What a cool looking car !

 

Anyone here agree ? I reckon they look better than any Ferraris. I love the angular look.

Bugatti EB110's are also nice.

 

SERIOUS Q. NOW....

 

Why do some cars look nice and do good looks go with good aerodynamic design ?

 

Before someone says the best aerodynamic shape is a teardrop or something - that shape would not make a practical car and how come the fastest cars often look cool ? Surely someone would have made a teardrop car and broke records if it was the best ?

 

My belief (willing to change it) is that beauty comes with good designs which are functional, in terms of aerodynamics, downforce, lateral aerodynamics, air vent placement etc. etc.

 

Besides not being practical as you said, its not pratical for engeneering.

I have seen a tear drop car and it was awful, saying that is was a solar powered car.

Pack to the point, tear drop big at the front and getting smaller at the back. Have you noticed all the real super cars are rear engine? Where would you put it in a tear drop shape. The back would be too narrow.

Also it would probably mean only having 1 wheel at the back or 2 wheels very close together which would cause all sorts of stability problems, especailly going round corners. It would like be driving a Relient Robin in reverse

Plus weight destribution would be mostly at the wider, taller front. About 70% of the weight would be at the front.

 

So all in all not a good idea.

 

About the De Tomaso Pantera.

Yeah look really good and classic. Almost like an old Esprit but miles better.

 

 

Stuart

 

[This message has been edited by SRRAE (edited 03-10-2002).]

Since all the land speed record look like planes without the wings i suppose this is the most aerodynamic shape but not very practical or good on the corners

how much would one of these panteras cost these days??

Paul

 

------------------

Beauty as they say is in the eye of the beholder.

You may like one car and think it`s the dogs testi`s where as i may think it`s a pig.

Sure, cars will fall into categories for the majority but it`s all down to personal taste IMO.

 

Bob

Yes, what I'm trying to suggest is that the best shape(s) for functionality could be inherently beautiful, not beause they are fashionable, suggesting a certain style or other non-functional reasons - a 300ZX is designed primarily for function and aerodynamics and it looks beautiful (maybe not to everyone tho').

I wouldnt call the no boot 2 seater only just room for your lunchbox Lamborghini pratical. Its bloody ugly but I think its georgous in its uglyness.

When I was a little kid I had a Matchbox Pantera and it was the best car I had!

Would be interested in how much they are these days...

Or a Ford GT40...

 

From being a kid I loved three cars, the 240Z, Lamborghini Jalpa GTS and the De Tomaso Pantera GTS. I got a chance a couple of years ago at the Sportscar Show at the NEC to be driven in a Pantera and although the car is superb, it is so noisy it can't be taken on trackdays very often and not many tracks either. Considering how long ago it was designed it is still a beautiful looking car, however I saw a light blue one at Donny in the Park at the Avon Raceway a couple of weeks ago and it proves that even the most gorgeous of cars can be screwed up with the wrong color paintwork. A Black Japla was at Gaydon for the Supercar sunday and I was drooling.

 

------------------

Z first and anything else is secondary!

John (Nukem) Newcomb

www.geocities.com/jn300zxtt

All the best designs do use the 'teardrop' but not as you would expect.

 

First take the shape (as if falling at approx 80mph) cut it symmetrically along its length now lay the flat side down, if you now cut it into lots of sections and measure the cross sectional area this is the ideal now if you design any to this principal it will cut the air very effectively, The D-type jag was designed this way, the 'cut-in' behind the front wings compensating for the windscreen, the narrow rear track width assisting in the tapering of the model, the long thin tail is not needed as pointed out by Dr Kamm in the 30's so most run to a 'Kamm tail' more correctly called the 'Kamm Section tail'

 

Almost all fast cars follows this design principal and the best designs just try to maintain this sectional area with the inclusion of vents etc.

 

There is an 'aerodynamics' thread on the GTR site at the moment that might be of interest.