Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Lo-Drag: Cd < 0.2

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Am I the only one who doesn't give two hoots about the Cd, so long as the range is good? (Yes, I know one is affected by the other)

I can't wait for the day that battery tech is so cheap, that we don't have to have every car look alike "Just because they're aerodynamic".
Certain cars just look nice, but they might not be as slippery.

Really, people are so worried about side view mirrors or not having wheel covers, but in reality it takes what, maybe 2-5 miles off your range? Give me a bigger battery and call it even. Wheel covers are ugly, and they always will be. Hopefully I'll be dead before those catch on.

Agree
 
Drag makes a much bigger difference with EVs than it does for ICE. ICE engines are much less efficient overall, but the range over which they are most efficient is much wider than with EV which have a spike in efficiency around 25 mph and then efficiency drops quite sharply from air resistance as speed increases. Tesla had aero rims available for a short time when the Model S was new and the increase in range at freeway speeds was around 7%, I think some people have reported as much as 10%. Eliminating the mirrors would probably add about another 5% of the range.

These improvements would probably only be about 1/3 as effective with an ICE because of the inherent inefficiencies to begin with.

Electric motors have many advantages over ICE (better low end torque, instant torque, overall better efficiency, etc.), but it's a different technology with different energy curves. It's built into the Physics.
 
Drag makes a much bigger difference with EVs than it does for ICE. ICE engines are much less efficient overall, but the range over which they are most efficient is much wider than with EV which have a spike in efficiency around 25 mph and then efficiency drops quite sharply from air resistance as speed increases.

All vehicles are affected the same way by aerodynamics, it has nothing to do with the efficiency of the drivetrain, which is of course much higher in EV's, across all speed ranges. The reason is simply that as of now EV's carry much less energy on board and refueling is much slower. If we get to 10 minute recharging and 350+ mile battery packs aero will be less important. Until then it just makes good sense to get "free" range by good design. Personally I think well done aerodynamics can look very good.
 
All vehicles are affected the same way by aerodynamics, it has nothing to do with the efficiency of the drivetrain, which is of course much higher in EV's, across all speed ranges. The reason is simply that as of now EV's carry much less energy on board and refueling is much slower. If we get to 10 minute recharging and 350+ mile battery packs aero will be less important. Until then it just makes good sense to get "free" range by good design. Personally I think well done aerodynamics can look very good.

I didn't explain it well. The laws of aerodynamics are the same for anything.

In engineering, you are always trading off one thing for another. With something like a car, the losses include heat, rolling resistance, aerodynamic sources, drive train losses, and some other factors. The positive factor that overcomes these losses is the power generated by the motor. All types of propulsion have a theoretical maximum efficiency. For an ICE, it varies a bit from engine to engine, but it's somewhere around 35%. That is you put one gallon (33 KWh) of gas through the engine and about 2/3 of it will be lost to heat and mechanical losses within the engine. This is before you try to do any work with the engine. Electric motors can have a theoretical efficiency over 90%.

ICE need to idle because they produce 0 torque at 0 RPM and it takes some time to spin up to a point where it can do any work. So the engine needs to idle when the car isn't moving. This, or course, is all wasted energy. ICE engines achieve their max efficiency at a certain RPM which is different for each engine. Transmissions are designed to keep the engine as close to that sweet zone as possible. One reason car makers are coming out with more and more speeds on transmissions and CVTs are on some cars. ICE cars also need a transmission to increase torque to the wheels at low speeds without overloading the engine and keep it from stalling.

Hybrids further try to eek more out of an engine by keeping the engine running at it's peak efficiency when it's running and to charge the battery if only part of the engine's output is needed for propulsion.

Most ICE cars have their transmission geared to be in the sweet zone of max efficiency somewhere around 60-70 mph. Again it will vary some from car to car, but it's true for most ICE. At those speeds, the aerodynamic drag is a greater factor than at lower speeds, but because the engine is running at it's most efficient mode, the overall efficiency is better at those speeds. If the car was geared to get max efficiency around 25 mph, the gas mileage would be even better if you really wanted to drive on the highway at 25 mph for long distances on a regular basis.

Electric motor cars have different efficiency curves. Most don't have transmissions because the sudden torque changes possible with an EV can rip apart a transmission, and while a transmission might help some, the benefit is nowhere near as great as you get with an ICE. Most EVs have peak efficiency around 25-30 mph. Most of the losses for an EV are rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. Electric motors are not very efficient at very low speeds, but the efficiency flattens out at relatively low RPMs compared to ICE. This is a complex graph, but it shows the torque vs RPM vs efficiency for an electric motor

ornl-motor-efficiency.gif


Even at 200-330 RPM an electric motor can by 75% efficient. Twice the theoretical maximum for an ICE.

At low speeds the car is overcoming rolling resistance. The coefficient of friction is different for a moving object than for a stationary one. If you have ever pushed a heavy object, it was really tough to get going, but much easier to keep moving once it broke free. That the difference between static and dynamic friction.

Anyway, once the car gets moving and the electric motor starts getting up into the 90% efficiency realm, you're moving about 25 mph. There is some aerodynamic drag, but not all that much yet, so the car's efficiency peaks around there. As you get going faster, the aerodynamic drag cuts into your efficiency more and more and there is very little you can do about it, unlike an ICE.

With Teslas people try to hypermile them by driving as close to 25 mph constantly for a full charge to get as much range as possible. Probably everybody here has come close to hypermiling an ICE. Simply fill up the tank and drive at low freeway speeds with cruise control on.

Anyway, that's the long winded answer. Yes aerodynamic drag follows the same laws of Physics on both types of vehicles, but it's a more important factor in an EV design than an ICE design. The same aerodynamic feature will increase gas mileage in an ICE, but what might only improve efficiency 1-2% in an ICE will improve things 5% or more in an EV.
 
Probably everybody here has come close to hypermiling an ICE. Simply fill up the tank and drive at low freeway speeds with cruise control on.

Actually a good hypermiler will not use CC because they anticipate upcoming road features and traffic, and they will not be driving at low freeway speeds since aerodynamics are still the main factor. They would probably use the lowest speed that allows them to be in overdrive without lugging the motor, maybe 40-50mph depending on the vehicle.
 
Am I the only one who doesn't give two hoots about the Cd, so long as the range is good? (Yes, I know one is affected by the other)

I can't wait for the day that battery tech is so cheap, that we don't have to have every car look alike "Just because they're aerodynamic".
Certain cars just look nice, but they might not be as slippery.

Really, people are so worried about side view mirrors or not having wheel covers, but in reality it takes what, maybe 2-5 miles off your range? Give me a bigger battery and call it even.

Agree with you completely.

Wheel covers are ugly, and they always will be. Hopefully I'll be dead before those catch on.

Hear hear!
 
Wheel covers are ugly, and they always will be. Hopefully I'll be dead before those catch on.
On first, second, and third thought, that's a fascinating comment, because it begs the following response:

Can you really think that the combination of tires and wheel wells to be good looking? At the very least, less ugly than wheel covers? Or are you inured to their looks only because that is what you're accustomed to?
 
Lo-Drag: Cd &lt; 0.2

I do not find wheel covers to be inherently unattractive. I agree with @Audobon that we are all accustomed to seeing cars without them and may therefore prefer that look simply on the basis of familiarity.
It would be great it Tesla could come up with an aesthetically pleasing "aero" style wheel that was also functional in winter climates (would get clogged with snow and mud). That sounds like a difficult engineering and design challenge.
I would have no objections to rear wheel covers on the Model 3, or even on the S/X. Of course they would be detachable so those who don't like them could remove them.
 
the problem with saying "just give me a bigger battery" is that it costs more for every car.
Improving the aerodynamics doesn't always add cost to every car produced, but increases the range just the same.
so you could have a S85 with extra aerodynamic enhancements and get the same range as an S90, but the S85 costs you less.
For the Model3 that is important, especially at the low end of the range.
 
I didn't explain it well. The laws of aerodynamics are the same for anything.

In engineering, you are always trading off one thing for another. With something like a car, the losses include heat, rolling resistance, aerodynamic sources, drive train losses, and some other factors. The positive factor that overcomes these losses is the power generated by the motor. All types of propulsion have a theoretical maximum efficiency. For an ICE, it varies a bit from engine to engine, but it's somewhere around 35%. That is you put one gallon (33 KWh) of gas through the engine and about 2/3 of it will be lost to heat and mechanical losses within the engine. This is before you try to do any work with the engine. Electric motors can have a theoretical efficiency over 90%.

ICE need to idle because they produce 0 torque at 0 RPM and it takes some time to spin up to a point where it can do any work. So the engine needs to idle when the car isn't moving. This, or course, is all wasted energy. ICE engines achieve their max efficiency at a certain RPM which is different for each engine. Transmissions are designed to keep the engine as close to that sweet zone as possible. One reason car makers are coming out with more and more speeds on transmissions and CVTs are on some cars. ICE cars also need a transmission to increase torque to the wheels at low speeds without overloading the engine and keep it from stalling.

Hybrids further try to eek more out of an engine by keeping the engine running at it's peak efficiency when it's running and to charge the battery if only part of the engine's output is needed for propulsion.

Most ICE cars have their transmission geared to be in the sweet zone of max efficiency somewhere around 60-70 mph. Again it will vary some from car to car, but it's true for most ICE. At those speeds, the aerodynamic drag is a greater factor than at lower speeds, but because the engine is running at it's most efficient mode, the overall efficiency is better at those speeds. If the car was geared to get max efficiency around 25 mph, the gas mileage would be even better if you really wanted to drive on the highway at 25 mph for long distances on a regular basis.

Electric motor cars have different efficiency curves. Most don't have transmissions because the sudden torque changes possible with an EV can rip apart a transmission, and while a transmission might help some, the benefit is nowhere near as great as you get with an ICE. Most EVs have peak efficiency around 25-30 mph. Most of the losses for an EV are rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. Electric motors are not very efficient at very low speeds, but the efficiency flattens out at relatively low RPMs compared to ICE. This is a complex graph, but it shows the torque vs RPM vs efficiency for an electric motor

View attachment 108945

Even at 200-330 RPM an electric motor can by 75% efficient. Twice the theoretical maximum for an ICE.

At low speeds the car is overcoming rolling resistance. The coefficient of friction is different for a moving object than for a stationary one. If you have ever pushed a heavy object, it was really tough to get going, but much easier to keep moving once it broke free. That the difference between static and dynamic friction.

Anyway, once the car gets moving and the electric motor starts getting up into the 90% efficiency realm, you're moving about 25 mph. There is some aerodynamic drag, but not all that much yet, so the car's efficiency peaks around there. As you get going faster, the aerodynamic drag cuts into your efficiency more and more and there is very little you can do about it, unlike an ICE.

With Teslas people try to hypermile them by driving as close to 25 mph constantly for a full charge to get as much range as possible. Probably everybody here has come close to hypermiling an ICE. Simply fill up the tank and drive at low freeway speeds with cruise control on.

Anyway, that's the long winded answer. Yes aerodynamic drag follows the same laws of Physics on both types of vehicles, but it's a more important factor in an EV design than an ICE design. The same aerodynamic feature will increase gas mileage in an ICE, but what might only improve efficiency 1-2% in an ICE will improve things 5% or more in an EV.

You have a lot of words and data but the conclusion is still incorrect. Tesla's have a energy usage minima around 25-40 mph. ICE engines are so inefficient, the minima is slightly higher speed. However if you want to "hypermile" an ICE, you're not going 70 mph. You're probably going 45 mph, but totally dependent on a specific vehicle. At highway speeds aero drag dominates all energy use in either type of propulsion.
 
You have a lot of words and data but the conclusion is still incorrect. Tesla's have a energy usage minima around 25-40 mph. ICE engines are so inefficient, the minima is slightly higher speed. However if you want to "hypermile" an ICE, you're not going 70 mph. You're probably going 45 mph, but totally dependent on a specific vehicle. At highway speeds aero drag dominates all energy use in either type of propulsion.
From what I can find, the hypermile records for the Model S were achieved at ~25mph. Most hypermile records for ICE cars are done at ~45mph. Don't have the time, but I can probably find the efficiency differences (esp. the claim of the same aerodynamic change being half or less effective for an ICE vs an EV).
 
From what I can find, the hypermile records for the Model S were achieved at ~25mph. Most hypermile records for ICE cars are done at ~45mph. Don't have the time, but I can probably find the efficiency differences (esp. the claim of the same aerodynamic change being half or less effective for an ICE vs an EV).

It's not necessary, the claim is wrong. There are two competing curves of energy usage growing loss from drag and loss from everything else, together they form a minima that is the most efficient driving which is neither 0 nor max speed. It has nothing to do with being ICE or electric, except that they have different parameters. Like I said, ICE has a higher speed minima because it's so damn inefficient going slower doesn't help.
 
You have a lot of words and data but the conclusion is still incorrect. Tesla's have a energy usage minima around 25-40 mph. ICE engines are so inefficient, the minima is slightly higher speed. However if you want to "hypermile" an ICE, you're not going 70 mph. You're probably going 45 mph, but totally dependent on a specific vehicle. At highway speeds aero drag dominates all energy use in either type of propulsion.

If you look at the curves for this sample of ICE cars. The Prius has peak efficiency around 40 mph, but the Civic, 328i and Outback are all mostly flat from about 45 mph to 65 mph. Above 65 mph the efficiency starts to drop as the aerodynamic drive overcomes the motor running at it's most efficient setting.

mpg-vs-speed-all.png
 
On first, second, and third thought, that's a fascinating comment, because it begs the following response:

Can you really think that the combination of tires and wheel wells to be good looking? At the very least, less ugly than wheel covers? Or are you inured to their looks only because that is what you're accustomed to?

It's a somewhat ignorant comment, and I knew eventually someone would give me some flak for it. Wheels break up the monotony of a steel/aluminum/plastic body. There's a reason why people will spend thousands of dollars on them. They let people customize the vehicle more than the manufacturer lets them. Plus, you can get light-weight, or cheap steelies for the winter or what have you.
Wheel wells are functional, at least for the steering wheels. They let the tire protrude outside of the body of the car to turn sharply without having the body of the car be as wide as the widest it is when it's turning. To diminish that would diminish handling. The amount of energy saved by having wheel covers is not worth the $$$ spent on a larger battery in my very own personal opinion. Hence my reason for bringing this thread back from a recent death.
 
Contrary to the graph title those plots are not the same pattern, and something very odd is going on with the curves, especially the Honda which seems to show a 6-7 mpg improvement at 70mph compared to 60mph.

I noted that too, which is odd.

Here are curves for some other cars:

JTPYW.png


These curves have their variations too, but they have similar shapes. Some peak in the 45 mph range, some at higher speeds. A lot depends on how the car is geared.
 
Fair enough response (doubeld's #158, that is); the reason I'm jumping on it is, however, for a somewhat different purpose....but a reason that still falls under the "low Cd" aegis so I'll claim this is not diverging from the thread topic. As follows:

You write
...without having the body of the car be as wide as the widest it is when it's turning. To diminish that would diminish handling
.

I've been thinking of this in recent weeks. Given the astonishing ability of automotive computers nowadays to gather information from all four tires and respond as appropriate, does anyone think that a front end that had a narrow wheelbase might become workable? That is, if a car had its front wheels brought in just enough so that at full turn, the tires still remained inside that which we're all calling wheel covers, could it still be a stable, safe, properly-handling vehicle?

The reason for such thoughts should be clear - this would be one path toward optimal front-end aerodynamics. I've had some thoughts as how to mitigate snow and muck build-up in wheel wells, too, but needn't discuss them here. All this is moot if such a vehicle's handling, stability and safety could not match its wide-tracking counterpart - to me the Cd gain would not outweigh those ultra-important criteria. But thanks for bringing it up!