I am basing my question off this [image](https://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/dragcoefficients8851096396303799158.png)
Edit: Okay, okay, I should have said “teardrop” instead of “raindrop.” Talking about the *actual* shape of raindrops doesn’t really help given the visuals I provided.
In: 558
Mainly because we, as humans, need to SEE out of the car. And most cars have the engine in front (as that’s better for cargo.)
Because of these two things, we often get the “reverse teardrop.”
The Mercedes EQS is the most aerodynamic production car in the world. Kinda looks like a future prius tho
Mainly because we, as humans, need to SEE out of the car. And most cars have the engine in front (as that’s better for cargo.)
Because of these two things, we often get the “reverse teardrop.”
Not only is it a space/design issue as many have pointed out here but also downforce (literally the *force* of air pushing the fat part of the shape *down* as it passes over) generated by pointy part being in the front makes driving at higher speeds easier.
People think nothing of it because they think, “I’m only going like 60-70mph max so what’s the big deal?” But even at like 40-50mph that downforce plays a part. It keeps the drive wheels of a rear-wheel-drive car more firmly planted and less prone to losing traction and in front-wheel-drive cars those rear wheels act as sort of stabilizers keeping traction as you maneuver. In all-wheel-drive cars the downforce basically pulls double-duty. Though those vehicles tend to get away with boxier designs like trucks and SUVs.
Not only is it a space/design issue as many have pointed out here but also downforce (literally the *force* of air pushing the fat part of the shape *down* as it passes over) generated by pointy part being in the front makes driving at higher speeds easier.
People think nothing of it because they think, “I’m only going like 60-70mph max so what’s the big deal?” But even at like 40-50mph that downforce plays a part. It keeps the drive wheels of a rear-wheel-drive car more firmly planted and less prone to losing traction and in front-wheel-drive cars those rear wheels act as sort of stabilizers keeping traction as you maneuver. In all-wheel-drive cars the downforce basically pulls double-duty. Though those vehicles tend to get away with boxier designs like trucks and SUVs.
Not only is it a space/design issue as many have pointed out here but also downforce (literally the *force* of air pushing the fat part of the shape *down* as it passes over) generated by pointy part being in the front makes driving at higher speeds easier.
People think nothing of it because they think, “I’m only going like 60-70mph max so what’s the big deal?” But even at like 40-50mph that downforce plays a part. It keeps the drive wheels of a rear-wheel-drive car more firmly planted and less prone to losing traction and in front-wheel-drive cars those rear wheels act as sort of stabilizers keeping traction as you maneuver. In all-wheel-drive cars the downforce basically pulls double-duty. Though those vehicles tend to get away with boxier designs like trucks and SUVs.
It’s a good question, I don’t want to pull apart your question by citing requirements of commercial car manufacturers etc.
The backward teardrop shape is also very common in cars meant to break land speed records and arguably in things like F1 cars.
At those his speeds wind resistance is very significant. Which creates two competing goals. Of course the first is lowering wind resistance.
The second is actually being able to put down enough power to push through the air. At those speeds the air is very dense and restrictive. Without a downward acting force, the wheels will just spin in place. The wind resistance is greater than the tyre traction.
To overcome this, passing air also needs to push the car downwards onto the ground in a very significant way. This improved the tyres traction and allows for more power to be applied.
I assume the backward teardrop is meant to accomplish both goals, with the ramp like nose turning air impedance into a downward force. But take that with some salt, wind tunnels exist because the considerations are complex and simple explanations like this often don’t hold.
I think there is more to not using a teardrop design than this. To do with the action of turbulent air between the car and the road; but I can’t help with that.
It’s a good question, I don’t want to pull apart your question by citing requirements of commercial car manufacturers etc.
The backward teardrop shape is also very common in cars meant to break land speed records and arguably in things like F1 cars.
At those his speeds wind resistance is very significant. Which creates two competing goals. Of course the first is lowering wind resistance.
The second is actually being able to put down enough power to push through the air. At those speeds the air is very dense and restrictive. Without a downward acting force, the wheels will just spin in place. The wind resistance is greater than the tyre traction.
To overcome this, passing air also needs to push the car downwards onto the ground in a very significant way. This improved the tyres traction and allows for more power to be applied.
I assume the backward teardrop is meant to accomplish both goals, with the ramp like nose turning air impedance into a downward force. But take that with some salt, wind tunnels exist because the considerations are complex and simple explanations like this often don’t hold.
I think there is more to not using a teardrop design than this. To do with the action of turbulent air between the car and the road; but I can’t help with that.
It’s a good question, I don’t want to pull apart your question by citing requirements of commercial car manufacturers etc.
The backward teardrop shape is also very common in cars meant to break land speed records and arguably in things like F1 cars.
At those his speeds wind resistance is very significant. Which creates two competing goals. Of course the first is lowering wind resistance.
The second is actually being able to put down enough power to push through the air. At those speeds the air is very dense and restrictive. Without a downward acting force, the wheels will just spin in place. The wind resistance is greater than the tyre traction.
To overcome this, passing air also needs to push the car downwards onto the ground in a very significant way. This improved the tyres traction and allows for more power to be applied.
I assume the backward teardrop is meant to accomplish both goals, with the ramp like nose turning air impedance into a downward force. But take that with some salt, wind tunnels exist because the considerations are complex and simple explanations like this often don’t hold.
I think there is more to not using a teardrop design than this. To do with the action of turbulent air between the car and the road; but I can’t help with that.
You ever seen a Prius? I donβt want to be seen in the drivers seat of one of those.
Latest Answers