The American public resisted streamlining. By the 40s, everything was a teardrop. Unfortunately, Chevrolet didn't take advantage of this shape with overdrive, as Studebaker did, so Chevys got 19 mpg while Studys got up to 30. Chevy engines also wore out at 100K, and couldn't go over 60.
Ha ha, fair point. Just to give them some credit though, the difference between a 1926, and a 1936 automobiles was vast. The video did state that as technology progressed in the future, more streamline designs could become available. Then finally, don't forget that the study of aerodynamics, in the full scale, was most often done with yarn taped to the surface of the automobiles, and studied in real times.
I just love these videos. Not only are they time capsules, they are educational. What a different time, but not so different that we can't relate. Thanks for posting these!
1936 Studebaker Coupe was far more streamlined than any of the other cars on the road in 1936. In fact Studebaker styling was always 10 years ahead of their competition. Likely the advanced design of Studebaker's was instrumental in their demise --- people found it difficult to relate to the styling. The 1957 Studebaker Golden Hawk was in my opinion the most beautiful car ever made.
My 1936 Chevy Door Sedan is the Music I love to listen to ,while I go to and from work ,at V. I. P. Music, Shelby, North Carolina, U. S. A. 4000 miles on the odometer. Barn kept… With love.original.
Very interesting hydraulic testing device used to determine the ultimate streamline design. The 1936 Chevrolets were perhaps not the last word in streamlining yet were nevertheless a very appealing design. Notice also that the sideview of the 1936 Chevrolet has elements especially around the windows that were incorporated into the design of the recent Chevrolet HHR.
@@CarminesRCTipsandTricks not quite, his automobile which seemed perfect. Had many faults, it may of been stiffer and taken a hit, but boy did It give you whiiplash when you hit something. Chevrolet was leading, Ford as well, and some part of Desoto for its safety used for package trucks and taxis, as well as the Checker Model A.
The Citroen DS (1955) had the teardrop form, both seen from the side and from the top. It had, for example, a tapering rear end, with less track width than on the front wheels. The underside of the car was practically smooth, with a convex shape, reducing lift forces...(as an inverted airplane-wing)
Yes, or rather no! The underside of the DS is not "flat". It´s a bit concave, just like an inverted airplane-wing, creating a down-force. Just as I wrote....
The Citroen DS of 1955 - 1975 had many features, not even found on cars of today. For instance the hydropneumatic suspension system that had constant ride-hight, irrespective of load. It had (and has) unsurpassed comfort, with very soft and dampended ride, yet the softness doesen´t affect road-holding nor load-sensitivity at all. Other, more exotic features of the system was, for instance: variable ride-hight (in two hights), you could raise the car over an obstacle. In the highest position you could change a tire without using a traditional jack (the hydraulics did the job for you), and you could drive the car on just tree wheels (with one rear wheel missing, or blown out)! You wouldn´t notice a flat tire in the rear! Se more of all this on all the "DS-films" here on You Tube!
@christl301 I like this video too! My uncle used to collect cars a long time ago--the last one he had restored was a '41 Packard 4-door sedan. I love the styling of mid to late '30s cars. Does the '36 Chevrolet have a synchromesh gearbox, or do you have to double the clutch to downshift, like on the Model A Fords? There's a 1936 Chevrolet safety video on TH-cam also, showing drivers giving hand signals. Were turn signals not widely available on cars at the time?
And now, nearly 80 years later, the majority of "cars" on the road are fat boxes that you can't see around when you're stuck behind them lol... Long, LONG gone are the days of the wise consumer.
Yes the 80's were a lot boxier, but they very subtly create the same effects described in this video. That, and now we have flat(ter) floors to the car. One thing that I'm personally disappointed by is that motorsports doesn't go out of their way to reduce drag like they used to, instead they add more drag for downforce.
@@CaroFDoom It is overall faster to add down force then reduce drag, because there are more corners than straights. Think of how you corner. You need a lot of down force so that people can't pass you, but on straights you need less down force to go faster. So yes, it is a trade off of drag and speed, but the drag is worth it to go around corners. Also, most motor sport cars on tracks of today are set up for the track for less drag and more speed, like say Nuremberg, or vice versa for tracks like Monte Carlo.
To a major extent, cars that fast rely on heavy streamlining in conjunction with brute force. That speed couldn't be achieved without either. We just need to focus on comfortable continual space, and weigh reduction nowadays.
Actually, the Airflow sold well at first, but, due to it's being rushed into production a year earlier than it should have, the car developped a reputation as a lemon and sales fell dramatically.
Cars back then were so rudimentary there were a hundred things a hobbyist could do to make it faster. Cars are better today in every way, but boring as paste.
To summarize this little film, we know the teardrop is the best shape so here's the brick that we make
Think of the manufacturing costs of a completely curved chassis.
Like the egg.
The American public resisted streamlining. By the 40s, everything was a teardrop. Unfortunately, Chevrolet didn't take advantage of this shape with overdrive, as Studebaker did, so Chevys got 19 mpg while Studys got up to 30. Chevy engines also wore out at 100K, and couldn't go over 60.
Ha ha, fair point. Just to give them some credit though, the difference between a 1926, and a 1936 automobiles was vast. The video did state that as technology progressed in the future, more streamline designs could become available. Then finally, don't forget that the study of aerodynamics, in the full scale, was most often done with yarn taped to the surface of the automobiles, and studied in real times.
What a pleasure these videos bring to me. Thank you for posting them
thats nice ;)
I just love these videos. Not only are they time capsules, they are educational. What a different time, but not so different that we can't relate.
Thanks for posting these!
I passed your post on to grandson-valuable history lesson-Thanks
Man I'm addicted to videos like this!! . . I just wish these videos were uploaded to other platforms instead of JUST TH-cam.
1936 Studebaker Coupe was far more streamlined than any of the other cars on the road in 1936. In fact Studebaker styling was always 10 years ahead of their competition. Likely the advanced design of Studebaker's was instrumental in their demise --- people found it difficult to relate to the styling. The 1957 Studebaker Golden Hawk was in my opinion the most beautiful car ever made.
I gotta agree. My current project is a '55 Stude pickup.
Fifties Studebakers look like sixties cars.
My 1936 Chevy Door
Sedan is the Music I love to listen to ,while I go to and from work ,at
V. I. P. Music, Shelby,
North Carolina,
U. S. A. 4000 miles on the odometer. Barn kept…
With love.original.
I once took a "plopper in the pool". Been banned from the Holiday Inn ever since.
Company and engineers: maybe one day we'll have great highway systems and fast cars.
Politicians today: green new deal
Gee whiz! I can't wait for the streamlined cars of tomorrow! I'm going to buy one as soon as they're built! Yesiree! 👍🏻😉
Very interesting hydraulic testing device used to determine the ultimate streamline design. The 1936 Chevrolets were perhaps not the last word in streamlining yet were nevertheless a very appealing design. Notice also that the sideview of the 1936 Chevrolet has elements especially around the windows that were incorporated into the design of the recent Chevrolet HHR.
I wonder what they would make of a Lambo appearing on their streets in 1936..... They would think the aliens have invaded.
Then came ''The Tucker'' and scared the crap out of all it's competitors
So of course..... They had to CRUSH him!! 😫😢
They COULD have, I don't know, LEARNED from him???
@@CarminesRCTipsandTricks not quite, his automobile which seemed perfect. Had many faults, it may of been stiffer and taken a hit, but boy did It give you whiiplash when you hit something. Chevrolet was leading, Ford as well, and some part of Desoto for its safety used for package trucks and taxis, as well as the Checker Model A.
Yes, but the people didn´t accept the modern Airflow, the first unibody system too.Greetings from Argentina!
The Citroen DS (1955) had the teardrop form, both seen from the side and from the top. It had, for example, a tapering rear end, with less track width than on the front wheels.
The underside of the car was practically smooth, with a convex shape, reducing lift forces...(as an inverted airplane-wing)
Wait, are you telling me the Citroen DS has a flat floor that creates downforce?
Yes, or rather no! The underside of the DS is not "flat". It´s a bit concave, just like an inverted airplane-wing, creating a down-force. Just as I wrote....
Jourwalis - HOLY SHIT THEY HAD CARS CREATING DOWNFORCE WITH THEIR UNDERBODY IN 1955!?!?!?
The Citroen DS of 1955 - 1975 had many features, not even found on cars of today. For instance the hydropneumatic suspension system that had constant ride-hight, irrespective of load. It had (and has) unsurpassed comfort, with very soft and dampended ride, yet the softness doesen´t affect road-holding nor load-sensitivity at all.
Other, more exotic features of the system was, for instance: variable ride-hight (in two hights), you could raise the car over an obstacle. In the highest position you could change a tire without using a traditional jack (the hydraulics did the job for you), and you could drive the car on just tree wheels (with one rear wheel missing, or blown out)! You wouldn´t notice a flat tire in the rear!
Se more of all this on all the "DS-films" here on You Tube!
Jourwalis - that's fucking amazing
where did they go wrong?
Great stuff.
Hello are you still alive 🤩🤩 ?
amazing videos,better than the animating videos
I just picture a bird and worm both nodding in agreement.
Looks like a 1936 Buick special.... what is the difference?
Terrific little movie, but Chevrolets were only barely streamlined at that time, despite the grand claims made here.
These guys would be amazed to see the style of cars today.
I think some of them are still alive :-D
More like SHOCKED and dismayed....
Ty
@christl301 I like this video too! My uncle used to collect cars a long time ago--the last one he had restored was a '41 Packard 4-door sedan. I love the styling of mid to late '30s cars. Does the '36 Chevrolet have a synchromesh gearbox, or do you have to double the clutch to downshift, like on the Model A Fords? There's a 1936 Chevrolet safety video on TH-cam also, showing drivers giving hand signals. Were turn signals not widely available on cars at the time?
I have a 1936 master delux flate back Chevrolet being restored, love this video and especially love how 1930's people perdicked the future.
Hallo are you still alive 🤩?
And now, nearly 80 years later, the majority of "cars" on the road are fat boxes that you can't see around when you're stuck behind them lol... Long, LONG gone are the days of the wise consumer.
Yes the 80's were a lot boxier, but they very subtly create the same effects described in this video.
That, and now we have flat(ter) floors to the car. One thing that I'm personally disappointed by is that motorsports doesn't go out of their way to reduce drag like they used to, instead they add more drag for downforce.
@@CaroFDoom It is overall faster to add down force then reduce drag, because there are more corners than straights. Think of how you corner. You need a lot of down force so that people can't pass you, but on straights you need less down force to go faster. So yes, it is a trade off of drag and speed, but the drag is worth it to go around corners. Also, most motor sport cars on tracks of today are set up for the track for less drag and more speed, like say Nuremberg, or vice versa for tracks like Monte Carlo.
Yo it’s 2018 and we don’t have streamline cars yet but we can go half the speed of a airplane 258MPH
To a major extent, cars that fast rely on heavy streamlining in conjunction with brute force. That speed couldn't be achieved without either.
We just need to focus on comfortable continual space, and weigh reduction nowadays.
I mean, if the 1990s Ford Taurus wasn't streamline with its ugly egg shape, I don't know what would be.
Chryslers of that era were much more aerodynamic than anything GM built; GMs cars looked streamlined, but, weren't as efficient as they appeared.
I don't remember the 30s being so pixelated.
The engineers read the blueprints backwards.. blunt NOSE, tapering TAIL! These Chevys would only be streamlined going in reverse.
Wait till they see modern economy cars which most can go over 120mph. And the large interstate system
Actually, the Airflow sold well at first, but, due to it's being rushed into production a year earlier than it should have, the car developped a reputation as a lemon and sales fell dramatically.
Shoknifeman But yet, the basic "Airflow" style concept would be standard by '40. Similar to the '86 Taurus.
I wish i can show them speedtail.
La historia del chivo !
The '37 and up Chevys were better looking and more popular than a '36.
The '37 Buick Special looks even better!
@@mikedrown2721 To each his own but the Buick was in a higher price range.
@@jimervin387 Thank you!
Its amazing to see how less than 100 years ago 120 mph was unfathomable for a car. A giant boxy hummer H2 can hit 150 mph....
no it can't. Not even close.
a real shitbox.
All the discussion of streamlining yet the cars shown are as boxy as usual for the time.
"So stop looking at those Chrysler Airflows! They're just not practical! Look at our ugly little Chevrolet, it's got rounded corners!"
Hard to beat an airflow in ugliness
Now look at our buttplug cars of 2019.....
If only Chevrolet and GM would make cars more like that.*SIGH*
These mf’s still writing me tickets for going a buck two.
-bitrate-
Cars back then were so rudimentary there were a hundred things a hobbyist could do to make it faster.
Cars are better today in every way, but boring as paste.
did they just predict the future in 1936?
Production cars were not fast in the 1930's, and air resistance is not a problem below 70mph. Looks nice though.
TH-cam compression took a hit from 3:00 to 4:28 :D
Lik3 th3 vid iv3 got a 36 buick 48 fl33tlin3. OG low rid3rs skirts fulton visor sir3n3 OG 15 inch artillari3s gangst3r whit3 walls
Tesla truck uses exactly 0 of these pro tips
Those chevys sure are ugly compared to a 36 ford.