Quote from amp88 :

Not an everyday car though.

someone could have it as if hed just have money+patience to not drive too fast and crash into a tree+patience with the fact that theres no trunk+the noise+...well i could do this allday...

Quote from batteryy :

someone could have it as if hed just have money+patience to not drive too fast and crash into a tree+patience with the fact that theres no trunk+the noise+...well i could do this allday...

You don't get the point. The question was if any technology had trickled down from racing cars to everyday cars you see on the street (like Ford Focus, Honda Civic etc). Radicals are built for racing and some of them are street legal, but they're most certainly not everyday cars. Some new Ferraris have flat underbodies and diffusers, but they're still not everyday cars.

Racing is not important...



Winning is. :P

Quote from kingfag :

Well, we don't have everyday cars with very low drag and advanced underbody aerodynamics. Everyday cars of today are designed by graphic artists, not by aerodynamic engineers.

Hey, I resent that! Cars are not designed by graphic artists, they're designed by Industrial Designers. I am not a graphic designer!

For the record, though, modern road cars produce significantly less drag than cars from, say, the 60s. That is due in large part to the increased understanding of low-flying aerodynamics (meaning, race cars) as aerodynamics close to the ground is a much more difficult subject than it is in flight.

In any case, some technologies from racing (or technologies greatly advanced by racing) filter down into road cars and other products, but this is, as mentioned, a by-product. It is not the reason. The reason is entertainment. Always was, always will be. If your friends don't want to be entertained, that's their business.

Quote from MAGGOT :

The reason is entertainment. Always was, always will be. If your friends don't want to be entertained, that's their business.

The reason for the first motor races in Europe was actually to prove your car's technology (whether that was petrol engine, steam engine or some other form of propulsion) and manufacturing was better than the others. Technological showcasing (and therefore sales) was the first reason.

I would argue that the reason the first motor races took place was because the owners of cars wanted to show off how good they were with these new fangled horseless carriages. In time it turned out some were better at driving, others better at building cars, and that the Great Unwashed would want to pay to watch these talented people attempt what they enjoy...

Isn't the job description "Industrial Designer" a new one created to trick some people into thinking they are better or different to other designers?

Many 60s cars have not only a lower Cd figure, but also smaller frontal areas. Modern cars are LESS aerodynamic than older ones. The opposite is true about lorries and freight transport vehicles - these are now vastly more slippery than older ones, so despite being about twice as big don't generate any more drag...

Quote from tristancliffe :

Modern cars are LESS aerodynamic than modern ones.

???

While it's true that Cd figures have barely changed at all in the past couple of decades, and I'd go as far as to say that as many, if not more, have increased than have decreased, but going as far back as the 60s you'll find Cd numbers were a lot higher.

Tristan is quite correct about size though, the frontal area of modern cars is undergoing a strong upwards trend, thus coupled with near stationary drag coefficients, cars on average experience more aerodynamic drag than from decades past. I'm not quite convinced that things are as bad as they were in the 50s or 60s though (at least, not typical family cars).

Quote from oli17 :

???

Typo, now fixed

Just tell him that motorsport creates thousands, if not millions of jobs world wide. If yor mate thinks not putting food on the table isn''t important then he's dumb!

Quote from tristancliffe :

Isn't the job description "Industrial Designer" a new one created to trick some people into thinking they are better or different to other designers?

Industrial Design is product design, graphic design is.. well.. graphics. Two totally different disciplines. (Although, Industrial Designs do frequently have to dabble in the realm of graphic design)

Quote from MAGGOT :

Industrial Designs do frequently have to dabble in the realm of graphic design

Nooo.. that's when you recruit an aesthetics designer

Quote from SamH :

Nooo.. that's when you recruit an aesthetics designer

Well, that depends upon situation. Generally we'll recruit an engineer for, you know.. engineering... but we're still licensed to do some small-scale engineering (architecturally, we're licensed up to 5000 square feet in Canada, I think).

Quote from JJ72 :

but racing, like many other sport and hobbies, are there to make the world worth living in.

This.

I'm only 24 and I've already spent untold thousands in just one year on improving my skills as a rider, hopefully to the point where I can become a successful racer. Wasteful? Absolutely, and it's totally worth it.

Quote from MAGGOT :

Well, that depends upon situation. Generally we'll recruit an engineer for, you know.. engineering... but we're still licensed to do some small-scale engineering (architecturally, we're licensed up to 5000 square feet in Canada, I think).

Recruiting requires a recruitment designer. Small-scale engineering designers are not proper engineers nor designers, and Canada has enough square feet already?

Or am I missunderstanding the conversation thus far?

Quote from Bob Smith :

While it's true that Cd figures have barely changed at all in the past couple of decades, and I'd go as far as to say that as many, if not more, have increased than have decreased, but going as far back as the 60s you'll find Cd numbers were a lot higher.

But do 60's cars have a higher Cd because of lack of aerodynamic knowledge, or just because nobody cared about aerodynamics?
Some pre-WW2 cars had pretty good aerodynamic properties (ie. Tatra, Chrysler). The effects of a flat bottom were also known (Tatra T77).
It seems like the whole "aerodynamic theme" was dropped a few years after WW2, when cars became "fashion sheds" instead of engineering breakthroughs.

Quote from Bob Smith :

Racing car advancemenths

Is that the study of minty airfreshers used in racecars?

Quote from Bob Smith :

Racing car advancemenths have filtered through to production road cars, giving us faster, more efficient personal transport.

hush up - they might learn something

Thank you for the good responses guys Now i have a lot in my arsenal to defend racing.

BTW, would it be possible to give some examples of those technological advancements?

My two cents about Racing not beeing important - true.
But it has a value, on various levels. Firstly it's adding a lot of value for the ones that is interesting in speed, cars and such, it's a great value for the interested. Also, it gives people work. Lastly it helps developing new technology that can be used in other situations. So it's somewhat true saying racing is not important, but it also has values for some and even is important for some. By important I would say things like food, education and things like that.

Quote from kingfag :

But do 60's cars have a higher Cd because of lack of aerodynamic knowledge, or just because nobody cared about aerodynamics?

A bit of both. It took time for the knowledge learnt in aircraft design to begin filtering to automotive engineers. Also, at least in the states, it was high speed oval racing that prompted at least some cars to take on more aerodynamic shapes, starting at the end of the 60s. For many cars I think it was still a long time until it was really a consideration. Just look at the Miura, there was clearly no engineering throught about the shape of that car, it was all styling.
I think it was during the 80s that aerodynamic efficiency peaked, as I'm sure I've seen car adverts from that period where the drag figures were published as a way to attract sales. Since then, cars have become more about styling again, although no doubt aerodynamics are now a permanent consideration, they are of less importance to vehicle manufacturers, as looks have more influence on sales. Do people who buy who pickups and SUVs really care about fuel efficiency in the first place? I doubt it.

Quote from kingfag :

Some pre-WW2 cars had pretty good aerodynamic properties (ie. Tatra, Chrysler). The effects of a flat bottom were also known (Tatra T77).
It seems like the whole "aerodynamic theme" was dropped a few years after WW2, when cars became "fashion sheds" instead of engineering breakthroughs.

There have been a few examples where certain companies have clearly had an engineer who knew about aerodynamics leading a project. I think such examples are a rarity though. Even today, it is really only high end sports where aerodynamics are given a serious priority.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Is that the study of minty airfreshers used in racecars?

Damn you. Damn you to hell.

Quote from lizardfolk :

Basically someone argued that "racing is not important or relevant to society" and is "wasteful".

Whose society? The argument is one in which you are set up to lose no matter how much evidence you dig up. The questioner has an ideal society in mind, which he has not defined, so there is no way you can create a hierarchy of importance. Such hierarchies are stupid anyway; ultimately, the question attempts to relate various interests that have little in common and putting them in competition against each other is the cheap trick of a moralist and an idiot. Life is about chaos and variety. Enjoy it and ignore questions that have no answers.