Rough Manufacturability/Aerodynamic Comparison
...
Theoretically has more panels but they would be smaller
Bottom panel can be difficult to manufacture
Possibility to have the aero body to move with dynamics (only do if got the skill/talk to dynamics)
Possibly more constrained if we need to make last minute design changes
Bullet:
Theoretically has fewer panels/molds but they would be very large
The shape of the nose of the car would have complex curves with little tolerance to changed
Can be made perform well in higher speeds (still have to think about manufacturability)
Can be designed to reduce crosswinds more than catamaran
Con: probably need a curve that is quite precise with little tolerance
Might be easier to make changes last minute changes to the design changes (especially for dynamics and chassis)
**Both designs would have same relative canopy design to maximize aerodynamics**
...
Visually good airflow with turbulence slowing the flow down to 14m/s.
At 22.2m/s there was 55.526N of air resistance requiring [55.526(m^2/s)x22.2(m/s)] 1232.68 Watts of energy to maintain it’s speed.
...
More turbulence with this design
At 22.2m/s there was 107.327N of air resistance requiring [100.7(m^2/s)x22.2(m/s)] 2235.66 Watts of energy to maintain it’s speed.
...