I know they don’t have a grill due to not having a radiator and it being more aerodynamic, but replacing it with a flat sheet of plastic or metal doesn’t seem like the best way to go about it. If aerodynamics were the main goal wouldn’t the air that hits the nose make it less efficient? It makes sense to me to shrink down the front bumper as much as possible or create vents that give the air a more efficient path. Is it purely an aesthetic thing?
In: Engineering
Aerodynamics can be extremely, extremely complicated so it’s hard to give a blanket answer for all cars. For example, many of the first mass produced cards *look* sleek but [would have actually been more aerodynamic driving backwards](https://driving.ca/feature/1934-chrysler-airflow-aerodynamics-backward-wind-tunnel-test/wcm/af91c273-e9fb-4dc6-b373-f761a449629e/amp/). Having a blunt face isn’t necessarily bad for aerodynamics.
Car designs also have other factors they need to take into account – total car length so the car fits in a parking spot, for example, and also having a flat front can mean safer pedestrian collisions versus having the face of the car that could focus the impact into a smaller area of the pedestrian’s body.
Vents are also challenging because they need a path through the car’s body to direct the air, which may require making the car larger to have space to fit them and the other components. Bigger size means extra mass, which could make the car overall less efficient even in spite of making the aerodynamics better.
But also aesthetics can’t be totally discounted – car manufacturers make cars that they think people will want to buy. Some people like exotic looking EVs, but there definitely is a large portion of the buying market who wants an EV that looks like a conventional car even if the EV could be made far more efficiently without the constraints that designing a conventional car faced.
Latest Answers