1930's car

[MetroMPG]

EDIT: Oct 5/06

For those who were interested in this thread, I've updated metrompg.com with a more detailed article about the aero-modded Model T.

http://www.metrompg.com/posts/model-t-stevinson.htm
[/quote]

[Matt Timion]

I'm anxiously waiting...

Get as many pictures as you can. I think it would be a great article to write in hopes that other people link to us.

[The Toecutter]

Ask for some fuel economy figures. The stock Model T got like 21-22 mpg.

This will be most interesting.

[Mighty Mira]

Yes, me too. Please post pronto!

[MetroMPG]

Here you go. I've got more & better pics. I'll post proper scans of them (these are photos of prints of scans of photos) and more details I learned about the car ... eventually. (Too many projects!)

[The Toecutter]

I'm very impressed with that design. I look forward to some specs.

It sort of resembles the 1921 Rumpler, which had a .27 drag coefficient.




You can read about it here:

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF7/702.html

If you ask me, I think it's ****ing pathetic that it took a mainstream auto maker 80 years to beat this drag coefficient in a production car. The Honda Insight had a .25. We could have done aerodynamic cars in the 1970s fuel crisis, kept the snarling V8s in them, and gotten well in excess of 30 mpg for our auto fleet.

But every time consumers demand fuel economy, the auto industry instead sees it fit to punish them with crappy econoboxes that possess anemic powerplants, refusing to address aerodynamics in any meaningful way. Then they blame Ralph Nader and the Japanese automakers, while asking for big nanny government to give them another welfare handout.

[kickflipjr]

Wow. That is a slick looking car!

[Mighty Mira]

Extremely impressive. Unfortunately my post just got eaten.

With the exception of the wheels and axles, extremely streamlined. If the body was lowered slightly so that the axles were inside the car, I bet it would beat the rumpler significantly.

I did some calculations about the drag. Knowing that the power in this vehicle is the same as a model T, and power consumed by drag is proportional to velocity cubed, that means that CdA is going to be around 26% of what it was in the model T. (45/70)^3 = 3.76 And probably less, considering that rolling resistance will be increasing with the square of velocity as well.



Just to remind you what an ugly brick of a car the model T was, here is a picture:


Not surprising he was able to do that with half the A and half the Cd. I don't think engineers back then fully realized the drag that wheels generate by virtue of dragging air with them as they rotate. I suspect that on the homebuilt car above, wheel and axle drag would be easily half the total drag on the car (assuming no crosswinds of course.)

I've been discussing some of these issues here, at a homebuilt airplane forum. Looks like we are going to have to do this ourselves. For some reason people are willing to make compromises when it comes to air transport that they will not do to minimize fuel economy.

With induced drag being taken care of by LRR tyres, it seems ridiculous that we can't have highly aerodynamic personal transport that completely minimizes our running expenses.

In a lot of ways I wish we could return to an era similar to the 1930s and before. In many different areas, the only things that have improved in a design is the marketing. Why build something better if we can saturate the TV with our programming until people believe that it's better, without doing anything differently? And now the auto companies have legislated their competition out of the market, with various front groups clamoring for our safety but in actual fact only serving to increase barriers to entry.

[MetroMPG]

More pics scanned in: clicky = zoomy.

Note: pics are large-ish to preserve detail - 70-90 kb each.

[MetroMPG]

I'll probably see the builder's son again at the sailing race tonight. I'll get more info about the car for a detailed write-up.

[Mighty Mira]

That's brilliant, love all the pics!

I suspect they thought long and hard about how to shroud the wheels, but with nothing to attach to it was really in the too hard basket.

[MetroMPG]

I asked about wheel pants

[Matt Timion]

MetroMPG, do you know what the inventor's motivation was for this build? Was it for faster speeds, or did he actually have efficiency in mind as well?

I'd love to hear about the changes to the drivetran.

[MetroMPG]

That's a good question, Matt.

[Matt Timion]

If you could ask him as many questions as possible... fuel economy, drag coefficient, etc...

Really I'd like to hear anything related to efficiency that might give me a little bit more information on this.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

1 - Have a look at the "skeleton" picture and you may be able to pick out the major drivetrain mod: he added a second transmission, inline (from a Chevrolet). 7 or 8 speeds... 2 gear shifts. It may be installed backwards. Have to clarify that.

The Model T manual at http://www.oldcarmanual.com/ is an interesting read. The T itself was 2 speed, with no gear levers. The transmission was all planetary like an automatic, except the pedals directly operated the bands. There was a reverse pedal, brake pedal, and a shift/clutch pedal. You pressed half way for neutral, in for 1st, out for 2nd. The brakes were in the transmission only. There was also a brake/clutch parking lever, and on the steering wheel were throttle and timing advance.

I looked up the manual because I never quite got my grandfather's story about his father's model T. He had the habit of smashing the reverse pedal instead of the brakes, which annoyed my grandfather because he had to fix the thing. He also had a story about how starting it with the advance set wrong nearly broke his arm. I did get his story about the first time my great-grandfather drove the car: when he went to stop he gripped the wheel really hard and said 'whoa!'.

[ZugyNA]

I had a grandfather that called his car "the machine"....and not as a pet name. This was a '54 Ford.

[Mighty Mira]

Originally Posted by Randy

I did get his story about the first time my great-grandfather drove the car: when he went to stop he gripped the wheel really hard and said 'whoa!'

Now THAT was funny! I have some questions: How did the car handle/perform/use fuel in a strong crosswind? In a light crosswind? With a gust? How was the NVH?

[MetroMPG]

I'll ask. As for NVH, I suspect these cars of this age were the reason the term was invented!

[Mighty Mira]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

I'll ask. As for NVH, I suspect these cars of this age were the reason the term was invented!

Hmmm. I don't imagine that the engine was that quiet, huh. But for most aerodynamic things, Cd makes a large difference to the NVH.

[MetroMPG]

For those who were interested in this thread, I've updated metrompg.com with a more detailed article about the aero-modded Model T.

http://www.metrompg.com/posts/model-t-stevinson.htm

[cfg83]

Hello -

I like the frontal view because you can see that the design parameter for the car width was the width of the Model T's engine. Maybe cramped for the passengers, but for the right reason. Cool.

CarloSW2

[MetroMPG]

It does seem pretty narrow, doesn't it? There's supposed to be room for 2 to sit side by side up in the front, but they would have been touching shoulders.

[rh77]

Thanks for resurrecting this thread CFG! I missed out on it back in July and it slipped into the archives.

How inspiring for someone of the time to do such a thing, and not for racing purposes. People really knew how to pose for pictures back then (great photography of the day too)! We need more "Orville and Wilburs" like this gentleman, today.

Toecutter has an excellent point -- what in blue-blazes happened to aerodynamics in the 60's to Mid-80's (especially the boxes of the 70's)??? It's like they took a brick of clay in the design process and stuck parts on it.


"The Goldsmobile"

RH77's First Car: 1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Brougham 4-door 350. Brown plaid, pillow-top interior and all the options that 1977 could muster.

Of course everyone loves their first car when they get it. Since it was as old as I was at the time it wasn't terribly reliable, but it coasted like a dream, aged very well, and got 18 mpg avg. Aside from the soft top, the rear "fastback" sweep probably improved its drag, but the flat front is classic 70's. It could have easily been imroved with a sloped grille/front clip (trust me, even with the 350 V-8, there was plenty of room in there for a slope)!

At any rate, facinating story Metro -- this gentleman should be a GasSavers member emeritus -- way ahead of his time.

RH77

[MetroMPG]

He truly was a pioneer. He was building his car ahead of 2 of the 3 more famous early aerodynamic cars

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by Matt Timion

MetroMPG, do you know what the inventor's motivation was for this build? Was it for faster speeds, or did he actually have efficiency in mind as well?

I didn't mention this in the story, but did ask his son this question.

[Matt Timion]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

I didn't mention this in the story, but did ask his son this question.

He was as much interested in efficiency as speed.

In one of his later cars (we're talking 50's or 60's) he installed an early "fuel consumption display" - in the form of a sealed graduated cylinder that held fuel. So he could watch the rate of consumption while he drove.

Is there any chance the son knew what type of gas mileage his father achieved with this aero mods?

[MetroMPG]

Yup...

Compared to the Model T's top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h), the streamlined & modified car would go 70 (113 km/h). Its fuel economy was also improved: 45 imperial mpg (38 mpg US) compared to the Model T's 30-36 imperial mpg (25-30 mpg US) - though obviously not at 70 mph!

[Matt Timion]

awesome... THe wheels in my head are turning... I smell an article on the way.

[The Toecutter]

25-30 mpg to 38 mpg though extensive aeromods and no other modifications sounds about right. And given the exposed wheels and axles, these aeromods really weren't that extensive.

Aerodynamics is the key to efficiency. Drop the Cd of today's cars to about .18 from today's .32, and 45 mpg midsize cars with 180 horsepower V6 engines that weigh 3,000 pounds, or to 35 mpg V8 musclecars of the same weight and 350+ horsepower become possible. Throw an L4 diesel of about 150 HP in such an aerodynamic car, and you'd easily have an 80 mpg midsize car that did 0-60 mph in 10 seconds. Reduce weight by about 600 pounds through cutting all useless fluff from the interior, acceleration would dramatically improve and city fuel economy would improve a bit as well.

With proper aerodynamics, it would actually be feasible to build a 150-200 mile range all-electric midsize sedan that used cheap flooded lead acid batteries, albeit it might weigh in the neighborhood of 4,000 pounds.

A Toyota Prius getting the fuel economy it does isn't rocket science; most of its gain isn't attributable to the hybrid drive so much as it is attributable to cleaner aerodynamics, a CVT, LRR tires, and a weight reduction of a few hundred pounds. That winning formula requires no fancy new technology, just a good design. But the auto industry would sooner drop dead than to actually deliver the best product it can, as it prefers to ration out advancements as slowly as possible to maximize profits on each one. As a result, advancements made in the 1930s have yet to see widespread use in today's cars(eg. aerodynamics). There is an exception to this rule: if it costs a lot of money and can fatten profit margins(usually to the expense of the buyer), the auto industry will adopt it immediately, as we have seen with today's integrated designs wherein one computer fails, you have to replace all parts associated with it(eg. 2001 and later Chevy Impalas).

Imagine how much less oil we would be consuming if 180 horsepower midsize cars got 45 mpg, instead of 27 mpg.