What's with the gaping maw that all cars must have now.

[oldscool]

Two points:

1. Styling is subjective.

2. Car stylists have to be constantly coming up with something "new" to keep consumers interested. Let's face it, styling fads will come and they will go. Right now we seem to be in the "giant headlights that extend practically to the cowl" and the "gaping abyss" phase. It's a phase, and will disappear once the next "new" styling trends come along. Today's designs are no more or less "right" or logical than the rocket/jet/fins craze of the '50s or the "opera windows and padded landau roof" fad that came along in the '70s.

It's all ephemeral. It comes, it goes away, the next fad comes along, and so on...

But they aren't coming up with something new, they are just copying other companies designs - i.e. if Audi thinks it's cool then we need it too.

[oldscool]

I think it started as a response to the pumped-up hysterical adolescent "attack" styling of the angry-catfish tuner-look. Sadly, it's a fad that's taking as long to die as rat-rods.

Apparently SOME car builders are emulating the rat-rod look too, if the rapidity with which many of GM's trucks are rusting away from the bottom is anything to go by.

GM's trucks have always done that much worse than others.

[oldscool]

http://asset1.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2010/03/29/34041463_OVR_610x407.JPG

The French designer hired by Nissan to do the Cube called it "Pig with sunglasses"

I call em toasters.

[oldscool]

Lotsa power from liquid-cooled engines doesn't require stupid looking vents, troughs, flaps, scoops and ducts all over the place...especially not in the name of aerodynamics.

Those aircraft have opening flaps and doors for the radiators to keep them cool when they aren't in motion. You just can't see them in the pics.

Edited May 25, 2015 by oldscool

[Lovefordgalaxie]

Oh really? No.

The airflow at the openings to the cooling elements on most aircraft is particularly dirty, turbulent and not anywhere near laminar...especially behind the prop. The WINGS of the P-51 were among the first laminar flow designs to make it to combat aircraft, but the rest of the ship just isn't laminar.

And aircraft are required to be able to maintain non-destructive engine temps while taxiing slowly, sometimes in lines, waiting for takeoff clearance...sometimes rather long lines in old combat situations.

The P-51 designers did such a fine job of managing airflow through the cooling system that it was almost zero-loss in drag, due to the acceleration of the airstream after the radiator from the added heat energy of the engine coolant...a feat that was absolutely astounding for the time, well before the massive computing power it would take to approach similar results today with CFD (computational fluid dynamics). In maximizing the performance of sport and racing planes (with which I have some little experience) one of the big first-steps is looking to minimize drag and turbulence due to the engine cooling requirements.

Silly open-catfish-mouth grilles just are NOT required for surface-vehicle cooling...if the designers and engineers are competent.

Yes, really.

Non laminar flow is only true on the case of extreme maneuvers. In regular flight it is pretty laminar as it leaves the propeller. The propeller makes sure of that.

Cars don't require extreme openings, but for sure bigger than the ones on a airplane.

Try to make a P-51 idle for an hour without the airflow of the propeller. The thing will melt.

Airplanes can't be used to justify the size of a grille on a car. The requirements are so different it's like comparing a jet fighter to a piston fighter.

On cars, there is a minimum size calculated by the engineer, and the actual size will be equal or BIGGER than that, and it depends on who is responsible for the styling. Airplanes didn't have a stylist, they were all the work of engineers, thus the air intakes being exactly what was required, no bigger, no smaller.

There is also called safety coefficient. That makes sure the actual cooling capacity of a car is higher than it needs to be.

I don't like the looks of modern cars, never did, and I'm not saying the grilles are cool.

[Snake45]

"Durr. Hai, guys!"

[horsepower]

Well, you can't compare airplanes to cars. A airplane will never get stuck in the traffic, or wait for a signal to open. The airplane's prop will generate a super fast laminar airflow trough the radiators and oil coolers, that and the fact the air is super cool at high altitudes will help the cooling a lot. cars will depend of the electric or mechanical fans to force, or suck air trough the radiator.

Plus you'll also notice if you look closely that the airplanes all have air outlets larger than the inlets that create a venturi effect, basically a low pressure area behind the radiator to help pull air through. We do the same thing with our control line stunt planes.

But it's a little hard to do with a street car, again most designed for racing cars have the same thing, even the Shelby Series 1 had this incorporated into the grille and hood.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Yes, really. No, not really.

Non laminar flow is only true on the case of extreme maneuvers. In regular flight it is pretty laminar as it leaves the propeller. The propeller makes sure of that. Ridiculous. But by all means, believe what you want to. Here are the facts. (from this document, which agrees with accepted aviation knowledge...http://yarchive.net/mil/laminar_flow.html

1. The effects of propeller Slipstream. Airflow within the arc of the

prop is very turbulent, "the whole fuselage and inboard section of the

wing next to the fuselage operate in that turbulent stream. Tests in

the Langley wind tunnel revealed that airflow within the arc of the

prop (the prop was 11 feet in diameter which meant that turbulent air

was encountered all the way out to within 13 inches of the inner gun

position) was "90 to 95 percent turbulent" (in other words non laminar)

Cars don't require extreme openings, but for sure bigger than the ones on a airplane.

Try to make a P-51 idle for an hour without the airflow of the propeller. The thing will melt. NO ONE said the air coming off the prop wasn't necessary to cool an aircraft engine while idling...NO ONE.

Airplanes can't be used to justify the size of a grille on a car. The requirements are so different it's like comparing a jet fighter to a piston fighter.

On cars, there is a minimum size calculated by the engineer...yes, and I work with just those numbers frequently, as performing fully-functional engine swaps in older cars requires engineered solutions ...and the actual size will be equal or BIGGER than that, and it depends on who is responsible for the styling. Airplanes didn't have a stylist, they were all the work of engineers, thus the air intakes being exactly what was required, no bigger, no smaller.

There is also called safety coefficient. As there should be in every single engineered part of everything.That makes sure the actual cooling capacity of a car is higher than it needs to be.

I don't like the looks of modern cars, never did, and I'm not saying the grilles are cool.

Opinions are fine, but just no substitute for knowledge.

If you want to dispute the empirical results derived from extensive real-world wind-tunnel and flight testing, well...isn't that special.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[Lovefordgalaxie]

Plus you'll also notice if you look closely that the airplanes all have air outlets larger than the inlets that create a venturi effect, basically a low pressure area behind the radiator to help pull air through. We do the same thing with our control line stunt planes.

But it's a little hard to do with a street car, again most designed for racing cars have the same thing, even the Shelby Series 1 had this incorporated into the grille and hood.

Yes, that's true.

Another proof you can't compare the aircraft cooling with the next door neighbor car's:

If an airplane has a air cooled engine, like a La-5 or La-7, for example, it's not necessary to have a fan to force air trough the engine, the airflow from the propeller will do that. On a air cooled car, you have to have a fan forcing air trough the engine. Take a look at any VW Beetle.

The closest thing on four wheels to a airplane is a race specific car.

The other detail: The car grilles are designed to complete the styling of the car, and not with specific purpose of being just what the engine cooling needs.

How would you explain a grille on the REAR bumper, without any duct arriving at it, just there for (poor) aesthetic reasons?

[Harry P.]

First time I saw a Tesla, I chased it down to find out what it was; assumed it would be a big Jag or Maserati, was pleasantly surprised to read the badging. Fine, fine work on that car.

When you can create an attractive, cohesive design that doesn't rely on stereotypical or silly cliché design elements, that's talent.

[Ace-Garageguy]

When you can create an attractive, cohesive design that doesn't rely on stereotypical or silly cliché design elements, that's talent.

Yes sir, 100% in agreement there.

[Lovefordgalaxie]

Opinions are great, but knowledge is better.

I'm not a automotive or aircraft engineer, but even I with all my lack of knowledge know that comparing a car to a airplane is not only silly, but also biased.

Silly silly comparison. What a shame...

[Ace-Garageguy]

I'm not a automotive or aircraft engineer, but even I with all my lack of knowledge know that comparing a car to a airplane is not only silly, but also biased.

Silly silly comparison. What a shame...

Easy way out. Call me biased and silly. Ignore the actual facts entirely. Sorry dude, I go by real knowledge and experience in BOTH fields.

Aerodynamics is aerodynamics, and thermal management is thermal management...whether in aviation or surface vehicles. Differing operating regimes, same basic theories apply in all cases.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[Joe Handley]

When you can create an attractive, cohesive design that doesn't rely on stereotypical or silly cliché design elements, that's talent.

Speaking of styling cliches, it does carry a bit of that Coke Bottle shape that looked so good on cars like the '68-'70 Charger and the '68-'82 Corvette, and even still evident on the current Viper, Vette, and even some Euro cars like a number of Astin-Martins and Porsche Panimera..........then again, that could just prove that some things just don't go out of style

[Rob Hall]

Reality is complex. Of course, in the Google future, cars won't have grills or drivers..

[martinfan5]

[Ace-Garageguy]

Reality is complex. Of course, in the Google future, cars won't have grills or drivers..

Excellent.

[philo426]

It looks like a computer mouse!Hence the "thumbwheel" in the center!

[Joe Handley]

Reality is complex. Of course, in the Google future, cars won't have grills or drivers..

Excellent.

Now considering my recent experiments with Google Maps, it may not be that excellent.......don't want to end up going to where it "thinks" an address is vs where it actually is.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Now considering my recent experiments with Google Maps, it may not be that excellent.......don't want to end up going to where it "thinks" an address is vs where it actually is.

Ahh, but think how 'interesting' it might be to not ever be 100% certain the cute little bugger will take you to the right address. Kinda like how 'interesting' it was driving old British cars, not ever knowing if you'd actually get ANYWHERE.

Every trip an adventure!!

[Joe Handley]

Ahh, but think how 'interesting' it might be to not ever be 100% certain the cute little bugger will take you to the right address. Kinda like how 'interesting' it was driving old British cars, not ever knowing if you'd actually get ANYWHERE.

Every trip an adventure!!

Considering where Google Maps led me one time, no thanks!

[chunkypeanutbutter]

When you can create an attractive, cohesive design that doesn't rely on stereotypical or silly cliché design elements, that's talent.

I call into play... the 2000 Honda Civic Coupe. Yes, really.

...and the maximum it should be taken to is this:

Still retains the original, smart-but-quiet styling with a little bit more oomph.

Edited May 26, 2015 by chunkypeanutbutter

[jbwelda]

back to anything remotely related to the subject line:

ever see a 55 Cheby?

here is a handy little guide, as well:

Grill:

Grille:

and no, its not just a typo.

thank you

jb

[Ace-Garageguy]

Mmmmm...tasty !

[Lovefordgalaxie]

back to anything remotely related to the subject line:

ever see a 55 Cheby?

here is a handy little guide, as well:

Grill:

Grille:

and no, its not just a typo.

thank you

jb

I heard GM wanted to give the '55 a more "euro" look, and loosely based the '55 grille into the ones used by Ferrari. For '56 they clearly departed from that.