Talk:Kammback

message: This is one of the most innacurate articles i've seen on wikipedia!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.189.166 (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to offer a way of explaining the confusion to the reader, by rewording the definition. It seems that the 50% point, in particular, is either controversial or at least poorly understood or measured. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 21:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Every mention uses "Kammback" except one "Kamm-back"; I changed it to match the rest. Thedoorhinge 01:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old comments

message: After researching, I edited using this quote as my guideline:
"Kamm designs don't necessarily offer an aerodynamic improvement over long, pointy tails, Kamm merely observed that there was a point of diminishing returns and for reasons of packaging, mass, volumetric efficiency, polar moment of inertia and the drag of attached flow, (not to mention parking) a flat butt could work better than a near-infinite taper"
The article was previously written on the basis that Kamm had discovered some law, in defiance of everything we know about turbulence, that gave a truncated teardrop less drag than a teardrop.69.140.102.62 (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kammback: compromise, not magic 

message: I added the CR-Z to the list because it has the same rear end design as the G1 insight and G2 insigth, but what of the other 4? they all have fastback like rear hatchs like some of the cars taht did ake it on the list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.201.204 (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so.  I think the Honda Insight is pushing it - it's truncated before it gets down to 50%.  But I think it's probably a good example of an attempt at a Kamm tail.  The rest of the cars you mentioned were probably indirectly influenced by it, but then so is probably just about every car.  Poor approximations.  And I don't think poor approximations make good examples.  —Darxus (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  do CR-Z, Aztek, ZDX, Accord Crosstour, X6 belong 

message: A couple weeks ago, I removed some pictures of vehicles that clearly didn't have Kammbacks.  One of them was the 1972 Chevrolet Vega Kammback.  A couple days later, Barnstarbob re-added that photo.  One of his, it turns out.  The edit description was "The Vega Kammback has a spoiler built into the roof (liftgate) and was named Kammback as well".  And the reference for "The 1971-1977 Chevrolet Vega Kammback wagon featured a Kamm tail in its liftgate." is a dead link.  Barnstarbob, did you somehow develop the impression that a "kamm tail" is a spoiler?  Where in the definition of a Kamm back is a spoiler mentioned?  How does this vehicle match the definition of a teardrop shape lopped off after tapering down to 50% of its width?  The only reason I see to include this photo on this page is that the manufacturer, seemingly incorrectly, named the vehicle a "Kammback".  Which I think justifies its presence in a section near the bottom of the page titled something like "Vehicles inaccurately marketed as Kammbacks".  But anywhere else in this document is just confusing.  There are other things that concern me, like the AMC Gremlin being listed in the Mass-production cars section.  So, what do you folks think about cars that don't meet the teardrop truncated at 50% width definition? —Darxus (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that General Motors heavily advertised, and named the Chevrolet Vega and Pontiac Astre wagons "Kammback". And that was the first, and only use that I can remember of the designation. All the others were "fastback" in the American market through the 1970s.  So a far worse sin in this article is the inclusion Nash Airflyte, etc. as Kammbacks when in fact they were called that.  In the U.S., they were fastbacks, period, until the Vega based models arrived, and even it was applied to a wagon, not the two door fastback. 69.143.156.77 (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vehicles that don't actually have kammbacks 

message: This wiki entry is a mixed up mess as there is some confusion between Kamm and Camm. There appears to be a desperate attempt to coerce the 2 into one definition. This "war" has extended to other wiki pages. The Kammback Revisionists appear to have a campaign in progress that is attempting to expunge Camm from automotive aerodynamic history are now so confused that they are now presenting "Fastbacks" as being "Kammback".
Camm tail (2 words always separate) and Kammback (1 word apparently) are 2 completely different thing's.
Kamm - German - declared the maximum section should be continued all the way to the rear of the vehicle. By this definition any car with a "Kammback" can not have a sloping "Fastback" rear. He didn't make any statement on how the transition from roof/side to rear transom should be made. Most of his examples had large radius blends that result in serious drag penalty due to re-attachment of the vortex on to the rear of the vehicle. The Ford GT40 has too much roof taper to be a Kammback. All Station wagons, Estate cars, Shooting brakes, many MPV's, vans and commercial vehicles are Kammback. It's not stylish but it is functional. The Range Rover, Renault Modus, VW CAddy, Ford Transit van all conforms to "Kammback" type very well. There is no cachet from having a "Kammback" it's the basic 2 box vehicle design.
::Modern re-definition of "Kammback".
::A vehicle on which the roof height at the tail is higher than the waistline. This permits a sloping roof but not to the extent that it becomes a fastback - when the roof slope continues down to meet the waistline. Honda CRX, Aerodeck, Insight, none of these conform to Kamm's historic requirement for the maximum section to be maintained all the way to the rear but are called "Kammback" by the modern re-definition.
Sir Sydney Camm - British - Advised the tail should taper smoothly from maximum section like the plan section of the Hawker Hurricane he designed. The angle of taper has to be less than 15-20° to maintain attachment and there must be no rapid transitions in angle when viewed from the side. Citroën CX and many other liftback/hatchback cars with sloping rear roof/window fail on this count by having sudden transitions from roof to rear window. As this taper would result in cars being very long he said it should be cut off abruptly at the rear. The resulting flat rear transom being deeply recessed, with a sharp edged lip surrounding it. The deeply recessed rear transom is the major defining feature of the Camm tail, it prevents the vortex re-attaching to the transom. The recessed transom is the key addition to a "Fastback" that makes it a Camm tail. It's early adoption was on British sports and racing cars but as it's requirements were not properly understood almost all attempts fail in the proper application of the deeply recessed transom and sharp edged lip. The Aston Martin DB6 although described by the press (and maybe factory) at time of introduction as being a Camm tail doesn't have a functionally correct Camm tail as the transom isn't sufficiently deeply recessed and the lip isn't sufficiently sharp edged. The Daytona Coupe also fails on this account.
Vestigial Camm tails.
The deeply recessed rear transom and sharp boot lid lip on the range of Triumph cars produced in the 1960's had the characteristic Camm deep recess and sharp lip. So it is/was commonly called a Camm tail (never Kamm). A CAMM tail Triumph 2500TC, both the rear transom and the rear screen are recessed and have sharp lips.
File:Triumph2500TC.JPG|Triumph 2500TC Saloon
Only the GT6 had the required tapered roof line from full section to rear, most of the others were 3 box designs (including all the sports cars when the fabric roof was up).
Nissan 200SX RS13 (hatchback) with boot lid spoiler has both the required smooth taper of roof line and deep recessed transom with lip. The spoiler lip at about 15mm radius is possibly a bit too large and the lip doesn't extend around the whole the rear transom.
Porsche 911 with "whale tail".
Hybrid Kammback/Camm tail
Range Rover Evoque - The first vehicle from Range Rover that doesn't conform to the historic definition of Kammback is the Evoque as it has a slopping roof to the rear. But it does conform to the modern definition. The rear spoiler conforms to the deep recessed transom and sharp lip of a Camm tail. Thus it is a hybrid Kammback/Camm tail.
Peter Hill Skyshack (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kamm and Camm 

message: The Opel GT had a very distinct Kamm-like tail (see photo)→
I'm not sure if it should be included, so I'll leave this up to somebody more knowledgeable; besides, I don't know which years would apply.
Btw, the article is already becoming photo-heavy -- a gallery is suggested.   ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opel GT 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kammback. 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/20120722035745/http://archive.cardesignnews.com/news/2004/041203mcd-history3/ to http://archive.cardesignnews.com/news/2004/041203mcd-history3/
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) 16:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It should be mentioned that the term "Kammback" was resp. is mainly in use in the USA, while the rest of the world do use it rather sparsely (e.g. Italy refers to the "coda trunca" which translates to "cut tail"). Even in Germany, the "Kammback" (German: Kammheck) is only used with the design studies of Kamm and Jaray in the 1930s, but not for cars featuring this design element in general (except for vehicles which bear the term in the model name).
2A02:560:4251:DE00:F805:D60B:8E9:37F6 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, no. No. No. No. The ONLY time a U.S. automaker used the term Kamback was GM from 1970-1977 when it was applied to the Vega and later the Astre.  You cannot claim that this was a U.S. thing when its based on one company's marketing efforts, on one line of cars.  In the U.S. the term used was FASTBACK, and it only applied to cars that the roof terminated at the rear drop off (Nash Airflyte, for example) whereas the 1964-1966 Mustang offered a modified fastback, but called it a fastback.  But don't claim something about the entire U.S. market, when it was one maker, one model for seven model years. 69.143.156.77 (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kammback" is mainly used in the US