I've been thinking a bit about Tesla's frunks... and I'm having trouble convincing myself that they're a good idea. The main reason that this trend began of having a long hood area in cars began is because in an ICE vehicle you normally have a big engine located there. This later became extended to the utility of having a longer deceleration distance during impacts. However, this runs afoul of aerodynamics. The optimal aerodynamic shape is not to have a long taper at the front, but at the back. That is, an ideal shape for enclosing volume is an airfoil (2d) / "teardrop shape" (3d), and thus, an egg-shaped front-end. Indeed, other designers, such as Aptera, took this path to lower their drag coefficient significantly: An EV has no need for the large engine in the front. Indeed, Tesla just leaves an empty space where an engine would otherwise have been there. So that reason is gone entirely. The crash deceleration length argument still stands.... sort of. Because part of the reason ICE vehicles need such a long space for deceleration is that a lot of the engine doesn't compact well, and you don't want to push the engine into the passenger safety cell. Which is clearly not applicable in this situation. And even if you wanted length, there's no reason that the front end should approach its maximum height so quickly, then relatively level off, then resume a sharper rake at the windshield. Nothing about that is inaccordance with aerodynamics; it's just a style that people expect from their cars. Above: Up, rapidly reaches max height, mostly levels off for most of the length of the hood, then resumes a shaper rake again. Not a particularly optimal shape for aerodynamics - but what people expect from a "normal" car. Having the extra storage space in the front is nice, but you'd get better aerodynamics having the same amount of storage space elsewhere in the vehicle by allowing for a more gradual taper in the back**. So I can't see that as a justification. It's no insignificant issue... we're talking something like a 25% sacrifice to aero, aka something like 40-50 miles range, and slower charging from a given power supply (lower Wh/mi = more miles added to the pack per hour of charging at a given number of watts). So.... is this really just a style thing? Keeping the storage at the front rather than going to a more airfoil/teardrop front end, because that's what people expect the shape of a car to be? If so.... Tesla's already removed the use of fake or needless grilles with the Model 3, breaking with one aspect of what people expect cars to look like. Hopefully they'll continue with this trend in the future and let physics dictate the basic shape, with style adding in its "sleek lines" and so forth atop it. What do you think? ** Re, taper: there's lots of different ways you can do it. In general, though, you don't want to taper too much before the rear passengers, if you want meaningful rear passenger space - but then you want to taper as much as you can in the rear storage. The rate of taper cannot exceed too strong of an angle (which depends on your speed); otherwise you encourage flow separation, which means you drag more of a low pressure wake behind you. If you can't prevent flow separation any more due to length constraints, it's better to have a sharp cutoff, sometimes with vortex generators, to create a recirculating zone behind the vehicle. The same principles also apply (to a lesser extent) to the sides, due to crosswinds; the net flow across a vehicle is the sum of the vectors of the wind and the vehicle's motion, and is not always perfectly aligned with with the direction of travel.