>2016 Why aren't we in drag coefficient eggs yet? Pic

because there comes a point of diminishing returns

>>16372557
people will buy a prius?

Cause my average speed is like, 30 mph.

>>16372520
>legs are the crumple zone

It's more about the chassis nowadays.

File: IMG_20161224_144204.jpg (3MB, 4640x2610px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4640x2610px

Have you seen the modern Buicks?

>>16372845

no, because nobody buys them

>>16372520
Crash safety

>>16372869
well who wants a pigfat fwd automatic only 140 hp cuckmobile anyway?

File: hypermiling.jpg (84KB, 600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 600x1066px

>>16372520
Some are

>>16373207
Kek

>>16373207
That guy could've ended the Kammback far sooner. That's the entire point of a Kammback. The front is far more important.

>>16373241
No, the point of the kammback is that a sharp cut is better than rounding off the rear end if it's not possible to make the car long or pointy enough. That kammback is being used perfectly.

File: Toyota_mr2_sw20_front_left.jpg (255KB, 1024x610px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1024x610px

>>16372520
Pic related, less drag than your prius.

>>16372520
We will get there, it is the future. But for now we'll take a detour over sports shoe designs.

File: Aptera-2.jpg (112KB, 1600x1063px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1600x1063px

>>16372520
Don't know. But from the public reaction of similar things they don't seem to buy into it, think it has more to do with style.

The history of box vs curves closely follows gas prices by market as cutting drag is cheaper then redesigning the engine. I would assume give the higher fuel consumption of older boxy cars know for their power. That People have some lingering association with box shape to raw power. After all many older boxy cars were know for their power and heavy equipment and tanks are boxy. Given remarkes like "it looks weak" when talking about some very low drag cars. I think it is some outdated public perception that curves are less powerful.

>>16372520
Because drag isn't all bad for performance cars. Having more drag in the form of downforce helps the car stick to the road and handle better.

For cars that don't go fast enough, this doesn't matter too much.

>>16373613
This.

Also, who says we're not? I drive a Focus, and it's shaped for very low drag, reduction of the low pressure area in the back (as evidenced by the way aerodynamics dumps dirt onto the back of the car), and a little downforce at speed thanks to a subtle splitter/diffuser in the stock bodywork, airflow routing underneath that I have to unscrew to get at the oil pan, and a stealth spoiler over the back window.

>>16373370
That's a joke and half right there.

>>16373370
if you got the rear window and the fake pillars covered, you could reduce drag a lot.
The rear window area creates massive drag

>>16373613
true, but given the amount of people nowadays that look forward to cars that can drive themselves and have a commuter that has enough room to deliver 3 babies in, the schlorwagen is up there.

>>16373638
The wedge design is good, but the front grill doesnt help a whole lot. Doubt that splitter would be doing a whole lot, unless it does have a relatively flat underbody cover along the whole car? I don't see a softer plastic helping much for that either.

>>16372950
Geezers. My town is full of them.

>>16373703
>Doubt that splitter would be doing a whole lot, unless it does have a relatively flat underbody cover along the whole car?

There's a fibreglass panel under the front end, back to just after the front wheels and covering everything draggy down there.
The rear suspension is mostly tucked neatly away from airflow, which is also contained by side skirts.
The plastic's fairly hard on the aerodynamic bits, too.
The front grille is needed to cool the engine, but the warmed air is directed away by the fibreglass shield underneath and the engine cover on top.

It's lovely and stable at motorway speeds, and doesn't even throw off that much spray.
It's a nice car if you're into economical 'family' hatchbacks.
Which I'm not, really, but it's a comfortable reliable DD that handles well enough to be fun, fits all my crap in the boot, and looks good on the driveway. And, best of all, a 3 year old one was in my price range when I needed a new car to replace an ageing moneypit.

>>16372950
There is not a single new Buick with less than 184 HP, and most of them have 200 or more.