You may have never considered this fact, but it's important, because it will help you as you consider the species you were born part of and what we've become.
Wind resistance... Ever swing a tennis racket with the head cover on? And then when you take off the cover, it's like 100 times easier to swing...(96.1 times easier to be exact, but the exact measurements aren't as important as the hyperbole). So wind resistance is a major factor when it comes to automobile fuel efficiency. The more aerodynamic a shape is, the more efficiently it cuts through the atmospere.
I'm sure you can grasp the logic in this statement: There is a perfect aerodynamic shape for a vehicle that has four wheels, one at each corner, and which has to carry humans in comfort and safety. Wind tunnel testing would make finding this perfect shape very easy.
And you can tell that automobile manuacturers kind of know this. But they won't accept this basic truth, so you have different designs. But if logic were followed, cars would all look exactly the same. What does it say about us that they don't?
Yes, the exact same thing that me being overweight says about being human. Thanks for pointing that out...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
You're only overeating so that farmers produce enough food for the 3,000 children that were born while I typed this sentence. I think you're kind of an American hero, as long as you don't eat all of the bacon at any buffet I'm at, because that's my contribution to the world.
The reason all cars don't look the same is because aerodynamics make for lame cars that don't get anyone laid.
And it just dawned on me: how would you know what year the car was if the shapes never changed?
But as with most challenges, the car companies could come up with some way to try to out-prestige each other.
I'm wondering why the American Federal Government, having just mandated a ten mile per gallon increase mileage over the next ten years, doesn't mandate aerodynamic compliance, which would further increase mileage? Or maybe they could mandate lower atmospheric pressure, so there would be less wind resistance? Or have an air pressure tax! The higher the altitude at which you live, the less air pressure tax you pay.
It's pretty simple: More is better!
Bad aerodynamically designed vehicles require bigger engines with more power to go faster and louder tire grind-age. -All of which attract women with bigger breasts.
I find no fault in this...
Here's something else they're not commenting on: how dumb Priuses look.
Also, given the fact that the Prius is advertised at 60 mph but actually gets around 44 mph, the savings is not nearly so impressive, particularly when you factor in replacing the car's battery every 80,000 miles, as you have to do. Sure, you get maybe 20 more miles per gallon, but where do we throw away all the batteries?
I naturally meant "mpg," not "mph." Everyone knows Priuses can't go 60 mph.
Aerodynamic cars are pretty sporty looking. I'd like one. And the designers seem to be able to come up with different looks that still work. And they can be painted different colors, like a pretty pink.
Ms. Nibble-dee-dee, I'm talking about the Perfect Shape, the shape that cannot be improved on. Any change in this Perfect Shape (taking into account it has to have four wheels at four corners) results in less aerodynamic efficiency. So if Congress were serious about Energy Independence, having all cars look exactly alike, i.e., the Perfect Shape, would be the law of the land.
That's Communism.
Perhaps. But can you take Free Enterprise too far?
Post a Comment