Why must hybrids look the way they do?

[Mahaguru]

For example the Toyota Prius, and the upcoming Honda hybrid. Why does Honda need to come out with an egg like design for its hybrid? Wasn't the Civic design working out? I know they have a Civic hybrid, so why do they need a completely new model?

 

[Mermaidman]

Drag coefficient is critical for maximizing fuel economy. That's why the production Chevy Volt looks so different compared to the concept. So to answer your question, I guess the optimal aerodynamic shape is "egg-y." Convergent evolution!

 

[StageLeft]

Part of the reason their economy is good is because of low drag and people tolerate them looking like sh*t because they assume it's cool for a hybrid to look that way.

 

[rh71]

Even the Echo was sloped dramatically... it was hideous.

 

[desy]

Teadrop shaped, I fell into the myth of water shaped like a teardrop

"The best aerodynamic shape for subsonic aircraft flight is a teardrop, because that shape interferes least with the surrounding air stream. The Eclipse 500 (a light business jet), for example, flies at about 64% of the speed of sound (Mach 0.64), and slips through the air ocean with teardrop-shaped wings and fuselage"

Cars are different tho because of groud effects, and if you make your cyclinder too long when you turn sideways you add drag

 

[exdeath]

Because there is no magic hybrid engine that makes 500 HP and still gets 60 mpg. The egg shape and low weight of a hybrid vehicle has just as much impact on fuel economy as the small hybrid gas-electric engine. The main reason they can get by with a smaller less powerful engine in the first place and still have reasonable performance is the chassis design, not so much the engine.

But you'll still have people who think it's as simple as putting a Prius engine in Hummer and getting 60 mpg or wonder why a Camry or Civic hybrid with 15 air bags and 500 watt stereo amps only gets 1/2 to 2/3 the mileage of a "real" hybrid that looks ugly.

On the other hand you could put a pure gasoline 1.5L Honda engine in a Prius and probably still get 50 mpg. Remember the CRX? 50 mpg with a carburetor in the 80s without a hybrid.

If I recall a truncated cone is the most efficient aerodynamic shape, short of a full cone that isn't practical for an automobile. At high speeds a truncated cone can behave exactly like a full cone, where the rate of taper and position of the truncation can be tailored to a specific velocity, in this case, highway speed. Cd can be as low as 0.20. The research and knowledge of this has existed since the 1930s. Hence why all hybrids look the same.

 

[aleckz]

The CRX had one of the best drag coefficients and also the 1.33l(50hp) paired with a good gearbox making it a high MPG car. But the CRX was also like 1800 or 1900 lbs while the Prius is 2900 pounds, so the 1.33l in the Prius wouldn't get 50mpg unless it was cruising with a tailwind downhill. The Prius needs its batteries to be efficient in city where it makes its biggest achievements. And people in the Civic hybrids are easily capable of getting 45+ mpg, the Camry not so much seeing that it is a behemoth of a car.

 

[punjabiplaya]

Yeah, it's all about aero. BUT, who would rather have a fuel efficient car shaped like an F1 car?! Those are very aerodynamic and don't look like something you flush.

 

[ElFenix]

because when you build a car with aero drag as the largest design factor for the body shape, that is the shape you get. and people really like that shape because it shouts 'look at me, i'm a hybrid.'

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
Yeah, it's all about aero. BUT, who would rather have a fuel efficient car shaped like an F1 car?! Those are very aerodynamic and don't look like something you flush.

they're not really that aerodynamic. F1 cars are set up to give a lot of down force with the maximum amount of aerodynamic efficiency. they can change the aero setup to have higher or lower amounts of drag depending on the track.

 

[Mermaidman]

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
Yeah, it's all about aero. BUT, who would rather have a fuel efficient car shaped like an F1 car?! Those are very aerodynamic and don't look like something you flush.

Cabin and trunk space would be quite limited . . .

 

[punjabiplaya]

And a joke is lost.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
Yeah, it's all about aero. BUT, who would rather have a fuel efficient car shaped like an F1 car?! Those are very aerodynamic and don't look like something you flush.

Actually, they don't have a very good Cd. Downforce = drag.

Additionally, you can't exactly carry groceries in an F1 car.

Remember that Cd is not the same as total drag. Total drag is Cd multiplied by frontal area. F1 cars have a higher Cd, but because they have so little frontal area, total drag is low. With real world considerations (ground clearance, width, cargo capacity, pedestrian safety regulations that require higher and more rounded front ends, etc) you're stuck with pretty serious amounts of frontal area.

ZV

 

[Itchrelief]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
[With real world considerations (ground clearance, width, cargo capacity, pedestrian safety regulations that require higher and more rounded front ends, etc) you're stuck with pretty serious amounts of frontal area.

ZV

The next trend for hybrid vehicles: super long, super thin cars shaped like... a penis? Everyone sits in a row one behind another. Maybe the RWD version can have big tires at the back that are the balls.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
Yeah, it's all about aero. BUT, who would rather have a fuel efficient car shaped like an F1 car?! Those are very aerodynamic and don't look like something you flush.

Formula 1 cars have awful drag coefficients due to all the spoilers for downforce, giant gaping hole air intakes and huge wide tires. H2 Hummers actually have a better Cd than F1 cars to give you an idea how bad they are.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Originally posted by: Itchrelief

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
[With real world considerations (ground clearance, width, cargo capacity, pedestrian safety regulations that require higher and more rounded front ends, etc) you're stuck with pretty serious amounts of frontal area.

ZV

The next trend for hybrid vehicles: super long, super thin cars shaped like... a penis? Everyone sits in a row one behind another. Maybe the RWD version can have big tires at the back that are the balls.

*Applies TCR's Epic Seal of Approval*

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: exdeath
Because there is no magic hybrid engine that makes 500 HP and still gets 60 mpg. The egg shape and low weight of a hybrid vehicle has just as much impact on fuel economy as the small hybrid gas-electric engine. The main reason they can get by with a smaller less powerful engine in the first place and still have reasonable performance is the chassis design, not so much the engine.

But you'll still have people who think it's as simple as putting a Prius engine in Hummer and getting 60 mpg or wonder why a Camry or Civic hybrid with 15 air bags and 500 watt stereo amps only gets 1/2 to 2/3 the mileage of a "real" hybrid that looks ugly.

On the other hand you could put a pure gasoline 1.5L Honda engine in a Prius and probably still get 50 mpg. Remember the CRX? 50 mpg with a carburetor in the 80s without a hybrid.

If I recall a truncated cone is the most efficient aerodynamic shape, short of a full cone that isn't practical for an automobile. At high speeds a truncated cone can behave exactly like a full cone, where the rate of taper and position of the truncation can be tailored to a specific velocity, in this case, highway speed. Cd can be as low as 0.20. The research and knowledge of this has existed since the 1930s. Hence why all hybrids look the same.

The most efficient shape is a cigar with pointed ends, not a raindrop or a truncated cone (is a truncated cone a tapered cylinder?)

The Prius and new Insight are shaped like regular cars, with a hatchback. I don't see how that overall shape makes them ugly. Planes have the same design, and I don't see Skoorb saying they look like shit. You want a notchback on your FA-22 Raptor??

A lot of people around here apparently hate hatchback cars for no good reason. Form follows function. If you can learn a little bit about aerodynamics I think you'd be able to appreciate both.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: punjabiplaya
Yeah, it's all about aero. BUT, who would rather have a fuel efficient car shaped like an F1 car?! Those are very aerodynamic and don't look like something you flush.

Formula 1 cars have awful drag coefficients due to all the spoilers for downforce, giant gaping hole air intakes and huge wide tires. H2 Hummers actually have a better Cd than F1 cars to give you an idea how bad they are.

Coefficient of drag is per area of cross section. A Hummer still has a much bigger cross section than an F1 car.

 

[PingSpike]

I've found virtually all cars to be different levels of hideous since the early 90s so they may as well get good gas mileage.

Seriously, I don't think anyone buys a hybrid for impressing chicks. And I've never heard an owner bragging about how great his prius looks.

 

[Itchrelief]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
And I've never heard an owner bragging about how great his prius looks.

It's more about bragging how long it lasts before it runs outta gas. And how surprisingly big it is once you actually get inside.

 

[Matilda]

I just want hybrid versions of cars that are already out. I agree, hybrids are ugly as hell. At least the diesel-powered Jetta TDI looks good.

 

[mc866]

So intelligent people don't buy them because they are fugly

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: exdeath
Because there is no magic hybrid engine that makes 500 HP and still gets 60 mpg. The egg shape and low weight of a hybrid vehicle has just as much impact on fuel economy as the small hybrid gas-electric engine. The main reason they can get by with a smaller less powerful engine in the first place and still have reasonable performance is the chassis design, not so much the engine.

But you'll still have people who think it's as simple as putting a Prius engine in Hummer and getting 60 mpg or wonder why a Camry or Civic hybrid with 15 air bags and 500 watt stereo amps only gets 1/2 to 2/3 the mileage of a "real" hybrid that looks ugly.

On the other hand you could put a pure gasoline 1.5L Honda engine in a Prius and probably still get 50 mpg. Remember the CRX? 50 mpg with a carburetor in the 80s without a hybrid.

If I recall a truncated cone is the most efficient aerodynamic shape, short of a full cone that isn't practical for an automobile. At high speeds a truncated cone can behave exactly like a full cone, where the rate of taper and position of the truncation can be tailored to a specific velocity, in this case, highway speed. Cd can be as low as 0.20. The research and knowledge of this has existed since the 1930s. Hence why all hybrids look the same.

The most efficient shape is a cigar with pointed ends, not a raindrop or a truncated cone (is a truncated cone a tapered cylinder?)

The Prius and new Insight are shaped like regular cars, with a hatchback. I don't see how that overall shape makes them ugly. Planes have the same design, and I don't see Skoorb saying they look like shit. You want a notchback on your FA-22 Raptor??

A lot of people around here apparently hate hatchback cars for no good reason. Form follows function. If you can learn a little bit about aerodynamics I think you'd be able to appreciate both.

Pointed end = cone, the one on the rear being the most important. Since you can't practically have pointed ends in a vehicle (it would be long and unusable space) a truncated cone is the best comprimise, At high velocities, the air flow over a truncated cone continues as if it were a full cone and achieves similar results. That is why all aerodynamic motor vehicle designs have a look that starts to taper in the rear, then is abruptly cut off vertically as the taper begins to narrow.

Not so sure a cigar with pointed ends (cylinder capped by cones) is a good shape. In the front you have an abrupt change in surface angle that breaks the boundary layer flow and causes low pressure (eg vacuum, drag) zones just behind where the cone and cylinder meet.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Matilda
I just want hybrid versions of cars that are already out. I agree, hybrids are ugly as hell. At least the diesel-powered Jetta TDI looks good.

camry. civic. escape. highlander. there was an accord but no one bought it. next year we'll have a fusion hybrid.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: exdeath
Because there is no magic hybrid engine that makes 500 HP and still gets 60 mpg. The egg shape and low weight of a hybrid vehicle has just as much impact on fuel economy as the small hybrid gas-electric engine. The main reason they can get by with a smaller less powerful engine in the first place and still have reasonable performance is the chassis design, not so much the engine.

But you'll still have people who think it's as simple as putting a Prius engine in Hummer and getting 60 mpg or wonder why a Camry or Civic hybrid with 15 air bags and 500 watt stereo amps only gets 1/2 to 2/3 the mileage of a "real" hybrid that looks ugly.

On the other hand you could put a pure gasoline 1.5L Honda engine in a Prius and probably still get 50 mpg. Remember the CRX? 50 mpg with a carburetor in the 80s without a hybrid.

If I recall a truncated cone is the most efficient aerodynamic shape, short of a full cone that isn't practical for an automobile. At high speeds a truncated cone can behave exactly like a full cone, where the rate of taper and position of the truncation can be tailored to a specific velocity, in this case, highway speed. Cd can be as low as 0.20. The research and knowledge of this has existed since the 1930s. Hence why all hybrids look the same.

The most efficient shape is a cigar with pointed ends, not a raindrop or a truncated cone (is a truncated cone a tapered cylinder?)

The Prius and new Insight are shaped like regular cars, with a hatchback. I don't see how that overall shape makes them ugly. Planes have the same design, and I don't see Skoorb saying they look like shit. You want a notchback on your FA-22 Raptor??

A lot of people around here apparently hate hatchback cars for no good reason. Form follows function. If you can learn a little bit about aerodynamics I think you'd be able to appreciate both.

Pointed end = cone, the one on the rear being the most important. Since you can't practically have pointed ends in a vehicle (it would be long and unusable space) a truncated cone is the best comprimise, At high velocities, the air flow over a truncated cone continues as if it were a full cone and achieves similar results. That is why all aerodynamic motor vehicle designs have a look that starts to taper in the rear, then is abruptly cut off vertically as the taper begins to narrow.

Not so sure a cigar with pointed ends (cylinder capped by cones) is a good shape. In the front you have an abrupt change in surface angle that breaks the boundary layer flow and causes low pressure (eg vacuum, drag) zones just behind where the cone and cylinder meet.

I mean a curved cigar shape. You don't want the abrupt change in angle at the rear either.

http://frost.he.net/~wolfstar/photos/Luma.jpg

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: exdeath
Because there is no magic hybrid engine that makes 500 HP and still gets 60 mpg. The egg shape and low weight of a hybrid vehicle has just as much impact on fuel economy as the small hybrid gas-electric engine. The main reason they can get by with a smaller less powerful engine in the first place and still have reasonable performance is the chassis design, not so much the engine.

But you'll still have people who think it's as simple as putting a Prius engine in Hummer and getting 60 mpg or wonder why a Camry or Civic hybrid with 15 air bags and 500 watt stereo amps only gets 1/2 to 2/3 the mileage of a "real" hybrid that looks ugly.

On the other hand you could put a pure gasoline 1.5L Honda engine in a Prius and probably still get 50 mpg. Remember the CRX? 50 mpg with a carburetor in the 80s without a hybrid.

If I recall a truncated cone is the most efficient aerodynamic shape, short of a full cone that isn't practical for an automobile. At high speeds a truncated cone can behave exactly like a full cone, where the rate of taper and position of the truncation can be tailored to a specific velocity, in this case, highway speed. Cd can be as low as 0.20. The research and knowledge of this has existed since the 1930s. Hence why all hybrids look the same.

The most efficient shape is a cigar with pointed ends, not a raindrop or a truncated cone (is a truncated cone a tapered cylinder?)

The Prius and new Insight are shaped like regular cars, with a hatchback. I don't see how that overall shape makes them ugly. Planes have the same design, and I don't see Skoorb saying they look like shit. You want a notchback on your FA-22 Raptor??

A lot of people around here apparently hate hatchback cars for no good reason. Form follows function. If you can learn a little bit about aerodynamics I think you'd be able to appreciate both.

Do you draw these conclusions in your head, with a crayon?