Forward Tilt
Most Excelent....Party On Wayne!
12/3/08, 09:01 AM
#24
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the rakish, rising body lines, fore to aft, have several reasons:
Aesthetic: tend to give a dynamic, "ready to pounce" look rather than a sagging, drag-*** look, or a somewhat neutral if bland level look. Think of a cougar getting ready to pounce, taut haunches raised, head lowered, and front paws low to the ground. Probably evokes some primal instinct or something.
Functional: A rising, high-backed "Camm" rear end does tend to produce downforce, though the chopped of Camm rear end is more to fool the wind into acting like a longer, sleeker shape. Downforce doesn't so much the definition of aerodynamic drag but a side-effect of it, basically the lift-drag ratio of aerodynamics.
At one extreme -- very low drag cars with no handling intentions, i.e., land speed record cars, you do see the very elongated and tapered shapes. The "fastest" fastback would be close to horizontal in angle, but Ford tried that in the '71-'73 design and the rear visibility was horrible.
At the other, Formula One cars, which create so much down force that they could literally drive upside down at speed and generate 3+ Gs around the corners, but at a huge penalty in top speed and economy. Street performance cars exist somewhere in between, balancing economy with down force and handling.
Aesthetic: tend to give a dynamic, "ready to pounce" look rather than a sagging, drag-*** look, or a somewhat neutral if bland level look. Think of a cougar getting ready to pounce, taut haunches raised, head lowered, and front paws low to the ground. Probably evokes some primal instinct or something.
Functional: A rising, high-backed "Camm" rear end does tend to produce downforce, though the chopped of Camm rear end is more to fool the wind into acting like a longer, sleeker shape. Downforce doesn't so much the definition of aerodynamic drag but a side-effect of it, basically the lift-drag ratio of aerodynamics.
At one extreme -- very low drag cars with no handling intentions, i.e., land speed record cars, you do see the very elongated and tapered shapes. The "fastest" fastback would be close to horizontal in angle, but Ford tried that in the '71-'73 design and the rear visibility was horrible.
At the other, Formula One cars, which create so much down force that they could literally drive upside down at speed and generate 3+ Gs around the corners, but at a huge penalty in top speed and economy. Street performance cars exist somewhere in between, balancing economy with down force and handling.
Last edited by rhumb; 12/3/08 at 09:04 AM.
that is a much better display the original atempt gave me a headache.
12/5/08, 12:48 PM
#27
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: February 17, 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Okay, so here is a better chop. The first one I decided was way too extreme on how far I sunk the wheel. This one still leaves a little rake but not nearly as much as the original. I also finished off the c-scoop, because I love that line. Better??
Last edited by jarradasay; 12/5/08 at 12:52 PM.
12/5/08, 12:50 PM
#28
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 22, 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12/5/08, 01:08 PM
#31
Member
Join Date: November 30, 2008
Location: Middletown, NY
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That "Wedge Shape" is what makes Modern Cars Look so Modern, Unlike Older Cars. That's One of the Reasons the Last 2 Seat T-Birds Look So Out of Place. The Wedge Shape is an Aerodynamic Principle that gives the Car Better Handling and Stability as the Higher Rear Deck creates More Downforce, creating Less Aerodynamic Drag .
12/5/08, 05:50 PM
#35
[quote=jarradasay;5701386]Okay, so here is a better chop. The first one I decided was way too extreme on how far I sunk the wheel. This one still leaves a little rake but not nearly as much as the original. I also finished off the c-scoop, because I love that line. Better??
quote]
Some of that rake is a photo illusion due to where the angle and lens (low and wide angle) and photographed from the rear giving a bit of fish eye lens effect. There is a bit of a wedge/rake. Not as extreme in reality.
quote]
Some of that rake is a photo illusion due to where the angle and lens (low and wide angle) and photographed from the rear giving a bit of fish eye lens effect. There is a bit of a wedge/rake. Not as extreme in reality.
12/6/08, 06:28 PM
#36
Join Date: December 3, 2007
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the scoop attachment on the Torch Red one! Something I might have to consider.
12/7/08, 05:59 PM
#39
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: February 17, 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Kory, grr428 we're probably all going to get flamed for saying we prefer the tacked on scoops. But I think it gives it a little more edge and makes the hip pop a more.
12/7/08, 08:06 PM
#40
GT Member
Join Date: April 15, 2008
Location: Norfolk/Hampton VA
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i also like the side scoops. i think when i get mine i am going to get them along with the window louvers