Recent Comments:
Bugatti Veyron: 0-100-0 in 9.9 sec! {Autoblog}
Apr 27th 2008 8:15AM Who would I rather spend a week with, Ultima GTR or Veyron? I drove both and... Definitely the Ultima GTR. :-) More luggage space despite being faster than the Veyron, and has AirConditioning, GPS, and a stereo...all I need for "street comforts". If you need more, then I think you're missing the purpose of both the Ultima and Veyron: Although different from one another in many ways, the goal they share is "street-legal speed". It's like comparing a courtesan who charges less, to an AIDS-ridden streetwalker who charges you 10 times more! ;-)
2009 Cadillac CTS-V will have 600HP Corvette Blue Devil engine! {Autoblog}
Jun 10th 2007 10:00PM Car Designer @ Jun 4th 2007 4:43PM
blitzkrieg- "it looks too blocky and not aerodynamic"
just so you are aware, blocky IS aerodynamic. Most people think fluid and smooth means aerodynamic...take a look at a NASCAR, it is a brick made to look shapely...this is from experience as a designer and being in a wind tunnel running aero tests...
Mike Ishi @ Jun 9th 2007 2:31AM
@ car designer: Oh, so that's why planes are designed as cubes?
36 blitzkrieg79 @ Jun 4th 2007 5:02PM
Look at all the fastest cars in the world, most of them has fluid, rounded shapes
37 Car Designer @ Jun 5th 2007 8:26AM
trust me when I tell you that blocky IS more aero friendly
-----
The most aerodynamic shape is very close to a raindrop, which is not at all "blocky," there isn't even 1 straight surface on the theoretically-perfect raindrop. With only surface tension to hold the molecules of water together but the fact that the rainwater is a liquid (fluid) not solid, the molecules are free to rotate around one another to take the PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE; the shape that gives it the least resistance (least drag) is a teardrop shape.
I repeat, a TEARDROP shape, not a "flying brick" like NASCAR. And that's part of why Le Mans style cars have a lot of teardrop shapes and go MUCH, MUCH FASTER THAN NASCAR with about the same (800) BHP:
GT-P cars were doing over 240 mph w/only about 800 bhp over a decade ago, which is faster than nascar's "flying bricks" with approx the same hp. 245 mph like a GT-P car causes about 45% more drag, if you keep the car the same and only change speed down to the nascar-like, pitifully-slow 200 mph... i.e. although it's only a few extra mph from 200-245, it's a HUGE difference in drag.
----->NOTE: Unlike a GT-P car, nascar's shapes are blocky NOT because they were the best in windtunnels, as "car designer" seems to suggest, but because the NASCAR REGS call for each car to resemble the cheap and practical cars each automaker sells to the typical nascar fan, what the fans drive on the street. Look at a GT-P or even LMP car, then look at the Dodge or Chevy nascars: The nascar racing car looks a lot more like an ACTUAL CHEVY OR DODGE MAKE/MODEL that you can buy at your local dealer, whereas an LMP or GT-P car looks nothing like a practical, stock roadcar...and that is on purpose: The largest surfaces of a car's body in nascar cannot be modified or replaced for better aero than, oh, your average crapped-out $20k car's aero, so the aero improvements are minimal, and this is because, as Nascar itself even says... A reason for nascar's popularity is that Joe Sixpack can think his car is like a nascar racing car, and although Nascar modifies nearly everything INSIDE each car which makes Joe Sixpack very WRONG to think his showroom-stock car is anything like the professional-racing series nascar cars.... The goal of nascar regs is to keep the exterior -- including most aerodynamics -- close to a showroom car so that the automakers who put money into the nascar series can make Joe Sixpack FEEL like his $20k showroom-stock car is "sorta like a nascar Busch/etc. series car" which encourages him to buy the showroom car, and that's because Joe Sixpack doesn't see or understand the differences under the skin, and what is unseen isn't understood by the average layperson: eg. a non-engineer/non-mechanic.
Unlike nascar, GT-P cars had UNLIMITED mods to aerodynamics...and with these TEARDROP shapes typical of GT-P, which are superior to nascar's blockiness, Toyota started its Lexus division -- producing cars with lower drag-coefficients than ANY automaker involved in nascar, just after their GT-P learning experiences. Let's let that fact sink in, and speak for itself as a great example that "blockiness like nascar is NOT good aero design". ;-)
...Basically, automakers whose main high-speed circuit experience is in nascar aren't learning much and applying it to their roadcars -- because you cannot get as much aero expertise from your racing program when it's as LIMITED mods as nascar's pro racing programs.
But, for best OVERALL performance ("overall" meaning "aside from just reducing drag"... eg. to get downforce [or lift, for planes...], eg. to fit 4 tires at the corners for great cornering [on cars only, not planes obviously], and eg. to fit all the other parts a car or plane needs, and WHERE those parts need to be in relation to one another...) because of all these items aside from reducing drag, of course most cars (and planes) aren't actually designed like one big teardrop. You'll get the teardrop-shaped roofs/"greenhouses" in GT cars (i.e. the parts of the car above the base-of-the-windshield), and even cars purpose-built for the Utah salt flats aren't exactly like "one big teardrop," but a salt-flat car comes a lot closer to a true teardrop shape because unlike nascar, F1, GT, etc., they don't need to turn, or even accelerate up to speed quickly... Even on salt flats, "lowering drag" -- i.e. forming the car in "one big teardrop" -- is still never going to be the ONLY design consideration (eg. need a LITTLE downforce to keep it from becoming an expensive kite, eg. need to fit wheels, although wheels don't always need to be set REALLY far apart on a salt flat/land-speed-record car like on a car that needs to corner really well -- nor do salt-flat cars even always have all 4 wheels, like a typical F1, GT, nascar, or other "cornering" cars that traverse circuit tracks), and so even those cars don't resemble "one big teardrop". Note that on the salt flats, they go way above nascar's 200 mph or even F1's 250 mph.
Sorry "car designer," but I trust Lehigh's profs and my own experience and what I learned from 2 of the best vehicular/aerospace (respectively) corporations out there, over your suggestions that nascar-like blockiness is GOOD. Chalk one up for the several people who quibbled with the (amateurish) "car designer" because sure enough, GOOD "car designers" like LAMBORGHINI learned that blocky shapes like their old Countach are CRAP, and started making "sleek" cars -- sleeker than nascar because they aren't hindered by nascar regs -- and who do you believe, all those sports-car makers combined, or some dude on the internet? ;-) (hell, I won't be offended if you take my word with a grain of salt as much as "car designer's" word, because you don't know me, but WE ALL KNOW that "car designer" is contradicting every major sports-car maker out there...) I hope my post points out WHY nascar blockiness is how it is (regs, mostly), and why it's slower than some non-nascar racing series which have better (often unlimited, no regulations on) aero as the only major diff in their top-speeds vs. nascar's top-speeds.
Let me add that blockiness is a fair compromise SOMETIMES -- as in the example below -- but not typically good for lowering drag and NEVER the BEST for lowering drag, and that's usually because it usually deviates harshly from that ideal raindrop/teardrop shape.
Car Designer says: " in simplest terms, blocky is better because it provides less edges/surfaces for air to "hold" when releasing away from the surface...[snip]" The rear tip of a teardrop leaves the least rear surface because it is theoretically zero, which would create NO drag-inducing eddies, as "zero" leaves NO "edges/surfaces for the air to 'hold'..."; practically, in the real world, instead of zero we often leave under 1 sq-inch of rear surface on a car meant for the Utah salt-flats... Many teardrop PARTS of cars and planes (even if not the entire car/plane being "one big teardrop" for the reasons I discussed above...) are very close to "zero rear surface area," and it's the least drag we humans know how to get, and IN CONTRAST OF THAT, EVEN THE BEST CAR WITH A BIG, FLAT REAR PANEL (eg. the Vette, as you said just after what I quoted from you, at the top of this paragraph...) will create more drag than a teardrop-shape, which is why a PRACTICAL car -- which needs to fit into an 18 to 20 foot long parking space, even after it splits the airstream enough to fit a driver and many autoparts -- will have the Vette-like "flat rear" compromise, unlike many of the fastest salt flat/land-speed record cars, which have a LONG, gradual reduction to a pointy tip (sharp like an arrow-point) at the car's rear (Teardrop-shape) -- which makes them WAY too long to fit into a parking space, have a usable trunk space, etc. The excess length of a proper teardropped rear end also adds WEIGHT, and is therefore unacceptable for a GT car like a Vette, since weight is important for acceleration which GT cars do a lot of, relative to a salt-flats car, or an aeroplane.
Another issue of practicality besides length is accessing luggage space, and here's a car with a flat rear like a Vette, but MUCH lower drag due to having no trunk (storage is only on the sides of the car, next to driver and passenger ...not the most practical since you need to put your shopping cart at rear or front of the vehicle, so they sacrifice that convenience for less drag and more engine-cooling...): ultimasports.co.uk. The big hole in the rear panel of the Ultima's body, where the exhaust tips are, allows air to fill-in behind the car's rear panel with a lot less drag than a Vette. It'd be even less drag if they moved the tips to a part of the car's rear panel AWAY from the big hole that draws vaccum to pull air through engine-bay (and the smaller holes to draw air over brakes).
IMHO, if Chevy does a Blue Devil, they should emulate the tube-frame kit car makers like this...and now I'll deviate from aerodynamics: under $150k for Ultima with 800-1000 hp LS7 (that's 50% to 100% better power-to-weight ratio than an Enzo...), 1.2 g's lateral grip (that's 20% more than an Enzo...), huge downforce, etc.). That $150k includes FIA-legal cage, fire bottle, stereo/AirCon, decent-yet-race-like interior finishes, minimal sound-insulation (quieter than a C6 w/only firewall as insulation), etc. Add DOT-legal or slick racing tires for even more than 1.2 lateral g's -- the rear wing makes 800 lbs of downforce @ only 160 mph and the body makes MORE downforce (on a car that's only 2200 lbs... that is approx 1/3 extra grip JUST from the wing @ 160 mph! At 240 mph, the wing ALONE gives nearly as much DF as the car weighs, and you do the proverbial "stick to the ceiling" at barely over 200 mph when you add the body's downforce to the wing's. ...Brakes and tires are as big as a Viper's despite being 2/3 the Viper's weight, and it weighs a few hundred lb. less than an Enzo (that plus the LS7 with it's low-end efficiency despite wide power-band all the way up to 7k RPM = approx. 30 mpg when not racing, compared to Ferrari's crappy all-motor/wild-cam mpg, so it'nice for a street-legal weekend race car...)
PETA goes after Chrysler Group for Iditarod connection {Autoblog}
Mar 2nd 2007 11:56PM "strange how peta has no e-mail address so we can tell them what a bunch of a-holes they are"
Oh, they do... and I just did email and call them a-holes. They had several email addresses in plain view on several of their webpages.
...However, several of you lie just as bad as PETA (see below examples), meaning that there are nut-jobs and liars/propagandists on BOTH sides of this issue...
"an organization that euthanizes thousands of healthy and adoptable dogs per day and throws them in trashbags"
There was an acquittal and "thousand of dogs per day" was never even alleged. Therefore this is untrue, and therefore it is LIBELOUS: I'm sure PeTA won’t bother with a nobody like you with a libel lawsuit, but your lie is no better than PETA’s lie.
"This is actually GOOD for the dogs, as this is what they were bred for. They like doing this..."
Several dogs have died in the Iditarod. Are you saying it’s good for a dog to be run to death because he was "bred for it"? Or that the dogs who died "liked doing this"? It’s more like "good for us" than good for them. As such, you also lie as badly as PETA often does.
But certainly I'd agree that the dogs who survive will OFTEN enjoy it, and given that factor, I think the Iditarod just needs more regulation rather than an outright ban. With the number of dogs who've died, the people running the event are not running it well.
It's not "good for" a dog to be forced to run by being hooked to a harness until he is literally dragged as he takes his dying breaths...something which doesn't happen to dogs naturally even within a pack of WILD undomesticated dogs. Do you also think African-Americans were "bred for" slave-masters (They actually were) and therefore they must "like" (They do not) being paid nothing to pick cotton?? Because if you said yes, it would only be logically consistent with your beliefs about dogs, but you can't have it both ways: and of course it's wrong to breed others who have emotions and can feel pain, for your own personal gain. It's wrong whether those "others" are human or other sentient animals...but if you do it to bond with your dogs, that's great.
We have two dogs in my house: and like you said they love to run and play...but they don't like when I tie them to a harness and I doubt they'd start enjoying themselves if I then used the harness to FORCE them to run further than they're physically capable of, and gave them sore paws or killed them in the process as happens all too often in the Iditarod.
"pets claims that owning a Seeing Eye dog is cruel, and that the practice of helping people live a normal life should be stopped."
Source? Citation? You’ll excuse me for not believing you given that one or two of the quotes above which I exposed as untrue were quotes of you...
"people who belong in Gitmo"
This is an opinion, so I can’t say it’s factually wrong or a lie... and yes, PETA funds some bad things, but according to the FBI, PETA and its beneficiaries have never killed anyone. Osama has. Big difference. Some "domestic terrorism" groups also have killed, but they are uniformly RIGHT-WINGERS: anti-abortionists, militias, etc. They (and Crips/Bloods, child abusers, etc. are all better candidates for Gitmo, than the people PETA paid who committed only PROPERTY crimes (you think a child-abuser doesn't cause TERROR in his victims? He's a much worse terrorist than PETA, and so are murderers.)
Yet Bush ignores the worst "domestic terrorist" groups -- those who have KILLED to terrorize their fellow Americans (eg. Bush doesn’t even call them "terrorists" at all, let alone the only "domestic terrorism" laws since he took office were directed at the left-wing groups). Maybe Bush won't even use the words "domestic terrorists" when he's talking about murderous right-wing groups because that would discredit his conservative causes as much as PETA discredits the legit animal right groups like HSUS...or at least I can’t think of any other reason GWB would do that, can you?
With my 900+ HP car (nor will I even recycle, unless my town starts MAKING money from it...), I hardly qualify as an environmentalist, I'd make a much better animal-rights activist... but even I can see the unfairness/relativism when it comes to the (formerly) Republican Congress's attitude toward the enviro-wackos of the ELF: Commit a property-crime for the environment (or animals or seemingly ANY left-wing cause), you get called "terrorist" but commit MURDER for a right-wing cause and Congress doesn't hold hearing like they did on the ALF and ELF nor will the president call you a "domestic terrorist". The president and his cronies are spreading this MORAL RELATIVISM.
PETA terrorizes animal abusers, and that’s wrong. But what else can you call an abuser, experimenter, etc. who makes an innocent animal shake in fear and TERROR as they perform bodily harm and killing of that sentient animal? My PROFESSIONAL opinion as a bioethicist and neurobiologist is that PETA’s targets are usually ALSO terrorists themselves, but they are either just too cowardly to terrorize people who can fight back so they terrorize other animals instead, or do it for other reasons of expediency.
And while PETA is going too far if they claim insects can feel terror or pain (insects might, but there’s no proof), there are a few thousand scientific papers which support the fact that all animals above the phylum of fish can feel "terror"...because (this is the short version)fear/terror is felt in the amygdala proper, which hasn't evolved from fish to humans.
one source: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office in London, England, because scientific studies were collected by the British government used when determining 3 sets of animal-welfare laws.
...Not that some people here probably care about those SCIENTIFIC FACTS about animal anatomy, but perhaps only some people in this forum will be
lying right-wing ideologues on a level as bad as PETA who are lying LEFT-wing ideologues. Neither side is any better when they don't accept the scientific truth.
Spy Shots: 2009 Porsche 911 {Autoblog}
Mar 2nd 2007 9:41PM "we're looking forward to Porsche's first application of its new DSG"
People, don't hold your breath...unless your lung capacity can keep you alive for another 4 years.
The new PDK is non-existent except in auto-journalists' hype which said it would be available as early as 2003. It's 4 years later and the new PDK still exists only as HYPE.
All of Porsche's competitors (Ferrari, Veyron, etc.) have had quick no-lift shifts for YEARS. So I guess having The VW Group's DSG experience -- and the 956/962 experience with PSK on racing cars -- HASN'T paid off for Porsche. Sure, if they can finally get the PDK out the door, using it on a prodution vehicle, it would add about 0.1% extra performance than what Ferrari and the rest have had for years (the faster shifts of a dual-clutch over Ferrari's "F1" AMT isn't even a full 0.1 seconds on 0-100!), so was the 0.1% improvement worth it, Porsche?!
Looks like Porsche's exterior styling is regressing back into the mid-19th century as much as their transaxle technology is stuck in the 19th century, too.
