Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Hehehehhh...

On that one, 'Zit, we agree. There's elements of cuteness to it ("cuddlytech" is what designers call this kind of stuff - it seems to have started with the original Dodge Neon, iMac, and VW's New Beetle back in the 90s - but it seems to have gone a bit too far. The windows are just too rounded and ovoid to "fit" into the cubist theme the car is trying to project.

Sometimes cute and quirky works in a design, other times it just doesn't. This would be an example of the latter.

But all is not lost at Nissan. For proof, may I present the Nissan GTR?



While not exactly "pretty", it IS quite nasty. Its performance is astonishing - but be careful you don't void the warranty by using the transmission's launch control settings too often (Nissan considers once too often).

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:
Plus it's as areodynamic as a brick, there are better looking cars that get more than 30 mpg.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:
Plus it's as areodynamic as a brick, there are better looking cars that get more than 30 mpg.

---

I was just saying something similar the other day. Why would anyone make a small car with a square cross section, It's the worst possible shape when it comes to form drag.

Coefficient of Drag (Cd) for Different Shaped Bodies at Re = 4 X 105:
Pigeon: .1

Vulture: .06

Sailplane: .03

Smooth Sphere is at Recrit = Drops From 1 to .3

Smooth Square Cylinder (smooth brick) = 2.1

---

If only it were that simple, Kirk. It's not just about aerodynamic drag, but also about lift and downforce. Ideally, you want no lift, and if you're going to be exploring very high speeds (above 125mph), you actually want some aerodynamic downforce for stability's sake. I found that out the hard way. The front end of a Yamaha 850 Special buffets like a bastard at just above 135mph. The bike was willing to go faster, but I wasn't. ;) And a CRX with stock suspension and no aerodynamic aids (no front air dam, no rear spoiler or Gurney flap) gets a weird "corkscrewing" motion in the rear suspension above 125mph. Dropping the car 0.75" and increasing the spring rate about 20% solves this completely, without screwing with the clean lines of the car.

Of course, the only way you're ever likely to get a Nissan Cube (even if it's a Borg Cube) up to 125mph is if you have a large plane to drop it out of.

My bigger worry if I were ever to find myself in the Cube would be crosswinds. It looks like it catches every bit of the wind, and I'll bet it's a real handful on a windy day at highway speeds.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.