by zamadatix | 2026-02-08 11:59:28+00:00
> If you read this thread, no one has claimed flush handles aren't more aerodynamic. What was claimed is that the aerodynamic benefits are negligible and as a result, that's not actually a serious consideration in choosing them.

I'm not sure how this differs from when I had already said "Very peculiarly, everyone seems to actually agree the handles are a little more aerodynamic. It's the possibility the manufacturer's teams (except marketing, apparently) could ever have also considered this as one of several benefits when choosing the design which is at such levels of doubt".

Regardless, I continue to find myself in complete agreement w.r.t. this.

> Even the aero study done by range rover doesn't claim they're a meaningful improvement. It claims the handles came from the product design vision first.

My argument remains flush handles in the automotive industry are about more than just one thing alone (more specifically, that drag is indeed also one of those things). Hence I find myself rather lost as to how lack of being the first reason for Range Rover overrides drag as having already been shown as one of their listed reasons. As far as I can conceive, being about more than one thing alone inherently necessitates some of those reasons are not always to be given as a first reason. Similarly, not being a first reason does not seem to reasonably define something as a negligible consideration.

> Aerodynamics is complicated. You should measure the actual impact rather than guess. "just make it smooth" is a rule of thumb, not a law.

As you seem keenly aware, engineers in this field are aware aerodynamics are complicated and so are not guessing their vehicle aerodynamics by rule of thumb. Of course, I don't like to leave such a claim uncited or unsourced (regardless how familiar it seems to all already) so here is an SAE paper backing Tesla did indeed extensively test the aerodynamics of every external component (for the same vehicle the patent is referring to) rather than guess at it https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Palin/publicatio...:

"Aerodynamic optimization is a major contributor to the overall efficiency of an electric vehicle and the close integration of the Design and Engineering groups at Tesla Motors was specifically arranged to process design iterations quickly and enable the fully informed development of the exterior surfaces at a very rapid pace."

And, among others:

"Following aerodynamic optimization at the overall shape level, focus switched to optimization of production parts, and
every external component of the Model S has been examined in great detail searching for aerodynamic performance, since
areas that may seem insignificant in isolation can rapidly accumulate to have a substantial impact on the whole."

> If we're following rules of thumb, my copy of Theory and Applications of Aerodynamics for Ground Vehicles specifically says this on the subject...

We're not following rule of thumb, but everything in the comments prior appears to align with this passage. One indeed does not need to make the door handle optimally flush to make a design choice which is aerodynamically beneficial. Clearly, however, the remaining efficiency is also not completely negligible or ignored in design consideration by many manufacturers to make way for the sole reason of makin