Thanks for sharing your wildly off base speculations and false assumptions. If you have no direct experience or knowledge regarding the design process of a vehicle, it is probably best you don't say anything. How are you qualifying aerodynamic designs? By your purely visual interpretation of what aerodynamic should look like? Do you have any professional experience as an aerodynamicist? There are many design tricks to make a seemingly high drag design better.
I have studied fluid dynamics for a while. There are only so much one can do to make a barn door go through the water or air with little drag.
You're acting as if this is some kind of magic, which it definately isn't.
Gross generalization of Japanese and German cars and a bad analogy. Are you comparing them to full size trucks? I hope not. The Tundra is the only applicable comparison I can think of and that sure isn't any more aero, and has all the same design attributes of the American truck designs.
I like how you purposely ignored the fact that I mentioned that if the EPA was really controlling things, it would have been
smaller as well. Way to go with the dishonesty.
Yes the EPA isn't solely responsible for the looks of vehicles. Much of the design has to coincide with increasing safety standards which dictate many physical aspects and increase mass.
You're still talking bollocks. You're in effect claiming that this type of vehicle is designed to be the best cross between safety and aerodynamics. I won't even argue against that, as it's as ludicrous as can be. Perhaps you should reread the post you quoted, instead of ignoring the bits you don't like.
I'm sure the EPA would love to reduce weight but not at the cost of safety.
See above.
That being said, the mandated EPA standards do factor into design far more than you think. Every part that sees or influences airflow is designed with efficiency in mind. Lowering a vehicle does increase mpg and reduces drag.
Yes it does. But in the case of the truck in question, designing it as less of an upright barn door would in fact do much more than lowering it an inch when going fast. How can you miss so much of my post? Oh, I get it: It's much easier to strawman my position when you ignore most of what I have said.
That's why bumpers and air dams are reaching further to the ground.
Yes, and as I mentioned, there's only so much you can do when trying to push a barn door through the air.
It seems highly unlikely that they are looking for significant handling improvements from lowering in a full size truck. There are far better ways to do that. Closing air vents does the same.
LOL, so now "handling" is improved by closing air vents! Excellent, that makes up for being prone to rolling! Sweet. I'm amazed at how much magic aerodynamics entail.
The Focus, and Cruze have it as do many others. Ever watched a NASCAR race and seen how much of a difference tape on the grill has on aerodynamics? Every little bit helps.
And yet, that tape is only there to help it go faster at the top end. And
no NASCAR car is a barndoor. They're all relatively low slung.
