Do Cars Really Need to Look Like UFOs to Save Gas?
With the world focused on fuel economy, advanced car design seems to be converging around one point in space. And I do mean, literally, a point in space — a point sometimes seen flying over Roswell, or crashing in the Bermuda triangle.
Regardless of what you think about this type of design, it begs the question: do cars need to look like alien spacecraft to get decent fuel economy?
- » See also: CARB Unveils DriveClean, a New Web Tool to Help Consumers Pick Green Cars
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
Recently, when I posted about the newly announced Honda Insight’s uncanny resemblance to the Toyota Prius, I sparked a rather *spirited* debate with fellow blogger and former Gas 2.0 writer, Ben Jones (ecomodder) regarding aerodynamics and why all high mileage cars are starting to look the same.
His point was that if we want good fuel economy, we shouldn’t be upset when all cars start to take on the same shape. Basically, we shouldn’t whine about cars looking more and more like flying saucers if we want to save gas.
But I wasn’t convinced that in order to get good fuel economy all cars will have to look like the Prius. I remembered reading about a Mercedes concept car based on the shape of a Box Fish that looked nothing like the Prius and had an unexpectedly better aerodynamic profile. Also, the Aptera Typ-1, which looks more like a mutant sperm than the Prius, has much better aerodynamics too.
So, you’re probably saying, “Yes, both the Typ-1 and the Mercedes Box Fish Concept have better aerodynamics than the Prius, but they’re so strange looking that they’ll only appeal to a very small portion of the population.”
And you’d be right. Which brings us back to the question of the Prius shape, but now framed in a different manner. Perhaps the answer is that the Prius shape is the most aerodynamic design you can have and still appeal to a large enough market to make a profit (and an environmental difference).
But is the Prius design really a good compromise? Does it do itself justice by trying to accomplish so much in one vehicle?
To get to the root of this, I decided to seek out an expert opinion and contacted MIT professor, Mark Drela. Dr. Drela is a professor of fluid dynamics in MIT’s Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and has been an adviser to MIT’s Vehicle Design Summit regarding vehicle aerodynamics. In a response via email, Dr. Drela had this to say:
“All common cars, including the Prius, are aerodynamic bricks. The lowest drag shape that you can wrap around a passenger cabin resembles the front half of a sailplane fuselage. The Aptera comes pretty close, assuming they designed it properly.”
What he’s saying is that the Aptera Typ-1 probably represents the ultimate achievable aerodynamic shape for an enclosed vehicle with tires. He goes on to say:
“We know how to make extremely low drag vehicles (e.g. the Aptera), but the main problem is making them acceptable to consumers and making them ’safe,’ however that is defined. I see it mainly as a marketing and lawyering problem, not an R&D problem.”
So there you go. The Prius is not the most aerodynamic shape, it’s the most aerodynamic shape that’s also visually acceptable and safe enough to meet standards. But does aerodynamics even matter that much? I mean, some cars today are getting excellent mileage and don’t look like the Prius or the Aptera.
The issue comes down to the fact that achieving good fuel economy on the highway is an entirely different beast than achieving it in the city. Trying to make one vehicle that excels at both creates a vehicle that doesn’t do well at either. As Dr. Drela says:
“At steady highway speeds, low air drag is most important. If you’re braking frequently, then low mass is most important. A hybrid squeezes the two very different missions into one vehicle, and you sort of get the worst of both worlds. It doesn’t do either mission as well as a targeted vehicle, and is more complex to boot.”
Instead Drela suggests that a better solution would be to have two targeted-mission cars:
- An extremely light plug-in electric car for city driving
- An extremely low drag internal combustion car for highway driving
He points out that, obviously, owning two cars is more expensive up front, but that the lifetime economics and energy use of this arrangement might prove that it is the best solution.
Purchasing two vehicles up front might be out of reach for most people, but, if Dr. Drela is right, perhaps we should be looking at ways to make this easier for everybody to do? Government incentives?
Certainly the car companies would be happy to sell you two cars at once — perhaps they could work up a discount on the second car purchased if purchased at the same time? Does this seem like a fantasy world that sounds great on paper but would never fly in reality? What do you think?
Posts Related to Fuel Economy and Plug-Ins:
- Toyota and EDF Testing Plug-in Prius in UK
- U.S. Could Cut Fuel Use 50% by 2035
- Every Drop Counts: Nissan to Equip Cars with Fuel Efficient ECO Pedals
- ike GM, Ford Decides They’d Better Start Producing Smaller, More Fuel-Efficient Cars
- “Producible” Chrysler Plug-In Hybrid: 0-60 in 4 Seconds
- Chevy Volt 2010 Unveiled in Transformers 2 Spy Footage
- Report Claims Every New Car Will Be a Hybrid By 2020
- Plug-In Hybrid Bus at Denali NP Uses Up to 70% Less Fuel
Image Credits: Toyota, Honda, Aptera
>1. An extremely light plug-in electric car for city driving
>2. An extremely low drag internal combustion car for highway driving
So… you want an Aptera. 1500 lbs. Plug-in hybrid or electric. One quarter the drag area of the Prius.
As for safety, despite its looks I haven’t seen any indication it will be less safe than conventional cars. The proof will be in the pudding though, when third-party crash tests are done. Even though they’re not required, Aptera will almost certainly do them for the benefit of the naysayers.
Dr Dre sounds like a scientist dealing in abstractions. People don’t simply go on either a highway trip OR a city trip. They commonly do some combination of both. Even a highway can turn into city driving when there’s a jam. So the idea of swapping cars for each given trip is highly unrealistic except in edge cases.
Could a modular approach work?
For example, an internal combustion generator could be in a detachable module with wheels. For distance driving, mate the generator section to the electric city car. The generator would connect to the power bus for the electric motor as in a hybrid. The generator section could also have another passenger seat, truunk, etc.
This approach would also seem to let the battery be smaller and lighter, as it would not have to have the range of a cross-over electric car, since the generator would be mated for longer trips.
Funny you mention the abstract notion of people owning two cars and how absurd or “fringe” you think that notion is. Lets look at a typical family who owns two cars! Wait for it, wait for it…Dad goes to work via a highway and has to drive 20-30-40 miles to work on a highway that you are right will become a parking lot in certain sections but none the less he still drives 20-40 miles eeach way to get to work. Mom on the other hand is running around all day either with the kids or for the kids. applying the 2 car solution to this scenario and it does seem a specialized vehicle is in order. Mom tools around in a all alectric vehicle with the kids spending nothing on gas and Dad drives 40-80 miles RT each day. With a low drag high MPG vehicle Dad could get 50-70 MPG and spend 1/4 on gas then he did prior to the new set up. So his ideals are not that “far fetched” after all. Better yet if you really wanted to change the fabric of America you could just always join Grow Verde and Vespa share. Then we would pay for your gas! We have been beta testing our keyless entry system for the last 8 months and are ramping up to a major citywide pilot! Vespa sharing is the future for metropolitan areas!! Viva la Vespa sharing!
“People don’t simply go on either a highway trip OR a city trip. ”
Yes, they do. Ninety percent or more of my driving is home to work (4 miles each way) with perhaps a diversion to a nearby grocery store. So I bought an electric scooter. I have an old Mazda truck for any long-distance drives or for hauling stuff, or I rent a car. I haven’t used the truck for three weeks now. Gas expenditure: $0
So tell me why a light weight car can’t have an aerodynamic shape? Seems aircraft designers have to deal with that problem every day.
Then I guess we’re all screwed because the market for cars that look like invaders from another world is pretty small.
“Instead Drela suggests that a better solution would be to have two targeted-mission cars”
But what happens if I can only afford one car or my condominium apartment only has one parking spot? Reality can be tough.
Why not make a car with two easily swappable powerplants, one electric and one internal combustion? That would turn it back into “an R&D problem”, nicht wahr?
If we are all going to need two cars, let us remember to count the energy budget for building those cars as part of the life cycle energy budget for driving the cars.
I suspect most of the benefits will evaporate.