can do is "style" from there.
Some go the Versace route. Others go full Liberace.
Looking at listings of Cd among currently sold cars I was surprised to find so many at .22.
Then there are many cars bunched between .23 to .26 - including some I'd have never guessed were that clean in the air, like many Audi and BMW models. By contrast, the Datsun 240z - which sure looked slippery to me - had a Cd of .476!
Turns out under-body airflow management is hella important...
Cheers!
Then there are many cars bunched between .23 to .26 - including some I'd have never guessed were that clean in the air, like many Audi and BMW models. By contrast, the Datsun 240z - which sure looked slippery to me - had a Cd of .476!
Turns out under-body airflow management is hella important...
Cheers!
See also-airplane wings.
coef drag is 0.357 for my full size truck. Hard time believing the number for that 240z.
I had the same doubt but Google doesn't lie, right?
I owned a 280z and the Cd was down to 0.385. Traded that for a 300zx 2+2 once we had the 2nd pup and that one was down further to 0.30. Then the Toyota Supra Turbo that followed was up a scoche 0.32. After that Cd got totally ignored with the Pathfinder at 0.48 - a rolling brick wall
My Hemi Durango R/T claims 0.35 and my Audi S4 says 0.31, so I'm less socially irresponsible now
Cheers!
I owned a 280z and the Cd was down to 0.385. Traded that for a 300zx 2+2 once we had the 2nd pup and that one was down further to 0.30. Then the Toyota Supra Turbo that followed was up a scoche 0.32. After that Cd got totally ignored with the Pathfinder at 0.48 - a rolling brick wall
My Hemi Durango R/T claims 0.35 and my Audi S4 says 0.31, so I'm less socially irresponsible now
Cheers!
I had the same doubt but Google doesn't lie, right?
I owned a 280z and the Cd was down to 0.385. Traded that for a 300zx 2+2 once we had the 2nd pup and that one was down further to 0.30. Then the Toyota Supra Turbo that followed was up a scoche 0.32. After that Cd got totally ignored with the Pathfinder at 0.48 - a rolling brick wall
My Hemi Durango R/T claims 0.35 and my Audi S4 says 0.31, so I'm less socially irresponsible now
Cheers!
My ram has one of those air dams that lower at 35mph to curtain the flow under the truck. I thought the bed would drag a lot, but a leaf in there will not blow out - crazy.
Surprisingly my Ford Flex is 0.335, which is better than I'd expect.
My Jeep is reportedly somewhere around 0.48, with the top on. But the top's never on, so it's probably worse than that. And when I add the lift and bigger tires, it's just gonna get worse.
My Jeep is reportedly somewhere around 0.48, with the top on. But the top's never on, so it's probably worse than that. And when I add the lift and bigger tires, it's just gonna get worse.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 4,691
- Reaction score
- 7,170
- Location
- At home, in the brewery in Maryland.
Where are you guys finding these drag coefficients? Even though I studied aerospace engineering and spent a career (two actually) in "the industry" as an end user, the phenomenon still impresses me with regards to surface vehicles. I remember in one undergrad aero class a study of a wind tunnel test of a small motor boat carried on top of a truck/car. Turns out that the most aerodynamically efficient orientation for the boat wasn't "bow front/transom aft", the way you would intuitively believe. Rather, it was the other way around, with the flat transom actually facing into the wind. The differential between interference drag from the slipstream spilling over the back end of the boat was greater than the planform drag when the 'blunt' end faced forward.
The analysis was pretty involved and not as straightforward as it might seem (it's been more than 50 years, so forgive my fading memory), but there was a cross-over point where speed becomes a factor. As was previously pointed out, drag increases as the square of velocity. It's also got some interesting twists and turns due to compressibility and area rule factors, which engineers discovered during the early days of trans-sonic and supersonic flight. That's when the 'coke bottle' shape of fuselages in the X-jets and Century Series fighter jets came to be a thing in the '50s.
As in many things, appearances can be deceiving. Now retired, we spend a lot of time traveling in a motorhome. We're currently on our third vehicle, all of which have been small (~25') vehicles of similar weights and exterior dimensions, built on the same Mercedes Sprinter chassis, engine and drivetrains. Recently we returned from a Florida visit where we averaged 16.3 mpg on the drive down but nearly 18.5 mpg on the way back. The route was the same each way (890 miles on I-4 and I-95, average driving speed 63 mph, similar traffic congestion). Even though our current motorhome aesthetically "looks" more aerodynamic, there's something else going on, and it must have to do with drag affecting fuel economy. Prevailing wind direction on the trip down was mostly on the nose and in the range of 10-15 mph. On the trip home it was 20-25 mph (and as much as 25-30 mph) tailwinds. By comparison, our average mpg over nearly 120,000 miles of driving on our previous two combined vehicles was in the 17.0 to 17.4 mpg range, even though they both (nearly identical models) "appeared" to be less aerodynamic.
Roof mounted devices and under-carriage ground effect panels play a more significant role than you'd think, and thus driving speed relative to the wind has a major bearing on fuel economy. Just think about the wheel hub covers and fiberglass side panels you now see on the majority of long haul over-the-road trucks. The seemingly minor tweaks can have a major effect on drag and fuel economy. At the end of the day, it ain't just about the sleek appearance on those tail fins on a '57 Chevy!
Via the googles... Which of course means that they are highly suspect.
I got the Flex value from an article at the Flex's introduction, where the Ford representatives interviewed were talking about the drag coefficient and how proud they were to achieve it for such a large boxy vehicle. So that one I put at least some stock into. The Flex is really interesting for the reasons you point out--despite being so big, it actually rides lower to the ground than many other vehicles in the "SUV/crossover" class, and that helps drag significantly.
The Jeep is a harder case. I've seen values of 0.55 for the previous era of Jeep, the TJ model. Mine is a JK, and they moved to a sloped front grill and sloped windshield in the JK design, and I've seen values online of both 0.48 and 0.50 for the JK. I don't know if that was based on the 2-door or 4-door Wrangler though (mine is 2-door). I also don't put a lot of faith into those numbers, for my own vehicle. I have a Rubicon, which is already lifted relative to the base Sport model with larger tires. So I'm sure that in itself hurts the Cd. So that shouldn't be considered a completely accurate number. I just posted it to talk about my vehicle, which is aerodynamically basically a brick on wheels...
Completely agree with how counterintuitive things can be regarding aerodynamics. I.e. a lot of people think that motorcycles, particularly sportbikes, are aerodynamic because of the sleek body panels and the small frontal area. Whereas the aerodynamics of a motorcycle make my Jeep look slippery. Motorcycles are fast at acceleration because of great power-to-weight ratios, but the aerodynamics are terrible. And pickups are counterintuitive--like @passedpawn suggests most people think that the truck bed will cause drag, and many people think that driving with the tailgate down will improve gas mileage. But the exact opposite is true; keeping the tailgate closed reduces drag.
McMullan
wort maker
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2015
- Messages
- 2,566
- Reaction score
- 3,461
I've never stood queueing at a bus stop, train or tube station, airport terminal, dock, etc., and heard folk refuse a ride, flight or cruise, based on 'drag' and 'esthetics'. Just saying. Bans on the sale of private ICE vehicles are likely going to be brought forward with those already on the roads getting taxed into scrap. Our next car, next year or the year after, is going to be an EV regardless. And we're just going to have to plan and change our travelling behaviour to adapt to it. It is the way. Just like electric brewing 
Coefficient of drag on that is 0.13.
If it succeeds, I want to get one when my son turns 13 and let him take it to college after I've put some miles on it.
Last edited:
Coefficient of drag on that is 0.13.
If it succeeds, I want to get one when my son turns 13 and let him take it to college after I've put some miles on it.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 4,691
- Reaction score
- 7,170
- Location
- At home, in the brewery in Maryland.
That's exactly right about open bed pickup trucks. I remember getting a 'cargo net' web strap tailgate to replace the one in my Ford pickup way back in the early 80s. I don't recall any significant increase in fuel burn with the cargo web tailgate replacement, but I sure remember the lack of improved fuel economy.
Same with the custom bed cover on my next pickup. BUT, at least things in the bed didn't get wet when it rained.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-lithium-expert-agrees-elon-181259766.html
This is one of the things I worry about with EV adoption... The world has plenty of lithium... But does it have industries able to recover that lithium in the quantities and at the cost necessary to ramp?
This is one of the things I worry about with EV adoption... The world has plenty of lithium... But does it have industries able to recover that lithium in the quantities and at the cost necessary to ramp?
I have a friend working with some big name labs on using very available alternatives to lithium and that is all I can say about it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
