/o/ here
I have a thesis
would this work?
"We chop off
the back end of a coupe
everything after the rear window (that we can)
so basically the entire trunk section
it would decrease weight significantly
add aerodynamics
through these things
handling, speed, and quickness are improved
is it possible to move the gas canister closer so we can chop off more of the back end all the way to the rear wheel?
by doing this we could create the ultimate track car
i am using my car, a BA4 Prelude as visual aid"
would it not decrease weight, improve aerodynamics, improve chassis rigidity through the virtue of no longer having a space devoted to storage that opens (that back would be a solid un openable back end of a car)
these things would improve speed, acceleration, and handling would they not?
we would end our cut right where the original stock bar for the beginning of the truck exists, and then reinforce and build down
>>7748313
"picture the CRX back on a honda prelude, only it does not open into any compartment, it is just a back. surely by the virture of the stock horizontal bar and also not needing to open it is more rigid
the car's weight is more on the front now too, but this is only phase 1, there is more we can do to the prelude
we have lost a lot of weight and unnecessary space on this prelude by doing this
people make carbon fiber trunk tops
fuck that thats stupid"
i think its solid
concept art drawn up from a designer at WAT
we worked really hard on this idea
>>7748325
nice weed today bro
>>7748327
god damn it i thought you were scientists
Dude
isn't this the same just not as good as having a shorter car with the real axle right at the bumper
which is worse than just having a shorter car with the axle where it is
What makes you say the car will have better aerodynamics? It all depends on how smoothly the air comes of the end, and maybe the tail would help.
Other than that, yeah cutting off the storage part of the car will improve all those things.
I mean, there have been worse theses https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/53595
Explain science man>>7748364
>>7748369
Would it not fuck up the weight distribution of the car?
I believe the Prelude is already in the 60/40 range
The best way to balance it would be to also shave weight from the front area as well.
If you could move the gas tank to the passenger seat and reduce slosh, you would be making big bucks in nascar.
>>7748432
Is such a thing even possible
>>7748459
Its very possible. Now make it safe in a crash, You're a hero
>>7748483
Do I look like a God damn scientist to you
>>7748486
Fucker just race.
You aren't intelligent enough to create this car. You want to shrink a car length-wise and dont know a goddamned thing about cars. Go fucking learn how a car works before you start getting a chip on your shoulder.
>>7748517
Science
Well, it's stil FF
>>7749245
and
>>7748313
Aerospace engineer here. This thing would have worse aerodynamic performance due to amplified effects of flow separation at the back of the vehicle as opposed to the more streamlined profile of a sedan/coupe
Especially for a rear drive vehicle, it would also likely have worse handling because the vehicle would rotate more easily along the centrel of the drive axle, giving it less control. There's a reason why no one builds hatchback racing cars.
Also if you just "cut" the back, it'll not be more rigid; that's a property of the metal. It'll absorb an impact worse however, because there's less material of the same type to absorb energy in a crash.
>>7749260
>no one builds hatchback racing cars
So there's no way to make this cut work? even if we modify the front end as well?
why would it not be more rigid? it'd end at the horizontal bar already in place, and then be reinforced with metal to create a solid kammback
>>7748313
Physics major here , I see no reason why it would not work .
>>7749316
>Physics major here
You do realize that when you say this people just think "stupid naive kid who couldn't get into engineering" right?
>>7749321
that makes no sense
i specifically chose physics, i dont care for engineering
>>7749321
>couldn't get into engineering
Hahaha m8
well if you would go through that much trouble modifying a car, you might aswell consider designing it to be an awd while you're at it. Awd being superior of course.
>>7749377
Just gotta ask
what are the job prospects for a physics major? Because I'm currently undeclared and I'm pretty interested in it, but heard it get called the "liberal arts of STEM degrees" because apparently there's no real career paths for it outside of being a researcher or professor
Herp a derp
http://www.rcramer.com/fun/econobox/
I guess I'll break it down for you:
Low-speed acceleration is limited by traction; excess torque in 1st (and possibly 2nd) gear simply produces wheelspin instead of increasing acceleration.
Medium-speed acceleration is limited mostly by power:weight, for obvious reasons.
Maximum speed is limited by power and aerodynamics.
By lopping off the back of your car, you will improve acceleration at medium speeds, due to the reduced weight of the car.
If your car is FWD, you will probably improve low-speed acceleration as well, since a greater percentage of the car's weight distribution is shifted onto the driven axle. If the car is RWD, the opposite will occur and holeshot acceleration will suffer.
Finally, the modification will probably have a slight detrimental effect to the aerodynamics of the car, reducing top speed slightly.
As for handling, I'm sure that removing so much weight from the rear axle without correcting the tire, suspension and brake setup would royally fuck things up, but the improved acceleration may be enough to make up for it on certain tracks (assuming FWD, that is).
>>7748313
economics major here, see no reason for it to fail
>>7749260
Aerospace engineer can't tell it is FWD.
>>7750405
The flow regime over the rear end of the car would likely negate all benefits outside of low speed. Combine that with the reduced rigidity and get a shit car. It is just an old Prelude though... chop the fuck out of it and call it a shit wagon.
