German car that was super-aerodynamic but impractical(rarehistoricalphotos.com)
rarehistoricalphotos.com
German car that was super-aerodynamic but impractical
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/schlorwagen-photographs-1939/
124 comments
The first flight of the Komet was in 1941, so it seems the insanity was concurrent. At least the train never melted anyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_163_Komet
O.o
"""
[M]any pilots were killed during testing and training, at least in part due to the highly volatile and corrosive nature of the rocket propellant used in later models of the aircraft. This includes one pilot, Oberleutnant Josef Pöhs, who was *dissolved* by the rocket fuel following an incident that resulted in a ruptured fuel line.
"""
O.o
"""
[M]any pilots were killed during testing and training, at least in part due to the highly volatile and corrosive nature of the rocket propellant used in later models of the aircraft. This includes one pilot, Oberleutnant Josef Pöhs, who was *dissolved* by the rocket fuel following an incident that resulted in a ruptured fuel line.
"""
My grandfather was drafted to work as an engineer in the Luftwaffe in WW2. During his lifetime all I was able to gather from him was that he worked on experimental planes.
Only after his death did I learn what the bulk of his work had been and why he refused to fly on planes: sitting in the belly of bomber planes and manually operating the mechanism for releasing the bombs while suspended over an open port looking down on a barrage of AA fire like in a scene out of Doctor Strangelove. Apparently the mechanism had to be operated manually to be even remotely reliable.
Only after his death did I learn what the bulk of his work had been and why he refused to fly on planes: sitting in the belly of bomber planes and manually operating the mechanism for releasing the bombs while suspended over an open port looking down on a barrage of AA fire like in a scene out of Doctor Strangelove. Apparently the mechanism had to be operated manually to be even remotely reliable.
I lived in West Germany for a while, back in the day. On one of our postings, my dad (British Army Officer) ran a depot near Paderborn and one of his employees was a former Prussian Cavalry Lancier (or something similar). Herr Masker (I think). I have a lovely photo of us lot sitting on a sledge being pulled by horses.
Later on, we were stationed in Bielefeld. We also were stationed in Rheindahlen too (twice)
The thing is, this is from years back. I was a British brat living in a foreign country and enjoying myself. Germany in the '80s-2000 was streets ahead of the UK in many areas apart from their sewers which were ... crap.
When we lived in Monchengladbach for a while (twice, this was the first time) (a tour/posting is roughly 18 months) we became lifelong friends with a family called the Wurms (Dragons). That was in about 1978ish.
Herr Wurm was a Luftwaffe sergeant back in the day (conscription post WW2) and then did other things - a storming Scouter. He introduced us to the Weine probe thing on the Mosel and much more.
@hnbad: we are both Europeans (OK I'm a Brit but I partially grew up in Germany and W Germany at that - I was able to visit E Germany through Checkpoint "Charlie" back in the day , roughly 1979) That was quite odd: I remember watching a hedgehog from the other side of the Brandenburg Gate wandering across the grass. We also saw what East Germany was like back then. ... It's better now and of course it's reunited with the West.
Later on, we were stationed in Bielefeld. We also were stationed in Rheindahlen too (twice)
The thing is, this is from years back. I was a British brat living in a foreign country and enjoying myself. Germany in the '80s-2000 was streets ahead of the UK in many areas apart from their sewers which were ... crap.
When we lived in Monchengladbach for a while (twice, this was the first time) (a tour/posting is roughly 18 months) we became lifelong friends with a family called the Wurms (Dragons). That was in about 1978ish.
Herr Wurm was a Luftwaffe sergeant back in the day (conscription post WW2) and then did other things - a storming Scouter. He introduced us to the Weine probe thing on the Mosel and much more.
@hnbad: we are both Europeans (OK I'm a Brit but I partially grew up in Germany and W Germany at that - I was able to visit E Germany through Checkpoint "Charlie" back in the day , roughly 1979) That was quite odd: I remember watching a hedgehog from the other side of the Brandenburg Gate wandering across the grass. We also saw what East Germany was like back then. ... It's better now and of course it's reunited with the West.
The propellant/rocket on this is cool it's a "cold rocket"
[deleted]
I was playing fast and loose with dates and ... facts!
I made a model of the ME163, whilst living in West Germany back in the 1980s. Not to mention the rest of them: Spitfires, Lancs, Dorniers, Focke Wulfs, Heinckles (111) Arado (234) Blenheims, Bristols, Mossies and more.
The ME163 was an absolutely insane thing. It took off on a weird cradle and was powered by an incredibly nasty fuel. One of its pilots was dissolved by the stuff (see the WP page for details)
I made a model of the ME163, whilst living in West Germany back in the 1980s. Not to mention the rest of them: Spitfires, Lancs, Dorniers, Focke Wulfs, Heinckles (111) Arado (234) Blenheims, Bristols, Mossies and more.
The ME163 was an absolutely insane thing. It took off on a weird cradle and was powered by an incredibly nasty fuel. One of its pilots was dissolved by the stuff (see the WP page for details)
No Mustang?!? I'm appalled!
Seriously, I miss my model planes so bad that my children know about them, decades after they we "disposed" of against my will. The hours of glue and sanding and paint. If you have any pics I'd love to see them.
Seriously, I miss my model planes so bad that my children know about them, decades after they we "disposed" of against my will. The hours of glue and sanding and paint. If you have any pics I'd love to see them.
My sincere apologies for getting a little introspective (I'm British)! I did make at least one Mustang and Lightnings - beautiful aircraft all, and rather a lot of {B(n): n ∈ (US bomber designations)}. My Enola Gay was pretty decent. I made it with undercart down and with unusual foresight, I used plasticine and a ball bearing to weight the nose behind the cockpit so it sat correctly (bloody tricycle undercarriage - honestly, aero designers have no idea what trials they put modellers through 8)
The ball bearing in question was given to me by a friend in West Germany, whose dad was a ociffer in the Royal Tank Regiment. It was a ball bearing from a Chieftain tank (probably mark I - this was 1976ish). I still have one of the really big BBs from one of those beasts somewhere - it's about 2.5" diameter. This one was about 0.5" so it fitted inside the fuselage.
From memory, I made two Musties. One was nearly all silver with some black upper surfaces and another was the original UK build. I didn't realise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang that it was oriniated from here.
What a cracking gift from our mates over the seas. That aircraft was an absolute belter. Not quite as pretty as a Spitfire (depending on your point of view, but that oval wing shape on the Spit is pretty iconic) but could give an FW 190 a right good kicking with a decent run up. The Mustie had a brilliant cockpit design from day one that started with the canopy - huge visibility. Later Spits and other fighters copied that, I think.
Later on the Lightning (US) and the Mosquitto (UK) showed what happens if you make the fighter a bit bigger and deploy seriously manly weaponry on a platform that has much longer legs. Our Mossies were counted as two kills by the Axis, if they managed to shoot one down.
The ball bearing in question was given to me by a friend in West Germany, whose dad was a ociffer in the Royal Tank Regiment. It was a ball bearing from a Chieftain tank (probably mark I - this was 1976ish). I still have one of the really big BBs from one of those beasts somewhere - it's about 2.5" diameter. This one was about 0.5" so it fitted inside the fuselage.
From memory, I made two Musties. One was nearly all silver with some black upper surfaces and another was the original UK build. I didn't realise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang that it was oriniated from here.
What a cracking gift from our mates over the seas. That aircraft was an absolute belter. Not quite as pretty as a Spitfire (depending on your point of view, but that oval wing shape on the Spit is pretty iconic) but could give an FW 190 a right good kicking with a decent run up. The Mustie had a brilliant cockpit design from day one that started with the canopy - huge visibility. Later Spits and other fighters copied that, I think.
Later on the Lightning (US) and the Mosquitto (UK) showed what happens if you make the fighter a bit bigger and deploy seriously manly weaponry on a platform that has much longer legs. Our Mossies were counted as two kills by the Axis, if they managed to shoot one down.
Thanks for taking me back three decades. I was building more F-{N} ; 4 <= N <= 104 models but I did have a B-17 in there and a P or two. I don't recall ever doing a Spitfire, but I agree that the plane is absolutely beautiful. The oval planform is iconic, I can picture it perfectly.
Thank you.
Thank you.
My pleasure mate. I'd love to get back into model building too but don't for probably the same reasons as you. You didn't mention any of that either but I suspect ... 8)
If I ever get back into modelling I'll probably go back into radio controlled flying things. That said, there are a few diorama ideas I have bubbling away too.
Now, do I get a Pitts Special up and running ... (probably)
If I ever get back into modelling I'll probably go back into radio controlled flying things. That said, there are a few diorama ideas I have bubbling away too.
Now, do I get a Pitts Special up and running ... (probably)
There is so much idiom in this comment. I just... love it!
I will confess to playing to the choir! A choir usually sings a more complicated tune or at least more enthusiastically than the rest of the congregation in a church. I'm wittering on about Christianity but I'm pretty sure all religions will have a similar saying.
I wish I was more proficient in other languages but I think I am pretty useful in English, which I particularly delight in abusing! That's the thing: you can twiddle around with it and still be intelligible. Twiddle around: It'll work.
English (other languages are available) is very, very flexible and that's one of the reasons why it is currently French ... err the lingua franca. English doesn't just borrow words, it actively goes out and steals them. That sounds a bit suspect but I like to think that we also cherish our ill gotten gains.
I wish I was more proficient in other languages but I think I am pretty useful in English, which I particularly delight in abusing! That's the thing: you can twiddle around with it and still be intelligible. Twiddle around: It'll work.
English (other languages are available) is very, very flexible and that's one of the reasons why it is currently French ... err the lingua franca. English doesn't just borrow words, it actively goes out and steals them. That sounds a bit suspect but I like to think that we also cherish our ill gotten gains.
Jay Leno would love it!
https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/jay-lenos-airplane-...
You don't really need an aircraft motor to have a dangerously fast car: "The Tatra 87 was praised by German officers in World War II for the superior speed and handling it offered for use on the Autobahn. The Nazi armaments and munitions minister Fritz Todt declared: "This 87 is the Autobahn car ..." It was known, however, as the 'Czech secret weapon' because it killed so many Nazi officers during World War II that the German Army eventually forbade its officers from driving the Tatra." <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_87>
Two various tidbits:
- The inventor apparently managed to rescue several jewish people [0] when designing and prototyping for the Wehrmacht in Riga, Latvia.
- This immediately made me think of the little known Volkswagen 1-litre car [1]. Something like that with an electric drivetrain would be close to my ideal car...
[0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schl%C3%B6r_von_Westhofen...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car
- The inventor apparently managed to rescue several jewish people [0] when designing and prototyping for the Wehrmacht in Riga, Latvia.
- This immediately made me think of the little known Volkswagen 1-litre car [1]. Something like that with an electric drivetrain would be close to my ideal car...
[0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schl%C3%B6r_von_Westhofen...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_Motors#Production_plans
Aptera seems to have resurrected... similar form.
Hope the Aptera safety testing comes back better than these older cars. Aptera and similar aerodynamic, (hopefully) inexpensive cars are really a nice middle ground between hefty Teslas and EV motorcycles.
https://sonomotors.com/ - if they make it. I like their solar-augmented car, and it's not terribly expensive. But they need a lot of money to get the production started.
They just IPOed at Nasdaq and raked in €172.5 Million. This should hopefully help them to get a bit further towards production.
Modern engineering and modern materials. Shouldn't be hard to do better in a crash than something designed before seat belts and crumple zones were implemented in cars.
One warning is they deliberately chose 3 wheels to qualify as motorcycle and thus lower requirements (probably in interests of weight and to allow more innovative technologies - I remember design #1 had issues with wanting to use cameras instead of mirrors for more streamlining, but bikes had to have mirrors too, at least at the time).
But, yeah, overall the design seems good and certainly far better than a typical 3 wheel motorbike.
But, yeah, overall the design seems good and certainly far better than a typical 3 wheel motorbike.
Yeah, yeah, everyone and their dog in Germany managed to "rescue several Jews" during WW2 according to their own postwar records lol. Nice VW, though.
> according to their own postwar records
Please actually read the article before making such indiscriminate accusations.
Pertinent part from the article in GP:
"Im letzten Kriegsjahr kehrte Schlör nach Göttingen zurück und wurde hier von der Gestapo verhaftet.
Man warf ihm vor, jüdische Flüchtlinge aus Riga bei sich aufgenommen zu haben. Schlör wurde im Volksgerichtshofgefängnis in Potsdam eingesperrt. Allerdings konnte der Ingenieur nicht verurteilt werden, weil die Haftanstalt am 30. April 1945 von der Roten Armee befreit wurde."
Rough translation:
"In the last of the war Schlör went back to Göttingen was arrested by the Gestapo.
He was accused of sheltering jewish refugees from Riga. He was incarcerated at the peoples' court jail in Potsdam. The engineer couldn't be sentenced since the jail was liberated by the Red Army on the 30th of April 1945."
Since he was actually arrested for this and they were preparing to sentence him, I'm gonna give this guy the benefit of the doubt.
Please actually read the article before making such indiscriminate accusations.
Pertinent part from the article in GP:
"Im letzten Kriegsjahr kehrte Schlör nach Göttingen zurück und wurde hier von der Gestapo verhaftet.
Man warf ihm vor, jüdische Flüchtlinge aus Riga bei sich aufgenommen zu haben. Schlör wurde im Volksgerichtshofgefängnis in Potsdam eingesperrt. Allerdings konnte der Ingenieur nicht verurteilt werden, weil die Haftanstalt am 30. April 1945 von der Roten Armee befreit wurde."
Rough translation:
"In the last of the war Schlör went back to Göttingen was arrested by the Gestapo.
He was accused of sheltering jewish refugees from Riga. He was incarcerated at the peoples' court jail in Potsdam. The engineer couldn't be sentenced since the jail was liberated by the Red Army on the 30th of April 1945."
Since he was actually arrested for this and they were preparing to sentence him, I'm gonna give this guy the benefit of the doubt.
The Germans have had many super aerodynamic, but otherwise impractical cars over the years. Of recent note is the VW XL1, a recent production car with two people sitting diagonally:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car
The same guy also did the aerodynamics for the Milan velomobile (https://www.velomobileworld.com/product/milan-sl/ ) with a CW value of 0.1.
This one is actually quite practical and fun to cycle. Also it starts sailing in strong cross winds.
This one is actually quite practical and fun to cycle. Also it starts sailing in strong cross winds.
It's a shame no one has been able to figure out how to cheaply mass produce carbon fiber frames yet. Otherwise the Milan - with our with electric assisst - would be a great vehicle for almost everyone. €10,000 is a little steep.
I was puzzled at what sitting diagonally means. Turns out the passenger seat is pushed a little bit back
You are also sitting diagonally in the Citroën Ami (or Opel Rocks-E)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_Ami_(electric)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_Ami_(electric)
[deleted]
[deleted]
> very vulnerable to crosswinds
So was the VW bus. I know from experience. It's a very dangerous car on the highway when you've got a stiff crosswind. You have to cant the steering wheel into the wind. If you drive through a cut, the car will veer into the wind, and leaving the cut, it'll will veer the other way. If you're not anticipating this, you can find yourself in the other lane facing oncoming traffic.
I don't miss that beast.
So was the VW bus. I know from experience. It's a very dangerous car on the highway when you've got a stiff crosswind. You have to cant the steering wheel into the wind. If you drive through a cut, the car will veer into the wind, and leaving the cut, it'll will veer the other way. If you're not anticipating this, you can find yourself in the other lane facing oncoming traffic.
I don't miss that beast.
Riding a motorbike the cross winds can play with you too.
However the bikes I ride are largely self correcting for wind.(I think front wheel trail accounts for this? Happy to be corrected.) You do have to stay relaxed on the handlebars to let it happen.
It is deviating your lean, grip, position on the road though so can't be mentally relaxed - just a bit relaxed on the bars.
However the bikes I ride are largely self correcting for wind.(I think front wheel trail accounts for this? Happy to be corrected.) You do have to stay relaxed on the handlebars to let it happen.
It is deviating your lean, grip, position on the road though so can't be mentally relaxed - just a bit relaxed on the bars.
I'm not familiar with the history of the VW bus so this maybe unfair, but it's interesting reading books on the evolution of the aeroplane and comparing them with the evolution of the car.
It took much longer for the production car to start to be engineered holistically and it's dynamics considered in the same manner one would if developing an aircraft.
That being said even formula 1 teams get caught out by the interaction of aero and (say) steering angle sometimes, so perhaps the problem is harder.
It took much longer for the production car to start to be engineered holistically and it's dynamics considered in the same manner one would if developing an aircraft.
That being said even formula 1 teams get caught out by the interaction of aero and (say) steering angle sometimes, so perhaps the problem is harder.
In the late 60's F1 cars started showing the effects of aerodynamic testing and development. Wings were added, not for lift, but to create downforce.
Airplanes do not fly at all unless designed holistically, which is why the Wright Flyer flew and the other attempts did not.
Airplanes do not fly at all unless designed holistically, which is why the Wright Flyer flew and the other attempts did not.
You might like to gawk at a modern F1 bargeboard, which have become astonishingly complicated recently.
https://external-preview.redd.it/bQ1FPpXTfqPTgZr82m7mFNIRYEx...
The point about steering angles was, if I recall correctly, McLaren's 2018 car's steering disrupting the airflow to the sidepod and bargeboard i.e. they got the placement slightly wrong so when the car was cornering the airflow would inst
One thing that's kind of amusing, is that if you ask older members of FSAE (student racing car competition) teams, nearly everyone has a story about either themselves or a competing team designing an aero part only to discover that the part was basically just for the designer's curiosity/ego than any real aerodynamic performance on the car.
https://external-preview.redd.it/bQ1FPpXTfqPTgZr82m7mFNIRYEx...
The point about steering angles was, if I recall correctly, McLaren's 2018 car's steering disrupting the airflow to the sidepod and bargeboard i.e. they got the placement slightly wrong so when the car was cornering the airflow would inst
One thing that's kind of amusing, is that if you ask older members of FSAE (student racing car competition) teams, nearly everyone has a story about either themselves or a competing team designing an aero part only to discover that the part was basically just for the designer's curiosity/ego than any real aerodynamic performance on the car.
It's amusing how human intuition about fluid flow is so often wrong. Hence the bulbous nose if ships.
Before entering the post I was certain it's about Tropfenwagen [1] displayed in e.g. Technikmuseum in Berlin. Either way for the newly constructed highways they indeed shifted to aerodynamic cars with the body extending over the front wheels, but to the model ...cough... "borrowed" from Czechoslovakian Tatra [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpler_Tropfenwagen
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_87
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpler_Tropfenwagen
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_87
I don’t understand your comment. Neither the Tropfenwagen nor the Schlörwagen look anything like the Tatra you linked to.
He probably meant to link to the Tatra 77, which some people say was the first aerodynamic production car. Though, I believe a dozen other cars also get that title, for varying definitions of aerodynamic.
That one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_77 also doesn’t look like either Tropfenwagen or Schlörwagen.
I don’t doubt there are many cases of blatant copying in technology, but I am having trouble to see any connection between either Tatra and the cars discussed in the post. Also: the “Czechoslovakian” Tatra linked to was designed by an Austrian and a Hungarian.
I don’t doubt there are many cases of blatant copying in technology, but I am having trouble to see any connection between either Tatra and the cars discussed in the post. Also: the “Czechoslovakian” Tatra linked to was designed by an Austrian and a Hungarian.
Bodies of 77/87 Tatras were probably the most aerodynamic compromise suitable for mass production at that time. Just compare them with Fords from 30s and 40s [1].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ford_vehicles#1930s%E2...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ford_vehicles#1930s%E2...
I believe that gp was referring to a certain nazi propaganda project that was basically a radically cheap downsized copy of that Tatra which somehow never stopped and turned out quite popular in the end.
8l / 100km? thats in the ballpark of my prius 2006, that consumes around 7l/100km. but this was 1939 ... have we come so non-far?
whats in play here? weight? fuel quality? engine? ...
whats in play here? weight? fuel quality? engine? ...
Most of the innovation in engine design over the decades has been in increasing "dynamic range". That is, the ability to produce high power when required without being super inefficient in the other 99% of the time when you're just cruising or coasting.
A small, simple old-tech engine will have similar fuel economy to a modern engine when cruising but will have much less peak power and refinement, and produce more noxious fumes from the tailpipe.
A small, simple old-tech engine will have similar fuel economy to a modern engine when cruising but will have much less peak power and refinement, and produce more noxious fumes from the tailpipe.
You don't even need to go to this crazy extreme to find relatively modern levels of fuel efficiency. The classic 60s-era Mini could get ~40mpg with a plain old carburetor.
As ICEs became more fuel efficient, the vehicles became both larger and heavier, negating the gains. Modern ICE vehicles have become so overweight they've managed to make EVs look somewhat average in the weight department.
As ICEs became more fuel efficient, the vehicles became both larger and heavier, negating the gains. Modern ICE vehicles have become so overweight they've managed to make EVs look somewhat average in the weight department.
Your Prius is in another galaxy regarding safety and infotainment, that’s why.
Also likely cruise speed in 1939 was much slower, and drag is a function of velocity^2
Also likely cruise speed in 1939 was much slower, and drag is a function of velocity^2
> drag is a function of velocity^2
i have to explain that to (fellow but new) EV drivers, that blasting down a highway at high speed for a fixed distance seems to drain the battery, because of drag, far more than travelling the exact same distance at slow speed.
I still feel like i've not sorted out the equations involved.
i have to explain that to (fellow but new) EV drivers, that blasting down a highway at high speed for a fixed distance seems to drain the battery, because of drag, far more than travelling the exact same distance at slow speed.
I still feel like i've not sorted out the equations involved.
I did an experiment on the interstate and drove at highway speeds to see if the mpg was comparable. It wasn't, so there's definitely another factor there. Here they cut groves in the concrete pavement on the interstate where as the highways are smooth asphalt. I've wondered if maybe rolling resistance is also a factor here. It was a pretty huge difference. Like more than 10% IIRC.
For EVs it's pretty simple, the faster you go, the more power you use, and the more air resistance, and the less miles / kWh. The more power you use, the more power is lost in wiring, the hotter the batteries get and less efficient they are, etc. There's probably some minimum efficient speed, but as you go faster, everything works against you to make things less efficient.
For gas engines it's quite a bit trickier, because a hotter engine gets more complete combustion and more power out the driveshaft per gallon (also more NOx, see VW) and there's a small range of RPMs where power output is best, combined with a transmission gear where efficiency is best, combined that gets you a target speed for best fuel to power at the wheels. But air resistance does get worse as you go faster. So you've got some things pushing you to go faster (sometimes much faster), and other things pushing you to go slower.
For gas engines it's quite a bit trickier, because a hotter engine gets more complete combustion and more power out the driveshaft per gallon (also more NOx, see VW) and there's a small range of RPMs where power output is best, combined with a transmission gear where efficiency is best, combined that gets you a target speed for best fuel to power at the wheels. But air resistance does get worse as you go faster. So you've got some things pushing you to go faster (sometimes much faster), and other things pushing you to go slower.
My point was that at the same speed, the freeway uses more energy than the highway. There's more to it than just wind resistance in my area at least.
You can get the same effect with a "gas" engine by having a smaller engine and going at a slower speed.
> there's a small range of RPMs where power output is best
The so called 'power band'.
The so called 'power band'.
I don't have reliable numbers on this, but rolling resistance appears to be the main factor up to about 60-80km/h, above which drag takes its place.
Looking at the fuel consumption in my hybrid it's around 50-60% higher at an average speed of 100km/h than at 70km/h.
The difference would have been 2x if was just due to drag.
Looking at the fuel consumption in my hybrid it's around 50-60% higher at an average speed of 100km/h than at 70km/h.
The difference would have been 2x if was just due to drag.
The equations of motion and power usage due to drag and rolling resistance for vehicles are well understood:
see: http://thecartech.com/subjects/auto_eng/car_performance_form...
see: http://thecartech.com/subjects/auto_eng/car_performance_form...
thanks as i had not known proper terminology to search for that
Does the car have a power usage estimator? Or would that perhaps be dangerous if one misses traffic changes due to following the dial
7+ years old BMW i3 so yes it does.
this one topped 139km/h ... my prius is capped 180 :')
Weight, that is mostly coming from safety requirements (NCAP starts come with heavy weight and increased fuel consumption). That car with a modern engine can go as low as 3 liters/100 km, I did drive regular cars with 3.5l/100km over a 200km trip.
No doubt this car would have weighed a fraction of what a modern Prius weighs.
Yes… manual everything… brakes, steering, transmission and a suspension system that would barely be passable for a trailer now
Your Prius is more reliable, needs less maintenance, is easier to drive, has much more grippier tires, is safer if you crash, has more storage and passenger space, and is infinitely more comfortable.
Another overly aerodynamic car from a few years earlier - Mercedes-Benz W 125, which set a speed record that wasn't outdone for some 80 years. Incidentally, someone tried to outdo them and killed themselves in doing so, which ended car manufacturers going for new records.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_W125_Rekordwagen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_W125_Rekordwagen
And also the Ur-SAAB (original SAAB).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Ursaab
Saab was originaly an airplane manufacturer so it was natural for them to reach for the wind-tunnel when tasked with designing a car.
The Ur-SAAB was never in series production but the (at least in Sweden) very popular production cars took a lot of inspiration from it.
We had one of these when I was a kid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_96
This is an earlier model with even more similarities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_92
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Ursaab
Saab was originaly an airplane manufacturer so it was natural for them to reach for the wind-tunnel when tasked with designing a car.
The Ur-SAAB was never in series production but the (at least in Sweden) very popular production cars took a lot of inspiration from it.
We had one of these when I was a kid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_96
This is an earlier model with even more similarities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_92
Random question: how were very accurate curves like that machined in the 1930s? What was the process for creating the tooling that could create that kind of curved aluminum so accurately back then?
To create curved parts, an operator would roll a piece of metal between two hard wheels on a machine called an English Wheel. The wheels apply significant pressure, and make the metal become thinner where you roll it. The same volume of metal is still present, so to become thinner it must spread out. If you expand the center of a piece, but leave the perimeter the same, then it will become domed.
If you'd like to see the machine in operation, here's a video by Ron Covell, a masterfully skilled sheet metal craftsman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omRlIBONJAM
A craftsman can carefully shape the metal to whatever shape was desired. But accurate? Who said anything about accurate? It's likely that everyone's paneling was of slightly different curvatures. They'd machine the mounting holes after the fact, so those would all match and be replaceable, but why would anyone care (how would anyone know?) if the curvature of the fender was a few millimeters different from another fender?
If you'd like to see the machine in operation, here's a video by Ron Covell, a masterfully skilled sheet metal craftsman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omRlIBONJAM
A craftsman can carefully shape the metal to whatever shape was desired. But accurate? Who said anything about accurate? It's likely that everyone's paneling was of slightly different curvatures. They'd machine the mounting holes after the fact, so those would all match and be replaceable, but why would anyone care (how would anyone know?) if the curvature of the fender was a few millimeters different from another fender?
> Who said anything about accurate?
Sometimes they had wooden shape templates... roll the part between the wheels until it seems ok, put it on the template, see where it's not quite right, back on the rollers, back on the template, back on the rollers, until the part was accurate enough.
Sometimes they had wooden shape templates... roll the part between the wheels until it seems ok, put it on the template, see where it's not quite right, back on the rollers, back on the template, back on the rollers, until the part was accurate enough.
United Launch Alliance still makes some parts of their rocket by hand like this: https://youtu.be/o0fG_lnVhHw (at 25:15)
That is fascinating. It must take a long time to become skilled enough to do that.
As well as the English Wheel already mentioned several times, the profession of "Panel Beater" is quite literal. The panels are beaten into rough shape with various shaped-headed hammers, and then smoothed out with flat tools that resemble spatulas. It makes one hell of a din and takes a long time.
There are some luxury motor car brands that make a point of still using the panel beating (aka panel patting) techniques for their production. It adds months to the production time of highly skilled, and thus very expensive, panel beaters... but that's the price of oppulence.
There are some luxury motor car brands that make a point of still using the panel beating (aka panel patting) techniques for their production. It adds months to the production time of highly skilled, and thus very expensive, panel beaters... but that's the price of oppulence.
As other commenters noted, this is a prototype so it would have been done by hand with an English wheel and similar forming tools. There would be a set of master profile forms that the craftsman would check against to ensure that the panels are the right shape along various cross sections. For a production vehicle, they would have used a heavy press to stamp the panels, as they do today.
Here in Argentina, perhaps 40 years ago, my father took me to a car restoration workshop where two metal sheet workers ("chapistas") were forming a 1936 Chevrolet coupé roof by heating a steel sheet in the floor with a torch and curving it up by cooling it with damp cloth. That's also a technique to remove dents.
An English Wheel was used for the smaller radius parts.
English Wheel. You can still get them today, or, if you're a little bit skilled (and most people that would need one probably are) you can make one yourself.
Using them is an art.
Using them is an art.
Just by eyeballing and manually moving metal sheet between heavy wheels. That is how they make compound curves for luxury cars and planes. https://www.tinmantech.com/gallery-of-metalwork/wheeling-mac...
The design would be first more-or-less worked out on paper, using various drafting tricks such as french curves or tensioned wooden strips.
This can then be translated to a series of full-scale wooden templates, either interlocking 2D sections, or 3D carved from solid. Alternatively, small diameter metal rods can be bent and welded together for a same purpose. Either technique allows a craftsperson to combine precisely formed 2D curves into a 3D shape. Small design changes would also be made at this stage, usually by eye rather than to a particular measurement. This full-scale reference model is called a body buck or in Italian "manichino."
Once you have the complete buck, craftspeople would shape flat aluminum panels into to fit on various sections of the buck. The craftsperson works iteratively until the shape is right, using tools such as an English wheels, bending brakes, mallets and sandbags as well as cutting tools like shears and hole punches.
Once the shape of each individual panel is correct, they are fastened to the car chassis by welding or a mechanical fastener like a screw. The appearance and surface of the body is still quite rough at this point, so there is an extensive manual finishing process before paint is applied. Panel gaps are adjusted, bulges and dents are tapped out with hammers, lots of sanding. Soft filler materials are applied to fill and smooth the body surface- we use "Bondo" for this now but back then they used a lot of lead. The "accurate" appearance of a final painted car body comes from this hand finishing process. However, accurate is a bit of a misonmer as even though the body may look smooth and shiny there are often a lot of geometrical imperfections and asymmetries. For example, headlights in slightly different positions, replacement windshields won't fit etc. For certain models, you can even use predictable "imperfections" in the bodywork to determine whether the body was replaced or majorly repaired at some later date.
This technique was in wide use in Italy (probably other places too, but idk) through the mid-1960s, at which time modern stamping processes became able to cheaply mass produce panels with much less manual labor. As this process is so labor and skill intensive, it's now a specialty. Even among auto body repair professionals, it's uncommon to find someone with the skill to shape large panels from scratch to a high standard.
If you're interested in this type of stuff, there's a great youtube channel called "cbrwatahiki"[0] where a guy uses manual techniques to reproduce aluminum car bodies in his garage. Language is Japanese but it's still possible to watch and learn a lot if you can't understand. While his methods are not quite the same as what a 1930s-50s era production shop would use, it still shows a lot of what is involved to fabricate a body based on a pattern.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZjqr9ScOlWSkcnTK_mLiSA
This can then be translated to a series of full-scale wooden templates, either interlocking 2D sections, or 3D carved from solid. Alternatively, small diameter metal rods can be bent and welded together for a same purpose. Either technique allows a craftsperson to combine precisely formed 2D curves into a 3D shape. Small design changes would also be made at this stage, usually by eye rather than to a particular measurement. This full-scale reference model is called a body buck or in Italian "manichino."
Once you have the complete buck, craftspeople would shape flat aluminum panels into to fit on various sections of the buck. The craftsperson works iteratively until the shape is right, using tools such as an English wheels, bending brakes, mallets and sandbags as well as cutting tools like shears and hole punches.
Once the shape of each individual panel is correct, they are fastened to the car chassis by welding or a mechanical fastener like a screw. The appearance and surface of the body is still quite rough at this point, so there is an extensive manual finishing process before paint is applied. Panel gaps are adjusted, bulges and dents are tapped out with hammers, lots of sanding. Soft filler materials are applied to fill and smooth the body surface- we use "Bondo" for this now but back then they used a lot of lead. The "accurate" appearance of a final painted car body comes from this hand finishing process. However, accurate is a bit of a misonmer as even though the body may look smooth and shiny there are often a lot of geometrical imperfections and asymmetries. For example, headlights in slightly different positions, replacement windshields won't fit etc. For certain models, you can even use predictable "imperfections" in the bodywork to determine whether the body was replaced or majorly repaired at some later date.
This technique was in wide use in Italy (probably other places too, but idk) through the mid-1960s, at which time modern stamping processes became able to cheaply mass produce panels with much less manual labor. As this process is so labor and skill intensive, it's now a specialty. Even among auto body repair professionals, it's uncommon to find someone with the skill to shape large panels from scratch to a high standard.
If you're interested in this type of stuff, there's a great youtube channel called "cbrwatahiki"[0] where a guy uses manual techniques to reproduce aluminum car bodies in his garage. Language is Japanese but it's still possible to watch and learn a lot if you can't understand. While his methods are not quite the same as what a 1930s-50s era production shop would use, it still shows a lot of what is involved to fabricate a body based on a pattern.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZjqr9ScOlWSkcnTK_mLiSA
It's a one-off, the tooling was at most wooden forms.
For small production runs, an English Wheel would be appropriate. (The car doesn't have any sharp corners.)
Apparently quite similar to what Alfa tried much earlier on
https://www.museoalfaromeo.com/it-it/collezione/Pages/A-L-F-...
This looks vaguely similar to the Volkswagen XL1 [0] - similar internal layout but with a much longer nose.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car
That's a beauty, shape is reminiscent of the Dymaxion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlLZE23EJKs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlLZE23EJKs
A present day German car with a drag coefficient of 0.200: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2022-mercedes-benz-eqs-ev...
A present day American three-wheeler with a drag coefficient of 0.13: https://www.aptera.us/
A present day American three-wheeler with a drag coefficient of 0.13: https://www.aptera.us/
I had forgotten that Aptera was showing signs of life again. Unlike a decade ago, I'm not currently in a position where I can buy a two-seater so I haven't followed them as closely.
Also somewhat related, the Persu Streamliner (1923):
http://www.dwrenched.com/2014/03/dwrenched-special.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurel_Persu
http://www.dwrenched.com/2014/03/dwrenched-special.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurel_Persu
I watched a video about EVs and it mentioned aerodynamics. It compared a new EV to a Tesla the EV discussed had a drag coefficient of 0.2 the Tesla was 0.2008. That tiny difference meant the non-Tesla had 50km more range all things equal (except the drag coefficient).
Drag force is proportional to the drag coefficient. Power is proportional to force. That tiny fractional difference doesn't seem like it could account for a 50km range difference all else equal.
Typo from poster, Tesla model S should be 0.208. Also there should be the double effect, once you improve efficiency with a small step then you get to reduce the battery size which gives less weight and more range.
I am looking forward to hyper efficient electric cars, currently most EVs are enormous. With efficient in-wheel motors, good aerodynamics, and very low weight will result in a much smaller battery and therefore a cheaper car. Solar cars like Lightyear One use these principles in order to become viable.
I am looking forward to hyper efficient electric cars, currently most EVs are enormous. With efficient in-wheel motors, good aerodynamics, and very low weight will result in a much smaller battery and therefore a cheaper car. Solar cars like Lightyear One use these principles in order to become viable.
Even at the 0.208 vs 0.2 cd all else equal, a 50km difference implies a range of 1,300km, which the Tesla does not have.
> Also there should be the double effect, once you improve efficiency with a small
> step then you get to reduce the battery size which gives less weight and more range.
Which brings the discussion about the Tesla vehicle full circle, as that company is closely associated with (and actually shares a material engineering lab with) an extraordinarily innovative rocket company.
This modern take on the super-aerodynamic shaves another 30% off the Schlörwagen's already low drag coefficient of 0.186:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDMqEmUGxX4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDMqEmUGxX4
I saw a documentary the other day ("Tegenlicht" [0]) about full-solar cars and the quest of Lightyear One [1] to maximize aerodynamics while still being a comfortable family car. Early models still come with hefty price tag, but I really liked the design.
[0] (Dutch) https://www.vpro.nl/programmas/tegenlicht/kijk/afleveringen/...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightyear_One
[0] (Dutch) https://www.vpro.nl/programmas/tegenlicht/kijk/afleveringen/...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightyear_One
Based on the headline, I thought of this from 1939, before the Porsche cars that most people recognize:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_64
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/VW_Typ_6...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_64
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/VW_Typ_6...
This reminds me a lot of what Aptera is doing. It really pushes efficiency to the extreme limits of what might be practical.
My first thought is "based on a wing? That'd give it uplift..."
I love the curved glass on these cars though. I recently fell in love with the Alfa Stradale 33, one aspect being the curved glass.
But then I have other ideas/desires with cars, not all of them compatible with either sensibilities/reality/each-other.
I love the curved glass on these cars though. I recently fell in love with the Alfa Stradale 33, one aspect being the curved glass.
But then I have other ideas/desires with cars, not all of them compatible with either sensibilities/reality/each-other.
Reminds me a bit of Citroen DS, which was also revolutionary aerodynamic. Yet practical. And VERY popular.
Here's a video about the DS's aerodynamics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD1_WQQAwzw
Here's a video about the DS's aerodynamics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD1_WQQAwzw
Buckminster Fuller's 1933 Dymaxion car: https://www.washedashore.com/projects/dymax/pictures.html
“consumed 8 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers – 20 and 40 percent less fuel than the reference vehicle.”
How efficient are modern vehicle designs in terms of drag? Are we 90% efficient or do we sacrifice a lot of mpg’s for attractive body styling?
How efficient are modern vehicle designs in terms of drag? Are we 90% efficient or do we sacrifice a lot of mpg’s for attractive body styling?
Nowhere near 90% efficient. Door handles, side mirrors, vents, grilles, exposed wheels, several inches of ground clearance.
How are you measuring efficiency? Because as I see it, when travelling along a level surface, 100% of the engine power is going towards overcoming drag, so the efficiency should therefore be 0%. What is that 90% a proportion of?
The question was not really well defined.
But just looking at drag force, there are a lot of things that can be done to reduce it by more than 10%, they're just unpalatable, impractical, or simply haven't been implemented.
Also a lot of energy is lost to heat, even in electric cars if you're looking at the whole car and not just the aerodynamics.
But just looking at drag force, there are a lot of things that can be done to reduce it by more than 10%, they're just unpalatable, impractical, or simply haven't been implemented.
Also a lot of energy is lost to heat, even in electric cars if you're looking at the whole car and not just the aerodynamics.
Nice that EVs don’t need grilles. Hopefully the Tesla door handles catch on as well.
Interesting to me that even what initially looks to someone largely ignorant to aerodynamics like me as a very low effort design, like the Nissan Leaf, actually has some fancy aero design hiding in plain sight.
The handles are distinctly non-Tesla style, very pronounced, but they've tackled the wing mirrors actively by shaping the air with the headlights. https://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?t=6836
I expect as we see more small EVs (Small by non-US car sizes) built on native EV platforms, we'll start to see more adventurous designs for aerodynamic reasons as you can't hide a large battery in a small cheap car.
The handles are distinctly non-Tesla style, very pronounced, but they've tackled the wing mirrors actively by shaping the air with the headlights. https://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?t=6836
I expect as we see more small EVs (Small by non-US car sizes) built on native EV platforms, we'll start to see more adventurous designs for aerodynamic reasons as you can't hide a large battery in a small cheap car.
[deleted]
The Tatras,starting with the 87, were a more practical take...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_87
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_87
I've seen bicycles with a hull shaped like this. E.g.,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIsa0L5UNgs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIsa0L5UNgs
> In 1942, engineers took a 130-horsepower Russian aircraft motor and bolted it to the back of the car for some test runs.
The good old “warum nicht?” of Nazi engineers…
The good old “warum nicht?” of Nazi engineers…
I love that someone did it. But I also wonder what they thought they were going to get...
The Nazi high command loved its claims of "wunderwaffen" as part of the propaganda effort but mostly failed to deliver on them. Most of the "wunderwaffen" that saw actual use ended up being a horrific waste of resources and impractical to use if they didn't fail outright.
Contrary to its claims the most important factor was the "blitzkrieg" strategy of overwhelming an unexpecting enemy's defenses to force a surrender -- a strategy that only worked at the beginning of the war when the other parties involved didn't know that they were going to participate in it.
If you're wondering why Nazi scientists attempted these moonshots the answer is simply that there was an increasing demand to be able to deliver on the claims of having a "wunderwaffe" and incrementalism wasn't going to produce it. That said, it's unlikely the Nazis could have produced a working nuclear weapon (the only actual "wunderwaffe" that could have turned the tides at that point) and the Nazis weren't the only side producing technical innovations during that war.
Contrary to its claims the most important factor was the "blitzkrieg" strategy of overwhelming an unexpecting enemy's defenses to force a surrender -- a strategy that only worked at the beginning of the war when the other parties involved didn't know that they were going to participate in it.
If you're wondering why Nazi scientists attempted these moonshots the answer is simply that there was an increasing demand to be able to deliver on the claims of having a "wunderwaffe" and incrementalism wasn't going to produce it. That said, it's unlikely the Nazis could have produced a working nuclear weapon (the only actual "wunderwaffe" that could have turned the tides at that point) and the Nazis weren't the only side producing technical innovations during that war.
Thank you for this wonderful explanation of the mindset behind this.
Kind of like the google moonshot idea but with the desperation of the times.
The engineers themselves must've been in the position of having to say "Yes sir!" while all the time knowing it wasn't going to amount to anything.
I guess you could have multipart projects where each engineering party thinks their bit is useless but together it amounts to something.
And that is why I wonder .. what was the person behind this bit of wunderwaffen actually conceiving. Did they think they'd get a flying car? Or a 300kmhr supercar? What were they possibly dreaming up? We'll never know.
I look at this and see - at best - a fast-ish car that would experience enough aerodynamic effects to have miserable handling but nowhere near enough to take off.
Kind of like the google moonshot idea but with the desperation of the times.
The engineers themselves must've been in the position of having to say "Yes sir!" while all the time knowing it wasn't going to amount to anything.
I guess you could have multipart projects where each engineering party thinks their bit is useless but together it amounts to something.
And that is why I wonder .. what was the person behind this bit of wunderwaffen actually conceiving. Did they think they'd get a flying car? Or a 300kmhr supercar? What were they possibly dreaming up? We'll never know.
I look at this and see - at best - a fast-ish car that would experience enough aerodynamic effects to have miserable handling but nowhere near enough to take off.
The V-series did pretty good in instilling fear by being able to attack across the channel virtually without risk to the Germans. They didn't do an enormous amount of physical damage but the psychological effects were immense.
Imagine for a moment using the ground effect to reduce transport load- and re-engage with the ground on need for breaking and steering.
> Schlörwagen was a wing on wheels.
Meaning it will lift at higher speeds. Oops!
Meaning it will lift at higher speeds. Oops!
This is very reminiscent of Buckminster Fuller's 3 wheeled rear-steering car.
I always thought the Schlörwagen would make a great BEV
Is the "bionic fish car" mentioned on Top Gear descended from it?
https://youtu.be/ri3CUzsv7Gg
https://youtu.be/ri3CUzsv7Gg
Is that Elon Musk in the photo?
"Test runs" is likely a euphemism for "got drunk and nearly killed themselves playing silly buggers". That thing is a steampunk precursor of the insanity that was the ME 163 Komet - just add wings and a leather flying hat with goggles!