A few . . . I believe this is a guy called Steve Thomas' downhill racer. He's a composite specialist who used to work for Aston Martin and tested this machine in my Uni's wind tunnel. He's had this thing up to 70mph. It's really slender though, the fact that it's so low to the ground probably doesn't mean anything, I think the air predominantly goeas around it than over the top and under the bottom. I like the wheel pants at the back - my 'other' concept is a reverse trike three wheeler that would have these pants on the front. Kinda like one of my favourite land speed racers: Glad you like the thread - I thought it might be a bit outside the HAMB's territory but it's getting some interest at least.
Two I like: I like the general shape of the latter and the cobbled-together rivettiness of the former. I've been playing with an idea that combines pretty much those qualities for some time. The idea is more to reach unheard-of speeds on public roads than any consideration of fuel economy.
Those images of the little white car worked fine when I first posted them - only since I got back have they been talking nonsense. I love the 1000hp Sunbeam, but I'm not sure if it works aesthetically at the size I'm working on. I think I like it because of its monolithic purity - it's essentially a block with streamlining stuck to the front and back. I've played with some drawings that I've done and by the time I've got the passenger cabin/doghouse stuck on top I think it looks a little odd. I also think to set the shape off properly it needs to be pumped full of louvres, otherwise it looks a little amorphous to me. Another problem (well for me) is that massive bulbous sheet metal at the front is a big chunk of aluminium to screw up when panel beating. With the more modern machines (30s MG EX135, Mercedes Rekordwagen etc) the shape can be broken up a fair bit into smaller components. I suppose I could build the front end like an airstream trailer - I intend the body to be made of riveted sheet aluminium anyway. Not sure what it'd look like though. If I were going to go down the Blackhawk route it would be in three wheeler form, but it would be more akin to a Morgan/Sandford with spats and maybe a track nose. But that's for another thread. Here's what the current front end treatment resembles: I quite like the slight bumps over the front wheels, they give a little bit of definition to the shape. I like the MGs for the same reason. And it's a fairly simple shape to form.
If you're starting with a Triumph Herald it could even become a sort of fictitious Triumph LSR car. Come to think of it, that suggests Triumph motorcycle power (even if Triumph cars and motorcycles parted ways in 1936) ...
Here's an early 'liner that's completely new to me, the Spalding Brothers built it in '39, one of the first streamlined hot rods. It looks a lot like an elongated Bugatti Tank. I thought its 'rivetiness' might appeal to you Dawie. I'd like to see more of this one but there aren't many images around, it was donated to the war effort (info from http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=149631&page=8 - courtesy of JimmyB) I like the simple shape, looks like something I could do fairly easily. There was another one built in 1939 by Jack Harvey but I haven't any pictures of it - anybody got one?
some of Paul Jaray work http://www.flickr.com/photos/27862259@N02/sets/72157629116127561/with/5842903838/ Adler LeMans racer BMW 328 Kamm coupe
I have never seen those Lancias before, they're gorgeous. The BMW Kamm coupe has a drag coefficient that'd give a modern ecobox a run for its money (0.27 I believe). It's also stunningly beautiful. Paul Jaray cut his teeth as an aerodynamicist on Zeppelins before turning his attention to cars. Some of his designs were better looking than others . . .
I think the Nash bathtubs had a lot of aerodynamic features (closed fenders etc) but not necessarily low drag by overall design (I seem to recall the Cds up in the region of 0.4-0.5ish). The closed fenders do appeal though. I often thought a lowered, chopped and sectioned Nash/Austin Metropolitan would give me somthing small and economical to compliment my Plymouth but the damned things are so expensive - I could build a body way cheaper than I could buy - and claim that I built it.
Dawie's right, these should be in this thread (hope you don't mind me cloning your post Dawie). Never seen that top one before - the utter simplicity of the lines appeals to me, not so much designed on the back of a cigarette packet as carved out of one.
No problem 60Ply you've quite effectively addressed my lack of round tuits. Still saving up to start a thread on specials ...
That is stunning. I want that, exactly as it is, on my driveway. Just magnificent. It's funny how the patinated bare metal highlights its shape far better than the silver paint job from the images at the top of the page.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRs8Md-F7W8 It even works<VIDEO class=video-stream data-youtube-id="CRs8Md-F7W8" x-webkit-airplay="allow" src="http://o-o.preferred.virginmedia-lhr4.v18.lscache6.c.youtube.com/videoplayback?upn=h6ZUh4HBd9Y&sparams=cp%2Cid%2Cip%2Cipbits%2Citag%2Cratebypass%2Csource%2Cupn%2Cexpire&fexp=903802%2C907217%2C907335%2C921602%2C919306%2C922600%2C919316%2C920704%2C912804%2C913542%2C919324%2C912706&ms=au&itag=18&ip=82.0.0.0&signature=401D4745D782122E6711399ADE6DFBDD5E2EC663.7309A6E72FB39C08A611BDFE44B78DE840F224E5&sver=3&mt=1339777816&ratebypass=yes&source=youtube&expire=1339802827&key=yt1&ipbits=8&cp=U0hSTlhLUF9HUUNOMl9QRVRJOlpVYW1UUVJhUTJM&id=091b3c31df85ed6f"></VIDEO>
What about Tatra. Hitler banned his officers from driving these because they were too fast, they'd easily cruise at 100 mph. Air cooled v8 in the back.
Hitler banned his officers from driving them because they were not only fast but also diabolical on a wet road. From about 1930 on there was this sort of popular consensus that the Car of the Future was going to be a long, rear-engined teardrop. That lasted until enough of that ilk were built that a fair number of people had had the opportunity to drive them. It was not for nothing that the front-engined layout has persisted to the present day. That looks like a post-war Tatraplan (flat-four), by the way. Here's the other end: This seems to be a later model, with twin glass rear windows. The tailfin was an attempt to shift the centre of lateral wind pressure rearward, as early ones were even more prone to vicious oversteer in crosswinds.
I'm a big fan of Tatras, very technically advanced if a little flawed in the dynamics department. The problems of a streamlined shape with a fairly far forward centre of pressure, coupled to a heavy engine (even if it is a magnesium air cooled V8) hung out behind a swing axle don't lead to one of the best handling cars in the world. I wonder how the car would have handled if given a front engine and solid rear axle - it even has a hood in front ready to accept it. I seem to remember reading that Tatras aerodynamics are one of those cases where the model in the wind tunnel was doing much better than the real car ever did. They were very good, but not the physics beating wind cheaters the wind tunnel results suggested. The fullsize Rumpler Tropfenwagen however, was tested in the 80s and showed a drag coefficient of 0.28 Looks kinda like a three way cross of an airship gondola, a San Fransisco cable car and a tuna.
Me too, make no mistake: it's one of those despite-rather-than-because-of situations. I was thinking the same thing regarding a front engine, even if liquid-cooled with a rear-mounted radiator drawing from underneath the car. A lot of these early rear-engined experiments are a lot better with the engine at the front. It may well be said that a Steyr Type 50/55 was a better Beetle than the Beetle. I like that!
I was wondering when the Rumpler would show up on here. IIRC, it was recognized as the first example of true streamline design in a production car.
I think the Rumpler has a lot of potential from the aerodynamics point of view. Cars are difficult to achieve low drag coefficients with (as opposed to aircraft, airships etc) because of the ground. The ground plane has the effect of reducing a vehicle's aerodynamic efficiency, altering the flow pattern over the car. I reckon the Rumpler achieves a low drag coefficient because its design (tall and thin, instead of low and wide) reduces the interaction with the ground and hence its negative effect. I'd be interested to see what a 'plank on edge' tandem seat open wheel machine would be capable of - where's that picture of Lockhart's car gone . . .
Not to mention delivering a profile that looks much better to Vintage-oriented tastes. Minimizing the implicit ground-plane intersection suggests cross-sections along the lines of truncated shield shapes, i.e. getting a bit narrower to the bottom - more Vintage shapes. In the end it's a case of designing fenders ...
I guess nothing's new. This looks an awful lot like my current drawing iteration: Leston Special If this auto looks more like an airplane than a car, it’s because owner L. Leston is a London dealer in aircraft spare parts. What started him designing this model was an extra set of curved plastic panels from the cockpit of an old reconnaissance machine. The Special is built on the chassis of a pre-war 20-hp Jaguar roadster and stands only three feet three inches high. Further aircraft influence can be found in the body frame built from light steel members of channel and T-section and then covered with aluminum. Not removable roof panel, left, and plastic windows, right.
The Jalopy Journal
