Is modern car design getting better again or worse?

Better

>>16891657

worse

high sides and ped friendly front ends

>>16891657
the fuck is that?

>>16891657
worse. airflow is a lost art.

>>16891657
Worse

File: BMW_G30_fr.jpg (380KB, 1920x1152px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 1920x1152px

>>16891677

lolwut

>Drag coefficient 0.22

compare that to older cars

File: 1467000478065.png (94KB, 962x746px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 962x746px

>>16891692
>drag coefficient
I'm talking about vacuum forces in the engine. aspiration.

not fucking memedynamics

File: 1450221591784.gif (158KB, 252x240px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 252x240px

>>16891703
You're right, air dynamics don't matter in 90mph max Burgerland

>>16891714
diffuser technology isn't shit, and definitely wasn't what I was talking about before you started shilling with wind tunnel stats. so you can go away now.

File: 144687468774.png (55KB, 1266x709px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1266x709px

things are just getting more formatted and similar

>>16891657
Worse. ARR ROOK SAME because of muh mpgs and muh aero, so they try to make them look a little different by slapping a hideous and pointlessly aggressive looking front end on granny's lexus and stacey's econobox.

FUCK modern car designers.

File: 2017-Yamaha-T7-Tenere-Concept-12.jpg (363KB, 1920x1397px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1920x1397px

I don't know, at least motorcycles are getting better.

inb4 noodle bowl headlight cucks

File: 250px-Tatra_77A_dutch_licence_registration_AM-44-01_pic10.jpg (11KB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x188px

>>16891692
Drag coefficient .21, 1930's

File: 19072681844_ce401489e3_k.jpg (495KB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 2048x1360px

>>16892384
Round headlight is the best headlight you cuck

>>16892404
And this was waaayyy smaller

>>16891692
0.195 - General Motors EV1, 1996
0.19 - Alfa Romeo BAT Concept, 1953
0.19 - Dodge Intrepid ESX Concept , 1995
0.14 - Fiat Turbina Concept, 1954
0.137 - Ford Probe V prototype, 1985
0.12 - Reflex 1000, 1996
0.117 - Summers Brothers Goldenrod Bonneville race car, 1965

>>16892404
The problem with drag coefficient is they develop cars to be both aerodynamic, and have downforce, and be safe to pedestrians in a crash. which is usually why there drag coefficient is so high. That tatra at high speed is much more nervous than a 3 series, but much slipperier

>>16892384
>no more mad i4 250s and 400s
>no more on-road 2smokes
>motorcycles are getting better

>>16892449
>no more shitty bikes that only exist to dodge japanese licensing laws when 600s do the same thing but better
>no more unreliable shitbikes with narrow powerbands

Yeah

>>16892429
Eh none of these are relevent

>>16892445
Fair enough

>>16891657

The irony of the image and OP's query is that Volkswagen is pretty much the only company not making cars look like they were designed by assholes.

>>16892466
>N-no, DOESNT COUNT! LALALA!

>>16892475
These are all prototype
I really didn't think i needed to explain this

>>16892475
No it really doesn't count and I'm not even him. Those aren't production cars. I mean no shit some concept cars and race cars had better drags cos. Concepts didn't need to be practical or lawful and racecars were purely for speed.
Show me a production car with drag coefficients that low from those years.

>>16892506
The tatra was already posted.
>>16892404

And the average drag coefficient nowadays is not .21, it's more like .4, beaten easily by older production cars. The g30 that was posted literally has one of the lowest drag coefficients in the past 10 years.

>>16892506
>>16892527
Expanding on this, google says average CD is .35, here's a list of older cars "beating" that

0.35 - toyota mr2, 1998
0.34 - Ford Sierra, 1982
0.34 - Ferrari F40, 1987
0.34 - Chevrolet Caprice, 1994-1996
0.338 - Chevrolet Camaro, 1995
0.33 - Mazda RX-7 FC3C, 1987-91
0.33 - Citroen SM, 1970
0.32 - Toyota Celica 1995-2005
0.31 - Citroen AX, 1986
0.31 - Citroen GS, 1970
0.31 - Ford Falcon, 1995-1998
0.31 - Mazda RX-7 FC3S, 1986-91
0.31 - Renault 25, 1984
0.31 - Saab Sonett III, 1970
0.31 - holden/vauxal commodore, 1998
0.30 - Audi 100, 1983
0.30 - Porsche 996, 1997
0.30 - Saab 92, 1947
0.295 - ford falcon au, 1998
0.29 - Dodge Charger Daytona, 1969
0.29 - Honda CRX HF 1988
0.29 - Subaru XT, 1985
0.29 - BMW 8-Series, 1989
0.29 - Mazda RX-7 FC3S Aero Package, 1986-91
0.29 - Lexus LS 400, 1990
0.29 - Lancia Dedra, 1990-1998
0.29 - Lotus Elite, 1958
0.28 - Renault 25 TS, 1984
0.27 - Rumpler Tropfenwagen, 1921
0.26 - Alfa Romeo Disco Volante, 1952
0.26 - Hotchkiss Gregoire, 1951
0.26 - Vauxhall Calibra, 1989
0.25 - Dymaxion Car, 1933
0.25 - Honda Insight, 1999

>>16892527
Cars nowadays are design more around safety they have higher cx but are way more stable at high speed
But car nowaday are also huge compared to anything in the past
You can't deny that aero dynamic is way more mastered by car manufacturers than before

>>16892527
>One car that was unstable at high speeds

>>16892558
There we go, but y'all don't understand what you're talking about.

I'm an aerospace engineer. I can for a fact tell you that cars do not need a crazy drag coefficient.
>The Veyron has a drag coefficient of 0.39
>The Prius has a drag coefficient of 0.25
>Average F1 car has a drag coefficient around 1.00

Drag coefficients are almost meaningless for performance cars because any kind of downforce will add in massive amounts of drag. I can tell you that you sure as hell don't want to be in a car going 200mph with minimal downforce.

Now a plane/space shuttle/rocket wants to have it's drag coefficient as small as possible because there is no kind of drag that is helpful (besides capsule reentry when drag is half the battle).
Economy cars can have a low drag coefficient to get better gas mileage but they will also be much less stable at high speeds. Which is why a Prius tops out at 112 and why a Veyron sets world speed records.

>>16892566
Also to add to this, drag coefficient is highly dependent on the size of the front normal area. That has grown greatly in the past 20 years so DCs increasing is very much in part to that.

>>16892566
So, exactly, idk why we're even arguing this. I thought it was just a pissing match.

>>16892558
>average CD is .35
How much do crossovers contribute to that?

File: IMG_2069.jpg (72KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 700x525px

>>16892558

>tfw the toyota prius has a better drag co-efficient than this

Better. There are still definite problems, don't get me wrong, but 2004 - 2014 was probably the darkest period for fat car design imo. They're finally starting to trim their designs down again.

>>16892566
Except the Veyron disables most of its aero to reach that speed.

>>16892366
This so much.

>>16891657
Functionally yes, Visually no

File: 1486616425863.jpg (171KB, 1394x751px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1394x751px

>>16891657
WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT THEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK

>>16891692
>When launched on 10 June 1989, the Calibra was the most aerodynamic production car in the world, with a drag coefficient (Cd) of 0.26.
close enough

on an irrelevant note i like how calibras were originally built as more "sporty" vectras but instead they became very reliable and fuel efficient shitboxes.

>>16892686
well no shit sherlock, look at that goddamned wing

worse 80s-90s were the best looking cars

>>16892686
>had to make the spoiler high for trunk clearance
>only realized after that they could have put the spoiler on the trunk
Ameriburger education at work

I love having to extended my entire arms length over the front dash to clean the glass, because the windshield is long and angled so fuckin much.

I love not being able to see my trunk anymore because the rears of cars are so fuckin high combined with even more slanted glass.

I hate how headlights and tails are making their way farther and farther up the side of the car. When you have a side impact you gotta replace light housings now.