Talk:Automobile drag coefficient

message: the table states .26 but the gm-volt.com fansite quotes a recent release of test score as 0.28. what is the source for the 0.26? is it completely made up? Dan Frederiksen (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chevy Volt Cd source 

message: Is the large gallery all that encyclopedic?  Might it be possible to move it to Commons?  --Interiot 18:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This list of Cd values and gallery is tedious and seemingly endless. While perhaps useful, the list would do better in an article titled, say, ``List of Cd values. I offer this as a suggestion to the maintainers of the list, since I don't want to start rearranging things. Mbelisle 03:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it all belongs in Automotive aerodynamics where there is already a list? It should be easy to link there so everyone could still find it. Meggar 04:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is a bit of a "wall-of-tables" at the minute (as I know only too well, having just restyled them).  We should have a selection of values and accompanying images on this page, with the full information on a supplementary page like Mbelisle's suggestion above, I think. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 13:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: Is it possible for someone to transform the picture table into a real Wiki Table? --82.121.249.129 16:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added it to my list of Things To Do. :-) --GreyKnight 12:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 13:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Convert the picture tables into a real table

message: It would be nice to describe what each variable represents and how it is determined, especially the area "A". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.97.131 (talk • contribs) 
:That is explained on the main drag equation page. I don't think we should duplicated it all here, so I have added another link right after the formula. Meggar 01:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nomenclature 

message: It should be noted that the Cd quoted from the manufacturer is not verified in any way - it is a claimed figure. The actual Cd can be significantly higher. I have verified that the Cd from one current production car is 18% higher than the figure quoted by the manufacturer, but unfortunately cannot quote the source. 69.226.56.93 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting point. which model car was this? if anyone can offer more values it would be nice to shed more light on this issue since we know how they can be lying bastards vis a vis who killed the electric car. Dan Frederiksen 11:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth noting that in many cases the manufacturer's quoted figure is for a skinny-tyred base model which nobody actually buys... Mr Larrington (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Claimed Cd vs. Actual Cd

message: It would be interesting to get Cd for some buses. Particularly the flat-fronted tour buses and a comparison between the old truck-like front and new flat front of Blue Bird Corp. school buses. —Ben FrantzDale 18:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus? 

message: Why was the Ford Probe removed from the list that shows vehicles with the least Drag Coefficient? --Settinghawk 23:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automotive Examples 

message: Why does this page not use SI Units?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.99.28 (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SI Units 

message: :Image:Mercedes-Benz Bionic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Mercedes-Benz Bionic.jpg

message: The Z06's drag coefficient is 0.28 in the table yet in the pictures it is 0.34, why is this? --90.213.246.184 (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chevrolet Corvette Z06 drag coefficients of 0.34 and 0.28?? 

message: Someone needs to check their decimals... Shouldn't the Formula 1 cars' drag coefficients be listed as 0.07 to 0.11, not 0.7 to 1.1? Last time I checked, F1 cars were far more aerodynamic than "a typical truck." Same goes for the Caterham Seven and Legends Car. 69.244.136.156 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 0.7 to 1.1 is correct. Formula 1 cars aren't exactly teardrop shaped. Open wheels, suspension, etc. Aerofoils create a lot of drag in order to convert it into downforce. --Itinerant1 (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  F1 Cars? 

message: Rarely is there an instance where the wikipedia article has less credibility than every(!) other online article.  This entry says late model Chargers and Avengers have lower CDs than 98 MR2s.  This is backwards...not only according to the respective manufacturers (Dodge quotes over 0.33; Toyota is under 0.32), but any Joe on the street.
And, as noted by other people here, other CD figures are suspect.  I don't care how long the tail on the Tatra is, the streamlining is a far cry from the likes of one-man solar racers -- the quoted CD absurd!  If you're going to post on Wikipedia use some discretion regarding what is remotely plausible.
~go2toa  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Go2toa (talk • contribs) 20:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Lack of Credibility 

message: In this list there are important figures which are missing. Here is the list:
Audi 80 (value should be similar to Audi A4)
By the way, I confirm that the pre-WWII war Tatra was one car with the lowest drag figures even for today's standard. 
However, there are problems with some figures since
Citroen DS-ID, CX and SM (The idealists who started this true race for aerodynamics which was not just an airplane look alike with stupid big fins which was going on in America) It should be much lower than a Ford Crown Victoria. 
Citroen CX was a name coinded for that purpose of being in 1975 the lowest drag among world's production cars. Its shape has inspired GMC EV1, so the same value applies. 
I suggest that every figure be backed by an official reference, otherwise this article might fall into propaganda like too many Wikipedia subjects. 
Yes, indeed, it took people a lot of times fo follow Citroen on the path of efficient cars. Citroen engineers believed that better designed car meant improving drag coeff with that funny shape which stunned the world with its DS in 1956 (the acronym means Goddess) and this also resulted in smaller engine requirements and they considered fuel consumption as an important issue even in a luxury car. The Citroen DS 2.0 liter engine could send the car to speeds up to 150 km/h. In the fifties, that was not the idea of the luxury cars since UK and US prefered huge vehicles with big motors only good for straight line motorways. Of course, these big cars could not follow a DS in the curvy roads of the Alps and the DS could handle well any surface. That is why they were used horse races: they could put a camera on top of the DS and even riding on the grass, the image would be still. Only the french knew how to make a smooth suspension car to hold the road like a sports car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.122.156.61 (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing important figures 

message: It is getting looong, a bit too long to draw any conclusion from it I suggest we take about a dozen cars (from Hummer to Tatra) and put it into a sovereign table of examples, and than leave the big table separately under it for the public to find/add a car's coefficient. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Typical values and examples

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 27 July 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Cars-redcapri-blackpool-amoswolfe.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: it had a cx of 0.212.
could u insert it? thanks source: http://www.europeancarweb.com/tech/0610_ec_aerodynamics_tech_buyers_guide/tables.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.234.39 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  tatra t 77 

message: I'm not sure how to tackle this, but http://www.mayfco.com/tbls.htm is used as a reference in numerous places, yet the page itself states that it is extrapolating figures using some derived formula. This shouldn't pass for a reference to actual figures. Not sure what to do about the numerous references to it though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.126.176 (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate references 

message: Reading around this subject over the years has left me with the impression that measuring automobile drag coefficients is a pretty approximate "science".    Readings can vary between different wind tunnels, and you need ideally to control for things like differences in temperature and air pressure.   And there's regularly a difference between what is modeled on a computer and what is measured in a wind tunnel.   If that's right, then the table comparing measurements for different cars, with data captured from different tests over the space of about forty years, implies a level of precision that is spurious.   Or am I merely being old and cynical?
If someone reading this has some knowledge of the subject and access to a relevant source, I wonder if a little para on the variability of data readings should be added to this entry?
Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent ratings 

message: I propose that Automotive aerodynamics#Drag coefficient be merged into Automobile drag coefficient because it contains data of the same type and thus is redundant. As per Wikipedia guidelines, if nobody disagrees with me within a week or so, I will go ahead and execute the merge. Please note that I have never merged an article before, so if I am doing something wrong, please tell me. --The Quirky Kitty (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: From what I understand, a kammback is not the same as a Sears-Haack body yet the article seems to suggest they are the same. Needs a little re-wording, which I could do if no experts come forward. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kammback section 

message: The worst case I have seen was for a truck 0.37 claimed, vs 0.47 measured, and the worst I've seen for a car is 0.27 claimed, 0.32 measured. These figures are proprietary but they illustrate that the Popular Mechanics article is not exaggerating. There are some windtunnels which seem to always produce low estimates, whoever tests there. As such the rankings in these tables should be treated with a large grain of salt. The European Aero Data Exchange is currently calibrating all the tunnels using a set of 3 standard test items- the DrivAer car http://www.aer.mw.tum.de/en/research-groups/automotive/drivaer/. Greglocock (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of Cd from different tunnels 

message: Many years ago, this was a viable source of Cd info.  Today it's rubbish.  Where are the accuracy police?  
According to this article, a 2006 Corvette is good for 0.34 and 2006 Charger is 0.33.  Respectively these should be around 0.31 and 0.36.
With comparable horsepower, gear ratios, and any speed limiter defeated, the Charger should outrun the Corvette in top speed, according to the editors.  It doesn't.  As we've seen with the Hellcat, the Charger would need about a 200 hp advantage to rival a Corvette.
What excuse could possibly be given for the editor?  The Charger must have drivetrain oil twice as thick and wheel bearings borrowed from a tank.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1527:8074:6983:BBCF:7731:1482 (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Frontal area.  Obviously a big four-door saloon is going to have to push more air out of the way than a hip-high two seater. Mr Larrington (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is really bad 

message: Here's an experiment for you.  Add a two foot, streamlined extension to the tail of a type 1 Volkswagon Beetle.  Add rear wheel skirts.  Now see if that results in a CD of 0.24 (or whatever absurd number you claim).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1527:8074:6983:BBCF:7731:1482 (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tatra Experiment 

message: I see editors are now astroturfing the table with multiple claims for the same value by the same company. I propose we get rid of all (a) unreffed values (b) scale model results (c) dupes for similar vehicles. Greglocock (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest a new policy. All claims must be supported by a reliable source. In order to not overload the fanbois, I'll do 8% of the list per month, so in ayear it'll be tidied up. Greglocock (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ridiculous table 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Automobile drag coefficient. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090804105207/http://www.fiatcoupehistory.com:80/e_daten.htm to http://www.fiatcoupehistory.com/e_daten.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090120223416/http://www.mazda.de:80/NR/rdonlyres/4AD941AC-2043-479A-92AA-B3E9F3F03DAC/0/Mazda6_Broschuere.pdf to http://www.mazda.de/NR/rdonlyres/4AD941AC-2043-479A-92AA-B3E9F3F03DAC/0/Mazda6_Broschuere.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Automobile drag coefficient. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070824155049/http://www.edmunds.com:80/advice/specialreports/articles/106954/article.html to http://www.edmunds.com/advice/specialreports/articles/106954/article.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070708075831/http://tauac.typepad.com:80/ac/2007/05/tau_drag_reduct.html to http://tauac.typepad.com/ac/2007/05/tau_drag_reduct.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 08:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: What the heck is going on with the Saabs at the low 0.28 mark? NearCry (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that was pretty bad. I fixed the links, formatted the reference, merged the duplicated reference and sorted them by Cd and the by name.  Stepho  talk  15:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saabs at 0.28 

message: The spoiler section is terribly incorrect and equates rear wings, which increase drag in favour of downforce, to spoilers, which have negligible downforce and simply disrupt flow to reduce drag. For example in hatchbacks, the large flat back causes a lot of shape drag when air is laminar, this can be reduced by inducing turbulence, which is what spoilers along the back do. Mind you they are sometimes only cosmetic or even detrimental depends on if its marketing or not. In any case spoilers attempt to reduce drag by "spoiling" laminar airflow.
Source: Aero Engineer, wikipedia's own page of car spoilers, most books on car design, simple experiments on spheres (case 5 in https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/dragsphere.html and golf vs plain spheres)
I wish I could update it myself but its the first time I even comment on here, have no clue how to use wiki, and don't have time to dig out the proper references.
(Pandalism)137.205.0.160 (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Automobile drag coefficient. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120721045938/http://www.deltawingracing.com:80/the-car to http://www.deltawingracing.com/the-car/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100726121304/http://www.internetautoguide.com:80/car-specifications/09-int/2001/kia/rio/index.html to http://www.internetautoguide.com/car-specifications/09-int/2001/kia/rio/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Automobile drag coefficient. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deltawingracing.com/the-car/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716210821/http://www.tercelreference.com/Downloads/CdA_List.htm to http://www.tercelreference.com/Downloads/CdA_List.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.internetautoguide.com/car-specifications/09-int/2001/kia/rio/index.html
*Added  tag to http://all-newfordfocus.fordmedia.eu/documents/QGSS/green/AllNewFordFocus-Green_EU.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707112110/http://www.all-about-car-selection.com/ford-escape-hybrid.html to http://www.all-about-car-selection.com/ford-escape-hybrid.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613024142/http://www.carbuyersnotebook.com/archives/2005/06/mercedes_bionic.htm to http://www.carbuyersnotebook.com/archives/2005/06/mercedes_bionic.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://tauac.typepad.com/ac/2007/05/tau_drag_reduct.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318010755/http://physics.technion.ac.il/~rutman/car/Roll-down%20test.pdf to http://physics.technion.ac.il/~rutman/car/Roll-down%20test.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What's the best way to go about indicating that several of the European versions have a different drag coefficients than the American model versions, eg. the Audi A4 has 0.27 in the USA but is shown as lower in the table. The same thing is going on with the other German cars.
2600:6C64:7580:39:B8B1:2450:67E8:F7CB (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that it is a real difference and not just a difference in measuring (different wind speed, differnt wind tunnel width, different temperature and many other factors can skew the results if care is not taken), then I would just put the country/market in brackets after the car name. just like we do for image captions.  Stepho  talk  00:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  European model versions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Automobile drag coefficient. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100205020949/http://www.cabby-info.com/specs.htm to http://www.cabby-info.com/specs.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216071452/http://www.ent.ohiou.edu/~et181/hpv/hpvplot.html to http://www.ent.ohiou.edu/~et181/hpv/hpvplot.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Car and Driver tested the 1st generation Honda Insight in a undisclosed wind tunnel and got a drag coefficient of 0.3 while Honda claims 0.25, a significant difference. Did somebody screw up?
: "The worst case I have seen was for a truck 0.37 claimed, vs 0.47 measured, and the worst I've seen for a car is 0.27 claimed, 0.32 measured. " variability between different tunnels is huge. Even when two car companies test at the same tunnel they can get different results due to differences in test procedure. As such these enormous tables are just anorak fodder. Greglocock (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2014 Car and Driver Wind Tunnel test 

message: According to this old video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqKKI8xz4Aw&list=PL8HILNMicoi6frBzfDro05x0W-44D1ZWz&index=12) the Subaru XT has a .29 Cd.  Could this be added?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F8B0:EC70:3CAE:959F:DFE4:2234 (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Mo problem, Motor Week seems to be a reliable source. Cd=0.29 is mentioned just after the 4:00 mark.  Stepho  talk  07:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subaru XT 

message: The 3-column table for production cars has always bothered me in how each column is a different height. I tried an experiment (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Automobile_drag_coefficient&oldid=899773674) to see if we could convince the machinery to even them out automatically. It does so (even reformats when the browser width is changed) but the column headers get lost and sometimes a multi-line cell can be split at the the bottom of one column and the top of the next column. Thoughts?  Stepho  talk  08:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: On Firefox 67 I see only one column with a 1920 x 1080 display. Besselfunctions (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columns 

message: Much as I like this little car, a claimed Cd of 0.12 is ridiculous, and that's before they start talking about downforce. The top speed, 61 m/s, would need about 26 kW to overcome the 0.12 drag, assuming frontal area of 1.58 square meters. The engine was 58 kW, so they um, were keeping plenty in reserve? The true story is more likely to be that the clay was measured at 0.12, and once ugly things like door gaps, cooling, and rotating wheels were added you'd get back to a still impressive 0.20-0.22 . This page is a disgrace. Greglocock (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panhard LM 64 

message: I think we should not use CAE predictions of Cd, and I'm not very keen on the use of clays, especially 1:5.  This is relevant in the case of the unlikely claims for the Tarta, and the EQXX, which is currently a bunch of very nice renders and simulations. Greglocock (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD vs windtunnel tests of full size vehicles vs clays 

message: http://www.tatraplan.co.uk/tatra-t600-tatraplan.html has the following
​Tatra T600: 1:1 = 0.32 (tunnel), 0.33 (road), 1:5 = 0.24 (tunnel) 
For comparison: 
Tatra T57: 1:5 model = 0.735 [1936]; 
Tatra T77: 1:5 model = 0.245 [1936], 1:1 = 0.38 [estimated];
Tatra T77a: 1:1 = 0.36 [estimated]; (0.212 quoted in other sources for the T77a in fact relates to a T87 model test, although the source cannot be ascertained, see below!!!)
Tatra T87: 1:10 model = 0.251, 1:5 model = 0.244, 1:1 = 0.36; (Erich Ledwinka quoted 0.212 for the T87 in his lecture about Hans Ledwinka, see ‘Leben und Werk des Automobilpioniers Dr. tech. h.c. Hans Ledwinka’, as spoken by Erich Ledwinka at Akademischen Feier der Technischen Universität Wien on May 19th, 1978, published in Blätter für Technikgeschichte 39/40 Heft, Springer Verlag, Wien, 1980, p. 151.)
So in EVERY case scale models gave much smaller Cds than full size vehicles, and the 0.212 figure is disputed in any case. Greglocock (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, scale models are good indicators of relative improvements (ie new version is 5% better than old version) and really good at showing causes/effects of turbulence but are not good indicators of absolute figures. Air does weird stuff when scaled. See Reynolds number.  Stepho  talk  23:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tatra 0.212 claim, scale models vs full size 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ahlluhn (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: 4A Wikipedia Assignment

message: Great, it was in a wind tunnel. Not so great - the wheels weren't going round, and the ground wasn't moving. This modifies the drag coefficient . Modern automotive wind tunnels have various methods to emulate the moving road and allow for rotating wheels. Of course this applies to many of the other claims in this article. Greglocock (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aptera 0.13 claim