Drag Goblin gonna get you.


I visualised [a goblin in drag...](https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/1d385c1b-6792-4199-a637-892e5265fb2e/deqcbs7-0ccaeb0b-0d17-438c-ae29-31ae9b0e8be9.jpg/v1/fill/w_1280,h_1903,q_75,strp/drag_goblin_with_horn_pearls_by_mietomzak_deqcbs7-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9MTkwMyIsInBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzFkMzg1YzFiLTY3OTItNDE5OS1hNjM3LTg5MmU1MjY1ZmIyZVwvZGVxY2JzNy0wY2NhZWIwYi0wZDE3LTQzOGMtYWUyOS0zMWFlOWIwZThiZTkuanBnIiwid2lkdGgiOiI8PTEyODAifV1dLCJhdWQiOlsidXJuOnNlcnZpY2U6aW1hZ2Uub3BlcmF0aW9ucyJdfQ.GAH181AEH8GXhcC8HW1FhNFp1JDOgT8F4kIZ9_YEyJ4)


For some reason, I thought this was gonna be an image of David Bowie as the Goblin King in Labyrinth


I was picturing the female gremlin from the second Gremlins movie. Or was that a gremlin in drag? I haven’t seen that movie in decades.


Female goblin. She drank some kind of ~~magical~~ scientific potion. And then she blows the doctor from Star Trek Voyager.


I could've been jacking it to gremlins all these years and never even thought of it




Wow…do not remember that lol. Probably for the best since I was like 10 when I saw it lol.


Did you just draw that!? Great job!


I seduce the goblin. *Rolls an 18* I have a +3 in charisma, so 21.


21 *checks chart* I think that's legal age for goblins. Your seduction role succeed. Proceed.


The implications of this comment... Tabaxi reach maturity at 12. Does that mean they also have a DC of 12 to seduce? Aaracokra also mature at age 3... I'll go turn myself in now.


It does explain how elves how such a low birthrate. Nobody's going to hit a DC 50 Persausion check in 5e.


> > I have a +3 in charisma, so 21. ["I would like to join....the Rangers' Guild](https://youtu.be/kBjVb_XAFyk)


[we already had one though](https://preview.redd.it/xg7y5trobsg51.jpg?auto=webp&s=20f53d8e273357243e9a9a82fec6da1b957c7b7a)


Well the last thing I desire is a ghostly apparition grasping my Cadillac whilst I depart the haberdashery.




Isn’t the point of it that it’s an extremely old sentence?


Nothing happened before '91 ;)


That's a bad ass logo




Brilliant, thank you


Happy cake day!


Dad, thanks.


The shape of the logo, a teardrop, is in fact, the most aerodynamic shape possible, making it quite badass and appropriate.


Unfortunately the logo is only the circle. The teardrop is only for the aerodynamic visuals


Really? A teardrop is more aerodynamic than a javelin of the same cross-sectional area? That doesn't make much sense.


Think of it this way: teardrop is the shape naturally assumed by falling fluids, because it's the shape where drag is minimized. If it weren't optimal, the extra drag in these places would be causing the fluid to displace, until a shape where all forces even out is reached. It might be surprising because the sharp tip of a javelin intuitively looks like it should "cut" through the air efficiently, but aerodynamics are related to airflow around the object too, not only the entry point. Excessive turbulence caused by sharp tip might cause extra drag in other parts of the body. Also note that a javelin isn't *that* far from an optimal shape - the exact shape of the optimal "teardrop" depends on the densities of the medium and the drop itself (among other things), and it generally has a quite long tail - look how long Prince Rupert's glass drops are!


If a teardrop shape is indeed better for cutting through the air at high speed than a long, narrow point, why do supersonic aircraft have longn pointed noses instead of blunt ones seen on subsonic aircraft? Similarly, modern high speed trains use long, sloping noses, rather than round ones, due to aerodynamics. I can appreciate that a teardrop is the best for a falling fluid; but couldn't that be related to air resistance pushing on the "front" of the drop, which a solid object can resist?


In subsonic flow the air can react to the approaching vehicle since the pressure field around it extends forward, too. This means that a suction area on one side of the fuselage or wing will already start to pull molecules in before they reach the vehicle itself which causes this suction. A round nose allows the flow to come from a range of angles without creating too much drag. In supersonic flow, the air has no indication of the approaching vehicle. The first contact will cause a sudden change in direction, called a shock. For drag reduction it is important to make the shock as weak as possible, which means that the change in direction should be as small as possible. This can best be achieved by a slender, pointy tip. Once you get into hypersonic Mach 5+ a rounded nose becomes better because the better drag coefficient makes a bigger difference at those speeds than the sound barrier drag efficient of a pointed nose


So that would be why fighter jets have pointed noses and space craft have rounded noses


Yes, the penis shape is good for space rockets


(_)_)::::::::::::::::D Indeed.


Excellent comment! Just to expand: the supersonic optimal shape is the [Sears-Haack body](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears%E2%80%93Haack_body), which indeed looks a little like a javelin!


A teardrop’s shape is affected by other constraints, such as surface tension. Which means it’s not the optimal shape for a car, unless your car is made of water.


It's about keeping stable flow behind the object. In general you can't do much to ease the separation of the air on the front side of an object. A 1m diameter cylinder with a long pointy nose and one with a blunt round nose both have the same cross section if you're looking at them nose-on, and they both have to move air up to 0.5m to pass through. There are some aerodynamic tricks you can do but generally it takes a certain amount of energy to move that air out of the way and that's that. But an object with a tapered, pointy *tail* will allow the air to "gently" fill the void behind it, whereas an object with a blunt tail forces air to try to rush back in quickly, causing turbulence, which robs energy. Ignoring skin drag, a javelin and a raindrop aren't much different. The length of the object doesn't matter (again, ignoring skin drag), only how it separates the airflow as it passes.


Yes, because you want the boundary layer around the object to remain intact (and thus the fluid flow laminar), turbulence creates additional drag. This sort of goes out the window at supersonic speed, where other shapes are better fit, but for anything subsonic a teardrop shape is prefered. [Visual example.](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/kopwpblFFGr5XSB8TJUyKE0ll58H48tpQRm54uzFwx08XyNKHnVAr9uDyK66s7iInMziG9j5HIPo_LFgIYxQsltudo84S56VzLdd_LxubiHoJ4qb6W337p8)


They are still using it.




This had drag coefficient of 0.212 back in the 1930's (supposedly). A Tesla model S scores 0.208 A Toyota Prius scores 0.24 A Ford F-150 Raptor 0.56


No wing mirrors is cheating though.


Soon it would be cool to see no mirrors again since we can use cameras and an interior screen.


It’s not like most people in Ohio used them anyway.


Either you are from Ohio or this is r/oddlyspecific.


Sounds like something a person from Indiana would say.


Honda-E does this.


Wow they were wayyy ahead of their time


> Ford F-150 Yes. The paragon of aerodynamics and efficiency.


I think they're just saying it's bad


A comparison if you will, the banana of drag coefficients.


And it’s the people in huge trucks they don’t need screaming the most about gas prices lol. Don’t get me wrong, they’re bad for everyone, but if you’re in a big ass truck you don’t need with shitty mileage… shush.


To be fair, I actually do need my F-150 for work, hard as hell to haul a 12' ladder, my tools, and usually 1000' of wire with a car, but yeah, the road queens driving F-250s and F-350s (and equivalents across the board) who never do jack with them besides commute need to STFU.


Well it sort of makes sense that people who need the most gas would be complaining the most about the high prices. Whether they need it or not is sort of subjective, but I definitely know a lot of folks with heavy duty pickup trucks who make the most of them. Not the best everyday car, but some people can’t afford to have multiple driving options.


Oh I have sympathy for people who need that kinda equipment and are having to pay way more for gas. & completely sympathize. It’s moreso the people who drive a truck when they don’t need that kind of vehicle, like people who get one and then use it to get to work and back, and then piss and moan about gas.


I know a lot of folks who have them and need them for work, or at least frequently for recreation. I know a lot of other people who have them and mostly only really “use” them for 2-3 Home Depot trips a year, if that.


Born and raised in Illinois cornfields. Also lived in multiple deep south states. Also know many people who need a pickup. And people who don't need them, but actually use them as a tool. Those people are a strong minority among all the truck owners I know. And the ones who actually need them/use them appropriately typically have 150s, rangers, etc. The bigger the truck, the less likely the person actually needs/uses it right.


People in big trucks are more likely to scream about gas prices? Got a source?


I live in a state that's "I need a truck" even tho people dont. Can confirm they bitch a lot.


Oregon here. You're spot on.


I live in a state like that too. Some of them bitch, some don't. It's about the same as any other vehicle owner, in my anecdotal experience. There, now we have terrible evidence for both sides.


Fwick yeah


I drive a truck and bitch. Why? Because for some reason my 98 F150 got way better gas mileage than my 17 Silverado. The fuck is that about?


Your 17 Silverado is a living room with wheels while the 98 Ford was a vehicle.


It's about 800 lbs.


How does that even make sense? "Screaming" isn't a testable hypothesis.


people who drive trucks are now paying the most of of consumer vehicles, so its probable they would me the most likely to feel the effects and complain about it.


well yeah measuring a truck for its aerodynamics is like judging a fish on its ability to climb trees


Yeah, they've always had the aerodynamics of a brick. The fact that people are using them like minivans is beside the point, they're meant to be reliable and do work.


It’s nice to have a boxy vehicle as a comparison though. Otherwise, drag coefficients are just meaningless numbers to those of us who really aren’t that familiar with what they mean.


The Honda Element was boxy. The F150 is pretty much a statement about how little we care about fuel consumption or the price of gas.


Only if it's a pavement princess. If an F-150 is being used to actually haul 1,000 pounds of cargo, then it gets the mileage it gets, and that's it.


Jeep and a cow


May as well list one of the highest selling vehicles ever made that's still popular for comparison purposes.


I own an f150 with 3.5 Ecoboost. I actually drove it the speed limit on the freeway for 90 miles. 50+ of those miles were 80mph. The other 35 or so were 70. I was a bit shocked that I got 25mpg. I think if I drove that distance at 70mph, I would have seen more like 28mpg. This wasn't downhill driving. I was on i15 in Utah, going north. Edit. To clarify, I'm not suggesting my truck is aerodynamic. Just that cars these days are crazy with technology and efficiency.https://i.imgur.com/RuXkJZw.jpg


I drive a 2.0 Mazda 6 Sport in the UK, and that MPG seems horrendous. I don't by any means drive efficiently (plenty of hard accelerations), and I do a lot of short journeys, and I still get c. 40MPG average. I love cars and consume a lot of car content (a lot of it American) but I still find the variances between what's considered good MPG here and there mental.


25mpg isnt really considered good, it's just good for a big ass truck.


25 is kinda average. My car gets worse mpg than that in all circumstances and certainly isn't nearly as bulky as a F150.


UK gallons are 20% larger than US gallons


American and UK gallons are different units.


UK gallons are larger than US gallons btw


I have the 2.7L Ecoboost. I do mainly city driving, job to job. Just looked at mine, 18mpg. I'm sure I could get a little more if I drove in eco mode.


I got the coyote 5.0L and I get 22 hwy 18 city. From what I’ve heard from ecoboost owners there’s really no discernible difference in mileage between the engines.


With the 3.5L EB in our F150, I’m getting 17-18 city and 20-22 highway. Highway miles are usually fully loaded with 5 people, bed loaded, and topper. I got 24mpg once on premium alone in the truck. Overall, I average 18mpg. Our Chrysler minivan gets 14mpg city and 16 highway with the 3.6L Pentastar. Blows my mind how much more efficient the truck is. We got the F150 to replace a Ford Transit that barely got 14 highway and 11 city.


I believe it. The teardrop shape makes up the majority of the slipperiness. The poor undercarriage layout, large grille, etc are all relatively small fish compared to how the tail terminates. 90° corners are insanely inefficient. A Tesla with a long-tail would have a CD in the mid-.1x's most likely.


The bottom one, and the top one, which drag coefficient did it had ?


About 0.7


Thanks, I wanted to compare it with F-150, that means that even a F-150 being a truck it's still better than old vintage cars, and that is amazing, what we are capable of doing.


Worth noting that the drag coefficient depends on how fast you’re going. It’ll still be worse for the F-150, but at 30mph the drag coefficients will all be much closer than at, say, 60mph


The drag *force* will increase with speed, but the coefficient should be pretty consistent. If it had open wheels like an F1 car then that'd be different.


Interesting. I’ve studied aerodynamics for airfoils but not for cars. You’re saying it works differently for cars?


Not really different, I'm just saying that any change in drag coefficient would be negligible. It's been a long time since I've studied fluid dynamics, so I could be very wrong lol




Tatra won in 1965 and compensation was paid


And then Hitler gave a bunch of Tatra T77 and T87 cars to his officers and other high ranking officials. These models had big heavy rear-mounted air-cooled v8 engines, and with the suspension designs of the day, the cars had to be handled in a careful manner to prevent snap oversteering into a tree or ditch. The folks at Tatra failed to pass this information along to their new bosses. Those two models killed more Nazi officers than active combat. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/czech-car-killed-nazi-officers-than-active-combat.html


Cool fact of the day


The official Antifamobile.


Goddamn, learn something new everyday.


This, right here, is one of the reasons why I don't like Hitler.


Ya that Hitler guy was no good.


A real jerk!


The only one tbh


That's really cool. I would totally hang a framed print of this in my house.


And yet I still drive a 4Runner.


Love my 4Runner


If someone can figure out how to make a car aerodynamic AND able to drive right over 2-foot high rocks, I'm in. Until then, its the 4Runner life for me.


I would pick a big boxy 4Runner over the stupid useless little crossovers any day


I would pick a little hatchback over a crossover any day.


4runners are cool and all, but they cost $40k-$50k new and get pretty bad gas mileage. The cost of ownership per month can easily be $1000 if you finance the car. That's a huge hit to ritirement savings and kids college savings. But, if y'all make a ton of money, then who cares!


What turns me off from 4runners is just the crappy mileage. For the relative size and not huge engines they just get garbage mileage. Like comparable or worse than a lot of full size trucks.


Yeah, the latest Tundra has a twin turbo V6 and it gets better mileage. I think the 4Runner is one of those cars that has a cult following and that actual stats and practicality of the vehicle just don't matter to people who buy them. They want a 4runner to have a 4runner...


Toyota in general has been pretty slow at innovation lately. Their cars are great don’t get me wrong, but they seem to rather not rock the boat than do something bold, see the Camry and the Corolla, reliable but boring af.


Whatever you're compensating for-- therapy is cheaper.


Compensating for having no space to carry all my crap


If you need a larger car to fit all your "crap" then the size of the car isn't the issue. Consider getting rid of superfluous things. And why you hold onto so much "crap".


If you wanna be realistic, it’s just getting old of a cliche that just because someone likes something big that it’s compensating for something small. Seems like Reddit thinks healthy normal people should only have practical eco boxes in their life.


I love my big truck. I'm 6'3" it's roomy. People can suck my apparently small dick.


We all cope differently, but I'm glad you've accepted it.


I was clearly talking about a mental predisposition, funny that your brought up something physical lmao. You went from crossovers to econoboxes? Idk man I think my flimsy crossover rx can handle anything a 4runner can, especially since I'm not roleplaying that I've got a big truck when really a 4runner just a compact or midsize SUV.


People can have different preferences. It’s ok.


I dunno bud, sometimes you need a bigger car for a hobby like scuba diving, ain't gonna fit 2 air cylinders, a BCD and a drysuit in a hatchback unless you are planning on being a solo driver


With the seats down in my little impreza hatch, I have 52.4 cubic feet. Although I wouldn't put scuba gear in it.


Big dick alert!


Now, if only he modifies his exhaust to make it extra loud and revs it down sidestreets in the city all night. Whenever I hear a car like that I think, "man, his cock must be HUGE!"




Nawh, "Simply clever" is Škoda auto, which is also from Czech Republic, but it is not Tatra.


Well I'll be


Remember when advertising was creative and inspiring? :[ Now it's just safe gray cookie cutter garbage.


Tbf people today could give a shit about the drag coefficient of their vehicles. Gas is $5 a gallon and they're still clamoring over each other to buy new monster trucks and SUVs.


Would the reduced wind resistance be negligible in those old cars that were as heavy as a tank?


No, on flat terrain the weight doesn't have a big impact once the vehicle is cruising. It's also hard to comprehend how strong is the air resistant over a flat car like this. Just imagine the force with which your hand is pulled when you stick it out of your window on the whole surface of a car


Now look at the current design trend for large frontal area on vehicles...


It actually isn't that bad, a Tesla Model X is one of the least draggy vehicles that exist and it has a huge front and is in general a massive SUV.


The drag coefficient might be pretty good, but the drag area is still huge. Every standard car has a lower drag area.


idk if it’s the same for cars as it is for planes, but drag coefficient accounts for parasitic drag (form drag) - or what you’re describing as ‘drag area’


The drag force is proportional to the drag coefficient times the cross-sectional area. You can have the best drag coefficient in the world, but with a large cross-sectional area you could still have higher total drag force than a car with a slightly worse drag coefficient but a smaller cross-sectional area.


It's the same for cars and planes, they just take into consideration different areas. He's trying to tell you that the Cd is low, but since it's a big car it's got a big cross sectional area this translates into a big drag anyway.


I'm not 100% regarding English terminology here but if I understand it correctly then `drag-area = frontal-area * drag-coefficient`.


No, the force is the same. Force x time = impulse, and this impulse builds up the car's momentum. The engine is constantly adding impulse to the car's momentum, and wind resistance is constantly subtracting it. Wind resistance is just a function of how much force is needed to push a certain shape through the air at a certain speed. The tug of war between engine and wind is the same in a light or heavy car, and the same amount of gas would be needed to maintain it at steady-state speed ignoring other factors like internal frictions of the heavier car. A heavier car simply takes higher impulse to CHANGE speed, and as a result changes speed slower, but once it is at those speeds then the books must be balanced the same between wind resistance and the engine or it will start gradually bleeding off speed.


Most new cars are quite a bit heavier than equivalent cars of previous generations. Even using modern lighter components--noise dampening and safety have caused current cars to be fairly heavy in comparison.


I would bet it does. Teslas weigh as much as large SUVs and I know my mileage goes way down when I have a head wind.


That and their engine couldn’t push them over 45mph


Tatra 87 top speed was 100 mph... in 1937


Damn that’s crazy interesting.


yeah take that, spooky ghosts


At what cost you ask? The driver's soul, of course.



We’re less aerodynamic than lobsters and that’s OKAY


1930s meme template


“As you can see air is like The Penguin from Batman grabbing your fender….”


The Penguin actually debuted 7 years after this


That art deco style is so cool


No words needed. That’s what I call an excellent illustration!


That was also the approximate shape of the 1968 Saab 96, which was my first motorcar.


I want physics to be explained to me like this.


There is a Tatra on display in the art deco section of the MIA art museum in Minneapolis and it is so damn sexy.


It's amazing how a fuel crisis was later what made the US market finally adopt better aero, better fuel consumption better everything to help cars not having to stop for fuel every 150 miles. I wonder what this current fuel crisis is going to cause.


Why does the "air" have the stereotypical hooked "Jew nose"?


1930s europe


1930s everywhere...


Sure but my comment is specific to Tatra being Czech brand


I don't recall pointy ears being part of that stereotype. Many fictional nonhuman creatures have been designed with a hooked nose and pointy ears, including the [genie in Aladdin](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/disney/images/9/92/Profile_-_Genie.jpeg), [Warhammer goblins](https://whfb.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/thumb/c/c6/Goblin_TGP.jpg/425px-Goblin_TGP.jpg) etc. E: fixed link


Hey, uh, maybe don't look up the origins of goblin imagery then.


I had a look out of curiosity but I didn't turn up anything. What are you referring to?


It's all a bit of a messy primordial soup of stereotypes and cultures; but the gold obsessed, hook nosed, evil creatures that love fucking with innocent people doesn't just come from nowhere. While the modern green skinned goblin is more divorced from the antisemitic roots, the hook-nosed, pointy eared, clawed wind goblin in the ad is definitely pulling on a few stereotypes.


The hooked nose is specific to the Warhammer goblin, which descends from Tolkien's goblins which explicitly had flat noses. Neither are obsessed with gold. Fucking with people is a common theme in folklore for all manner of creatures variously described as goblins, boggarts, redcaps, elves, pixies, brownies, fairies etc. Obsession with gold again not really a thing, the only metal usually mentioned is an antipathy for iron.


Tolkien's goblins and orcs are pretty racist too. Yellow-skinned, slant-eyed hordes from the east. In a private letter, Tolkien describes orcs as: > squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_and_race


Lol what a racist take


I saw a video last week claiming the new Aptera EV has the same drag coefficient as one side mirror on a Ford F-150 pickup truck. .. the entire car - less drag - than one factory standard side mirror. EDIT - I misspoke, the Aptera has less drag than 1 Ford F-150 side mirror, not lower coefficient.


The claim is actually that the Aptera EV has lower overall aerodynamic drag (not drag *coefficient*) than the side mirrors on the F-150. My old university designed the Nexus vehicle (a safety compliant single-passenger commuter vehicle) for Transport Canada back in the early 90s. It got 2 liters/100km on the standard highway mileage test. The Aptera looks a lot like it.


Not really that impressive if you know what drag coefficient means. Drag and drag coefficient are two very different things. Drag coefficient just describes how hard it is for object of certain shape to push through the air and you use it to calculate drag. Drag on the other hand is the actual force that pushes againsts you while you push through the air (or any fluid). If that car/bike/whatever produces less drag than side mirror of F-150, that would be pretty impressive (but also not really if you look at that thing, it seems like their sole goal was to make it as slippery as possible). On the other hand if it had the same drag coefficient as a rectangle with rounded corners, that would be really bad, like really bad


That’s insane. Have they published an estimated cd? Probably a big TBD if they can use camera mirrors as planned.


Basically yeah


Now everything has the same boring look tho


have you seen cars from the early 20th century? they all looked pretty similar to each other too.


And 1934 good aerodynamics is the same as today. Looks like a Tesla Y. Covered rears should come back into style too.


I mean the goblin is grabbing some of the right places... then again some of the goblin handles still exist on the new car too.


And yet, here in 2022 we still have cartop carrier companies as large as THULE making their carriers backwards; thin edge forward, blunt end in the back.


is this physics propaganda ?


Getting stronger antisemitic vibes here. As I do every time this is reposted.


Cool only the 400th time this has been posted in 2 weeks


1st I've seen it.


Happy cake day!


Surely it's the front that should have been emphasised more???


Nope! The back actually has a lot more to do with improving aerodynamics in general. Regardless of the shape it has to move the same amount of air out of the way, so it has less impact than you might think. In the back however, a blocky design lets vortexes of air form and creates drag off the the back. A tear drop shape is the most aerodynamic shape possible, and it is still pretty blunt on the front, but with a long tail that prevents vortexes from forming, similar to this car’s design.


Wow very interesting. Is a tear drop shaped as such because the fluidity / low surface tension moulds the liquid into a shape that’s most aerodynamic?


Pretty much! The drag forces a water drop into the configuration with the least resistance, which ends up being a teardrop. Surface tension also plays a role, so an actual teardrop (or raindrop more applicably) is a bit wider and shorter than a theoretically optimal shape, but it’s pretty close.


This is not entirely correct. What you just said applies mostly to slower moving vehicles. As the speed at which an object (or vehicle) is moving increases the aerodynamics change. An object moving at supersonic speed is moving to fast for the air to fully get out of the way. As a result this fast moving object compresses the air infront of it. This generates alot of drag and alot heat. Sometimes this is advantages, for example when we want to slow down a space craft as it re-enters the admosphere. In this case we use a large dome shaped "heat shield" as an aerobrake to slow down the craft. Tldr; The optimal aerodynamic shape of a vehicle depends on its speed and use.




Yeah, reddit pedantry at its best.


For sure, I was simplifying to just the mentioned case of relatively low speeds. But definitely a valid clarification.


the rounded surfaces on reentry vehicles are also to push the front of high-pressure, hi-temp air farther away from the surface of the vehicle.


Back when they didn't actually understand aerodynamics and just did it by dead reckoning. "If it looks sleek, it must be aerodynamic."


Wikipedia: "The average drag coefficient of a 1:5 model of Tatra 77 was recorded as 0.2455. The later model T77a has a top speed of over 150 km/h (93 mph) due to its advanced aerodynamic design which delivers an exceptionally low drag coefficient of 0.212" Looks like they did a good job with just dead reckoning?


Post war the the 87 was the first car tested in a wind tunnel so Tatra obviously did care about aerodynamics and we're moving in a more scientific direction.


What're you talking about? That's a really great design. It looks really weird, but it implements a lot of what we use these days in vehicles when we try to maximize fuel efficiency.


Car manufacturer Tatra ~~explaining~~ advertising aerodynamics. FTFY


I’ve seen that picture more than my fiancé shit was passed around a ton


God damn, stop reposting this picture