Crike, we've come a long way.

However that doesn't increase the odds of something else being right. Broquets don't conform to conventional knowledge. They also don't work.

Another thought, while I was replacing the temperature gauge on the DS ...

The Dymaxion is claimed to have done 120mph (54m/s) with a 90bhp (67kW) engine and to have had a drag factor of 0.25. Well, 67kW at 54m/ s is enough to overcome a total resistance of 1.24kN. Let's assume that all of that was in the air resistance, and that the test was done at sea level. D = 1/2 rho v^2 Cd A, so A = 2 D / (rho v^2 Cd) = 2 *

1240 / (1.225 * 54^2 * 0.25) = 2.78m^2

What does that mean? It means that the /Absolute/ /Maximum/ /Possible/ frontal area of the Dymaxion would have had to be 2.78 square metres for the claimed to be physically possible, let alone plausible.

In practice it would have been substantially less than that, as I haven't allowed for rolling resistance or transmission losses. But from the pictures at

would appear to have been about 2m high and 2m wide.

Ian

Does that figure assume that the face is flat? the front seems to me to about 4 foot tall and about the same wide BUT of course very curved. The overall shape would appear to have an almost wing shape so is there any sort of plus there ?

Someone must have done some wind tunnel testing since on that shape.

Although I agree there is probably a lot of exaggeration (as there always is ) I would expect there was some truth behind the hype.

Imagine something that shape, steam powered, now. It would be fun to see what SVA would make of it.

Have you seen a 'Fascination'? Similar sort of airoplane/fish shape, they built 5 in the seventies but they were too radical a shape to sell.

Mrcheerful

It's the area of a front elevation, so slope and shape don't make a difference - that's what the Cd does. Of course there are some choices in how you define the frontal area: Audi managed to get super-low Cd values in the 80's by including the wing mirrors and the the area between the wheels, the underside and the ground in the calculation.

I certainly grant you that the Dymaxion looks quite fun, but I really do think the performance claims made for it can be treated with a lot of skepticism.

ian

Fair enough, but imagine if 75 years of development had gone into designs like that, where might we be now?

Mrcheerful ("Mrcheerful" ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

A long way down a blind alley?

Do you really believe that the 'only' design is a box with a wheel at each corner? It is what we have ended up with today, after 100 years of minor improvements to the commonly accepted benz design. There must be other ideas that can work, and work better.

Mrcheerful

Mrcheerful ("Mrcheerful" ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Do you really believe that the motor industry wouldn't have moved towards 'em if they actually provided a benefit?

When I started driving in the early '60s you could fill an Austin 7 for one pound. With 2 star commercial petrol. So 20p a gallon. 5 star was 25p. Taking an average say 23p. A sort of average working man's wage was 10 quid a week. So that wage would buy 43 gallons.

At today's roughly 5 quid a gallon the average would be 215 quid a week?

Isn't some form of economy indicator a requirement in Germany?

Three wheelers used to be common. And have fallen out of fashion for good reasons. More than four doesn't make any sense for a car.

For the most basic design you start out with the load. Say four adult passengers. Then add the mechanics. That's why you have basically a two box design, if a large boot isn't required.

I seem to see quite a few two wheeled designs out there.

But no Gyro balanced 2 wheelers AFAIK ever got into real production

Or succesfully round a fast corner.