Why do most current cars (sedans, wagons, compact hatchbacks, etc) still have front hoods that extrude from below the windshield, particularly those that claim to achieve better aerodynamics?
Wouldn't it make more sense for them to not have a separate hood?
I made a cruse shoop to illustrate what I mean.
Basically, like old vans like the old vw hippy van used to look but in car form.

>a thread died for this highdea
Wheres the front suspension, steering rack, cooling system gonna go? On a cab forward truck it's big enough you can tuck things underfoot. And the VW didnt need cooling. On that car the underfoot space is already taken up by battery.

In a ICE vehicle you need a engine bay.
No, it doesn't get better if its bigger than a Miata or a Yaris, even less so if you can actually remove the entire front.

ON A BEV skateboard, this is very true.
The nose do not make sense unless its for cargo, and on a lot of models its not even for cargo, but instead a 40-60cm gap between the radiator and the firewall.
Similarly the trunk do not make sense on those cars, as conventionally the spare tire well was limited by having the gas tank nearby, which is what took up the space below the rear sits and down.

>>28532663 (OP)
Marketing. If your car looks too weird to the npcs they won't buy it. And those fucking cattle already proved they don't care about aerodynamics.

Unless you make it tall enough for the floor to be entirely over the wheels like in a proper truck that won't work. Having your feet infront of the wheels is not an option due to bare minimum safety requirements anymore. Wheels need to turn and have suspension travel too.
Since you are therefore going to sit behind the wheels anyways, might as well use that space between the big-ass wheel wells for stuff like radiators, a drive unit, 12V battery, washer fluid, headlights that don't intrude into the foot-well etc. There's no point moving the windscreen forward because you cannot use that extra interior volume. All you'd reach is to make the windscreen impossible to clean / wipe fog off/ catch that stupid parking ticket that's flying around on it while also increasing the air volume you need to heat or cool. You don't want any of that.

>>28532663 (OP)
we don't have cabover cars because
a) human-wheel superposition is an unsolved issue in low cars with large wheels, it works in kei vans and kombis because they are tall and have small wheels
b) you are the crumple zone
c) no big dick energy, instead big forehead energy
smart fortwo is about as short of a hood as you'll ever get in a "regular" car (e.g. not a tincan that either has relaxed regulations or predates them)

iirc the EU instituted pedestrian crash regulations in the early 2010s or so and that made cars look ugly because they have to have a bunch of plastic up in the front that's supposed to crumple at low speed to lower the risk of injury to pedestrians/bikes
and a lot of people don't realize you simply have to have a bunch of plastic at the front for safety - so automakers have tried to turn it into the "massive grille" trend because they can't get rid of it anyways

>>28532663 (OP)
who is that THICC lady???

>>28532800
>>28532827
The engine bay and tech bits would be exactly in the same place they were before. But instead of a hood you have a hatching door. The front windshield and body panel raise up and you can access the engine bay.

>>28533659
Quick shoop to demonstrate what I mean

>>28533675
This is the original car

>>28532663 (OP)
I spammed "cabover" designs on this board for about a year. I didn't get any traction. I have posted hundreds of these original designs but nobody seemed to care. Yes you are exactly right, the hood is an antiquated concept which just wastes space, especially for trucks.

>>28533682
Because it looks retarded

>>28533675
Tunnel vision is what you designed there The bit the A and B pillars don't take up is going to be mostly forwards.
Try taping up the windows on your car where they would be and enjoy the crash.

>>28533682
Nice Canoo

>>28533693
No it doesn't, it looks like scientific moon shit. In a cool way.

>>28533706
It looks absolutely retarded

>>28533705

>>28533707
Well you only think that because you've never seen it before. But it's function over form. And if it got popular due to its objective superiority, people would eventually think it looks cool.

>>28533710
it looks like a van that was made useless, aka, retarded

>>28533675
You are fucking retarded and have NEVER pulled a hood release latch let alone touch a wrench with your baby girl virgin nutsack hands. The closer you sre to your windshield the more FOV you have, You designed a tunnel vision monster as the other anon stated and thats with super skinny weak pillars which would be thicker in practice. For maintenance it would be a nightmare, many more moving parts and shit in the way, like a cabin air filter on a Lincoln, but just to pop the hood. Your dumbass needs to learn or toss your junk into the sea and let your stupidity die with you if you don't remove it. For shame, Anon.

>>28533722
>vision
You could use cameras
>many more moving parts and shit in the way
It's the same amount of moving parts I think. Instead of a hood it's a front hatch. Instead of pivoting around the bottom of the windshield it pivots around the top.

>>28533688
>>28533706
>>28533714
>>28533715
I like these

>>28533706
>add third row
>still short bed
you can be 100% sure that if cabovers became fashionable, that's exactly what would happen lol

>another thread where 1.4 gpa graduates larp as engineers with million dollar ideas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-touqt1P8M

>>28532663 (OP)
>I made a
Ai made it, you didn't.
gfys

the most aerodynamic concept car ever had a long hood, even with the engine placed behind the seats.

>>28533722
>Cameras
More parts to fail and doesn't beat using your eyes
>its the same amount of moving parts I think
Your uncertainty betrays you, and the more you think there may be more parts, the more there actually will be more parts.

>>28533960
/thread

I wonder if OP could even thoroughly explain pic rel

>>28533957
You can also have a long bed version or even a stubby version.

>>28534021
Only the rearmost wheels are driven and when the truck goes over the sharp hump they get lifted off the ground. Did you think it was something more complicated than that? Shows you're too stupid to comment on our cabover designs bmao

>>28534046
lmao your retarded the rear wheels are touching still, the differential is the problem, go back to school, summerfag nobody but eurocucks will tolerate your shitty designs

>>28534046
this level of retardation is why you're posting bad threads in a dead auto board instead of making money with your brilliant ideas

>>28534021
since I posted >>28533960 I will try to be fair and give an actual explanation.
what we are seeing is a tandem axle with the rear axle being driven by an open diff.
because of the grade the truck is trying to climb, the forward axle is pushing one or both of the rear axle wheels off the ground, and because its got an open diff all it can do is spin the free wheel.
in my head this doesn't explain why the forward rear axle couldnt push the truck up the hill though, assuming its getting power

>>28533675
>>28533677
Aerodynamically there is very little difference between these two cars.

>>28534072
>>28534057
>>28534059
Because the forward rear axle isn't getting power. This is a homemade conversion of a 4x4 f250, it's not a factory 6x6. Only the rearmost wheels are driven. You can tell you're wrong for two reasons:
1. The rearmost two wheels always spin in unison despite the grade sloping to the right, this proves that it's not an open diff because there's not equal weight on the left and right tires. And if you can't tell by looking at them spin, you can tell by the perfectly parallel and equal length skidmarks.
2. When the truck backs up into the concave area and floors it, there's wheelspin only in the rearmost two tires, showing that the forward rear axle is not powered

>>28534212
>says im wrong
>replies to a post where I said the exact same thing but worded it differently

>>28533675
>>28533659
Put the driver ahead of the wheel, or move the wheel to be the front of the frame, and you can start talking.

>>28533089
>b) you are the crumple zone
The crumple zone is relative to how the car deforms, and how its engineered to deform. And no, the engine isn't a crumble, zone, its in many ways the opposite: A secondary projectile

>>28533999
The shitbox you and I drive is going to be .3 anon
That is just how itt works.
While I do like the trened of heading towards .25 and .26, its futurism.

>>28534262
If that's the same thing but worded differently, then so is this >>28534046
It's not of course. The diff has nothing to do with it. It's just a two wheel drive truck.

Telo is coming to fix every issue raised in this thread. Cabovers are the future.

>>28533957
It even has a folding midgate to convert between more bed or a third row.

Can't add much, I'll post some sci-fi concepts not made by me

>>28535180

>>28535181

Sitting on the engine increased car height too much, this is why this design only exists in trucks

behold

>>28535271
Beautiful. Now let's see Paul Allen's cabover

>>28534021
>muh diff
100 thousand open diff econoboxes on linglongs drove through that place with no issue

>>28533682 >>28533706 >>28533714 >>28533715 >>28533795 >>28534035 >>28535100 >>28535180 >>28535181
The answer is obvious. Just make the Deora 2 but like commercially.

If the cyber truck looked like pic rel I might've actually financed it.

>>28535328
chub car