First off, I am not arguing that the EPA is in control of all of design or a substantial part of it, but their mandates and expectations are influencing design. And maybe you should heed some of your own advice regarding logical fallacies and use my full quote instead of cherry picking sentences.
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.
At what level have you studied? Are you an engineer? I am. I am also a designer with a degree in transportation design.
And your right, it's science, but science is not always straightforward and apparent.
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.
No dishonesty it is just really difficult to understand your point because it is a false dichotomy. I ignored it because it is irrelevant You imply that if the EPA has control then trucks would be smaller. This is not a justified claim. Why would it be have to be smaller? The EPA having control does not automatically lead to smaller vehicles. Is the EPA's goal to reduce mpgs at all costs? No. The EPA is not in the game of dictating market segments. Making a full size truck smaller diminishes its ability to perform as a full size truck and thus you cannot make it much much lighter or smaller. I think the real goal is to get it to perform better within the segment and purpose it is designed for.
Regarding the Japanese and Germans cars, maybe you can clarify. I don't understand it's relation to the EPA's control. I assume you are saying that they place efficiency higher on their priorities. Or are you saying that the EPA has more control over them vs others. In either case that cannot be claimed and does not follow.
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.
Nice strawman argument. I agree it is ludicrous. Where do I claim that? I never said that those were the only two design criteria. Don't add meaning to what I said. All I said was that those regulations regarding mpg and safety have to be factored into design and play a significant role in the current trends of vehicles. That's why front ends on cars like BMW, MB, Audi, are much taller and square to meet pedestrian standards. And the size increase and high belt lines on current designs are a function of side impact requirements.
Which parts have I ignored?
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.
I agree, but that's not what I was objecting to. You said that "...lowering itself the faster it goes, has more to do with handling." That is what I was referring to. Not between the effectiveness of "barn door" design vs lowering. You don't even make that argument in your original quote.
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.
Stop cherry picking sentences from the middle of my post. You have again performed the exact accusations you accused me of. Read it in its entirety. I was saying air vents that close reduce drag and increase mpg, like in the vehicle examples you conveniently left unquoted. If it read like I was comparing vents to handling, then I apologize.
In response to your sarcastic statement that handling is improved by closing air vents, probably not in the Ram, but yes they can. You may want to go re read your fluids book. Where does air go that enters the front of a vehicle? Into the engine compartment and that can create lift unless properly vented. Closing that vent will direct airflow around the vehicle where it can be used for downforce. Do you know how a front splitter works? Closing a vent that is positioned over a splitter will in fact increase the high pressure area directly over the splitter, creating downforce, and increasing handling.
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.
Yeah no crap. That's my point. Why does the car go faster? Because it reduces drag. And closing a vent is like taping the front vents up. Thus increasing aero dynamics. That is why the Focus and Cruze have it, to increase mileage.
