Why is the 'perfect' aerodynamic design so hard?

[The Cosworth]

Just reading the Tesla thread, then thinking back to the Mercedes Bionic concept that looked like the box fish, and it got me wondering. Why is the 'most' aerodynamic design so hard to work out? I can understand why you'd want to compromise say high top speed with downforce with high corner stability that would focus on race car design for example. However it seems that even coming up with optimal solution for even a single component in aerodynamics is hard. Is this a limitation of current aerodynamic science? Is it a computational problem?

For example in most things mechanical or electrical we are limited either by materials science or a cost / benefit ratio. The 'perfect' solution is known or could be worked out but usually ends up not being done because it is a compromise.

I know Rage and a few of you are true aero-nerds so thought you'd answer this easily.

[revelations]

Not an expert but I do know there are various bumper/headlight height laws that vary from country to country. Its not just a matter of a clean sheet, aero ideology.

[The Cosworth]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not an expert but I do know there are various bumper/headlight height laws that vary from country to country. Its not just a matter of a clean sheet, aero ideology.

This is true but my question means to be even more 'pure' than that. It is my understanding that there is no 'perfect' aerodynamic shape. I.E. something that just slips through the air with the least, everything is an interpretation. Whether it is car, balloon, or can flying at an Orioles player.

My question is why, you'd think you'd just work out the lowest C.D. and work the shape backward.

[revelations]

Your question is a little generic - a better question would be: What is the optimal aero design for the average road vehicle used as a DD.

Your answer would then be, something like a Honda Insight.

If pure aero is the key (at the expense of everything else), then something like a solar powered vehicle that races across Australia would be the solution.

You always have to compromise on some component that takes away from optimal aero. For eg. handling could become unstable at high speeds with aero tuned to minimal resistance if the (somewhat) laminar flow is disrupted by a crosswind or a large vehicle passing in the other direction. Manufacturers have to ask themselves these questions and test the designs intensively.

[jwslam]

Slowly getting there; see example 1

https://www.wired.com/2011/08/biomimicry-gallery/

[Mitsu3000gt]

Safety regulations, styling goals, passenger comfort, cargo space, build cost, down-force requirements, etc. Those are my guesses anyway, there are just so many things that go into consideration.

[tonytiger55]

Mythbuster did a show, kindaish relevant...

[spikerS]

I think they could design an object that has virtually zero drag if you take the cost/benefit equation out. The problem being, would it be a practical or usable design?

I think the biggest issue is that once static air is disturbed, it becomes highly volatile, and you have to find ways to make it streamlined again so that it doesn't cause more drag on the objects behind it.

I am sure it is a rules issue, but I have always wondered why they didn't fit some sort of shroud over the tires in F1 as my limited knowledge with aerodynamics tells me that with the rest of the car being tweaked so much, that those big flat spots on the leading edges of the tires would cause a lot of drag that could be solved with a shroud. maybe the added weight of a shroud would cause enough issues with weight that it negates the aero gains or something.

[mr2mike]

Because this is what happens.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think they could design an object that has virtually zero drag if you take the cost/benefit equation out. The problem being, would it be a practical or usable design?

I think the biggest issue is that once static air is disturbed, it becomes highly volatile, and you have to find ways to make it streamlined again so that it doesn't cause more drag on the objects behind it.

I am sure it is a rules issue, but I have always wondered why they didn't fit some sort of shroud over the tires in F1 as my limited knowledge with aerodynamics tells me that with the rest of the car being tweaked so much, that those big flat spots on the leading edges of the tires would cause a lot of drag that could be solved with a shroud. maybe the added weight of a shroud would cause enough issues with weight that it negates the aero gains or something.

Mclaren came up with a quick idea of what a no-rules car could look like;



- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Because this is what happens.

Yea that was the result of a concept that was completely botched but it was, for the time, a very futuristic looking vehicle

[jacky4566]

An infinitely long, thin shape like a bullet. Real world requirements don't allow this however.

It also depends on the medium traveled through. sub sonic and supersonic air speeds have different requirements.

Besides. The perfect car already exists. Why do you think it hasnt changed in 40 years.

[ercchry]

When you see a race car/boat doing flip, after flip... flying through the air... I think it answers the question

[01RedDX]

.

[ExtraSlow]

Perfect for what? It's always a series of trade offs.

[diamondedge]

Take that red bullet and now try packaging a high HP, high displacement motor, AWD, passengers, safety systems, all of those other things. As stated before, it's always a compromise.

Also when did you return to being The Cosworth. OG beyonder lmao