Slashdot Mirror
The Future That Hasn't Arrived
jonerik writes "MSNBC has this article on an exhibit starting this week at Philadelphia's Lost Highways Archive and Research Library. Entitled Radebaugh: The Future We Were Promised, the exhibit focuses on the artwork of the elusive A.C. Radebaugh, a commercial illustrator whose works promised us a glittering, shiny tomorrow from the '30s to the '50s; a helicopter in every garage, massive streamlined cars, vacations on Mars - in short, pretty much everything we didn't get. The exhibit collects examples from Radebaugh's portfolio, auto designs for Chrysler, DoSoto, and Dodge, ads, and 'Closer Than We Think!,' a syndicated weekly comic strip drawn by Radebaugh. I want my jetpack, dammit!"
William Gibson's "The Gernsback Continuum".
Rule of thumb: if a 1-litre car is going greater than 30mph or so , aerodynamics really matters. There's a v-squared term in the maths.
:-) ). BTW, Hondas really can go very fast. Most of the "rice-boy" stuff in america is american car industry propaganda - you'll find, if you go to europe or asia, EVERYONE LAUGHS AT STUPID GAS-GUZZLING AMERICAN CARS, and prefers well-designed, efficient cars like hondas.
Spoilers are to increase turbulence at the rear of the car, thereby shifting flow separation further back, and actually reducing the pressure drag. If you don't know what pressure drag as opposed to frictional drag is, then this explanation will make very little sense to you...
Properly designed spoilers really do work (but only at the particular designed speed ranges). (note: large third-party spoilers on the back of hondas don't work
A rough undersurface of the car is also actually desirable (again, to INCREASE turbulence, though this time it increases drag) - the more turbulence, the less ground-effect lift will be generated, so you car doesn't take-off!
Foils (often mistaken for spoilers) on F1 cars and some rally cars, are upside wings, designed to increase downforce (at the expense of greater drag), thus increasing traction at the wheel.
Note: IAAFD - I Am A Fluid Dynamicist. Almost all the fluid stuff taught in secondary school is at best lies-to-children, downright wrong most of the time.
At the Smithsonian.
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
It would seem that a rough underside is desirable *if* you have a downforce problem. This is not something your average commuter is worried about-- nobody lifts off, even at 80mph, on their way to work.
However, a smooth underside would seem to be beneficial for air resistance and thus to fuel economy. Honda's engineers and fluid dynamicists and whatnot agree, as their most efficient car (the Honda Insight) has a smooth underside to reduce drag.
In particular, note where the article states "Another important aerodynamic detail that greatly contributes to the Insight body's low coefficient of drag is the careful management of underbody airflow." And the numbers they quote for power required to push the car through the air are equally revealing-- "In comparison, the Honda Civic Hatchback, with roughly the same 1.9 square-meter frontal area as the Insight, has a Cd of 0.36, and needs around 32 percent more power to operate at the same speed as the Insight. "
So there you have it. Without the smooth underside, rear-wheel covers, and a tapered back-end-- you need 32% more power to push a car with roughly the same frontal area. I'm not sure I'd say "A rough undersurface of the car is actually desirable" without qualifying it by adding "for a race car, but not for a normal automobile."
Yeah, but even the common man wore a suit when going out. Have you ever seen old pictures of sporting events or other public gatherings. The crowds are all dressed up! Not in tuxedos or anything, but in casual suits and dresses.