>>14722 Why should anyone? Also whatever you wrote makes no sense and is not true.

>>14723 Tesla roadster graph, (it is about 10x as fuel efficient as your average car, aerodynamically 2x as efficient maybe).

>>14725 >Tesla shills

>>14725 >beliving advertising claims Get out.

>>14722 Because consumer versions of pic related had legendary overheating problems.

>>14722 because I can't "enhance" my car due to my State's regulations. Anything else?

>>14731 but yor state regulates your people's laws no? Anyway adding an aerodynamic tail will give you 30%+ reduction in fuel consumption, that does not involve that much engineering.

>>14733 Did Tesla advertisement guys use a cardboard box on wheels and said "this is what regular car is"? <It involves aerodynamic engineering and many tests in wind tunnels to reduce air resistance to most cars by even 5%, not even mentioning fuel comsumption reduction >it does not involve that much engineering STOP THIS MADNESS YOU ADVERTISEMENT-FULL HUMAN

>>14734 oh, would it hurt your business?

Testing an aerodynamic boat tail - 15% better MPG - Geo Metro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sQFtd-bTfw only a tail.

>>14733 >Adding a tail gives you 25% less fuel consumption That's why car manufacturers don't put them on their hatchbacks, right? What do their teams of engineers specialized in aerodynamics know, right? It's not like they put spoilers on the rear to induce better flow separation, thus decrease drag, right? Next you're going to tell me a heating coil around your fuel line will raise your MPG by 50 or something. Shoo shoo, Tesla shill. Nobody except people who don't know what to do with all their money like your overhyped golf tanks.

>>14737 yeah that car has better aerodynamic features going backwards :) i wonder who you work for, or how dumb you are. if you are just dumb, study these images: cross section of an aeroplane's wing, that flies efficiently above 200 km/h speeds i you still don't know which side is leading and trailing then you fail at failing Spoilers add drag, create downforce at the cost of fuel.

>>14722 I don't want my car too look like an ugly piece of shit and can afford to pay for gas

>>14739 is this ugly in your opinion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lKq1fGtXFM >>14741 Very much so, it might have been used for high speed demonstrations but it still reminds me of the swedish cuckmobile Aesthetics and practicality > efficiency as far as i'm concerned

>>14742 Your 2 ton rolling box is very practical to take you (alone) to the shop nearby burning 10 liters of gasoline per 100 km I have no problem with you having a hobby, and rolling arund in a box designed aerodynamically for 30 km/h. I was just pointing out that for efficient travel, aerodynamic shape is needed. Another question that the engine is very inefficient by design, and the whole thing weights over a ton..

>>14743 >I have no problem with you having a hobby, and rolling arund in a box designed aerodynamically for 30 km/h. Yes well i do have a problem with driving an econo shitbox, which is why i will never buy one >wants to drive around in a faggy little eco-friendly shitbox >complains about large vehicles and fuel usage >is a European Typical

>>14744 Well, an aerodynamic vehicle could be 10 times larger than a "car" to get exact same aerodynamic drag, what you fail to interpret is at least 10 times more aerodynamic shape is possible at the exact same ize as your shitty box-car. That could mean 1 liter / 100 km instead of 10 liter / 100 km. image related, it consumes 0 liter / 1000 km, uses sun power.

>>14745 > what you fail to interpret is at least 10 times more aerodynamic shape is possible at the exact I do realize this, but don't care, see >>14742 >Aesthetics and practicality > efficiency >as far as i'm concerned >image related, it consumes 0 liter / 1000 km, uses sun power. Still wouldn't drive it even for free, nor would i even want to be seen near it

>>14733 >but your state regulates your people's law I don't see how your sentence proves me wrong…?

because I'm not a drag racer that's after slightly faster 1/8th mile times and I can afford the extra gas costs since I don't live in a country that uses my tax money to support unemployed rapist mudslimes

>>14744 >1.2l 47hp turbo diesel Try again, fagio.

>>14752 And this is a 1.4 TDi.

>>14738 >Airplane aerodynamics are the exact same as car aerodynamics >Ground interaction? What? >A car's silhouette looks vaguely similar to the cross section of an airplane wing >Dude it has less drag backwards lol >He doesn't know the difference between a spoiler and a wing >He doesn't know about flow separation on a spoilerless hatchback causing stall drag >he doesn't know that a well designed spoiler can alleviate this problem >he thinks all spoilers only produce downforce Thank you for confirming that you know absolutely jack diddly dick about aerodynamics other than aeronautics 101. Or perhaps you are a ruseman. Surely, nobody can be THIS dumb, right? right?

>>14754 >>A car's silhouette looks vaguely similar to the cross section of an airplane wing Yes, only it is reversed lel >>14754 >>Ground interaction? What? Oh yeah, it does not take off… Ground effect on. >>14754 >>He doesn't know the difference between a spoiler and a wing >He doesn't know about flow separation on a spoilerless hatchback causing stall drag >he doesn't know that a well designed spoiler can alleviate this problem >he thinks all spoilers only produce downforce Talking to me? come at me /b/ro

>>14755 Somewhat of a stretch, isn't it? You can stop pretending to be retarded now.

>>14756 i don't know what is your problem now, pick one: -You are paid to spit trash on boards for money. -You think it would hurt your business if cars were more efficient? -You are a dumb arrogant ignorant fuck and you don't give a shit while you are able to pay for your shitty van. -You really believe you know everything and you are right. >>14757 Your ghetto physics is almost a beginning of something, but one needs to realize that turbulence = wasted power. The greatest potentiol of streamlining is atthe rear, not at the front.

>>14758 >Makes retarded claims in the entire thread >Goes on to claim that a hatchback has better aerodynamics backwards >Conveniently ignores every rebuttal of his most retarded points Reported for being the largest faggot on this board since the guy that snitched on a modder for using BeamNG.drive assets.

>>14734 i did not search for tesla stuff btw, it was just the only one i found, gasoline IC engine people seriously does not give a fuck about aerodynamic efficiency it seems. It is all good to drive with under-cambered wings at front and rear to generate downforce and accelerate even faster and burn more fuel, if you are only into racing.

>>14761 >wings at front and rear Name me one road going car from a major manufacturer that has wings both and the front and the rear. Furthermore, name me three road going cars from a major car manufacturer in which the wing is not mainly there for aesthetics. Aerodynamic downforce is negligible in road use. Are you drunk or retarded?

>>14762 You are a dumb fucker, it is a waste of time reasoning you, hoping to have more intelligent readers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_%28car%29 Skyline R34 GT-R V-Spec 610HP in Stockholm Tunnels HD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K3jvZFsRKg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M656WZepsg

>>14761 If by "search" you meant the first 2 pages of google… sigh. IC engine people care about aerodynamics exactly as much as anyone else. If IC people did not care about aerodynamics, we could still have cars with designs that look good, not modern day "squeezed through a tube" designs. >>14762 Oh my fucking god, every damn fucking mid-class car comes with front wings from factory. Google "front car wings" in image search, scroll past the first 30 or so pictures of Formula 1 cars and there you go.

>>14764 >Do the google search >see splitters >and air dams >and canards >but not a single actual wing DO YOU NOT KNOW WHAT A WING IS?