It's the family wagon everyone can enjoy.
It's funny that space stuff doesn't need to be aerodynamic, and most cars back then were just a couple squarish blocks put together
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
127 points (100.0% liked)
Raygun Gothic
167 readers
20 users here now
Raygun Gothic refers to any creative work from 1900 through about 1959, predicting the future before it became possible. Think rockets and rayguns, flying cars and futuristic cities - especially if the vision never quite panned out in reality. We find this aesthetic in product design, book covers, films, radio & TV. "A tomorrow that never was". The same style as in the Fallout games, The Jetsons and so on but focused on the time period through the 50s.
See also: Raygun Gothic at TVTropes
Post and discuss anything with these aesthetics.
Community Rules
- Have fun, but don’t be an ass. Behave and remember you're communicating with real people.
- Stay on topic. Try to stick to things created between the 1900s and the 1950s, please.
- No spam.
Also worth checking out:
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
It’s neat but I wonder how it performs on crash tests.
slices right through those annoying pedestrians.
But what about a moose?
you want a moose hardened car you go with volvo. they literally designed their cars around moose impact survivability.
this thing does not look like a volvo. it's gonna slice the poor stiltcow's legs at the knee and send the bastard right into the driver's seat, then the rear seats, then out the back.
Pedestrian safety means a clean chop through the femur.
Fuckin s e x y
Musk: what if we took something cool from 60 years ago and made it totally fucking retarded?
I see problems of traction with the steering wheel.
You could commit mass murder at 1 mph with that front bumper - or lack thereof.
So aerodynamic though
it's streamlined but the aerodynamics of it are poorly thought out; this is going to act like a wing plane - lifting the front end and reducing traction authority.
It looks like it will loose traction an flop off the road.
How else you design a flying car?
It looks aerodynamic but I bet it probably really isn't. Fast-looking things are rarely as fast as they look.
Looking fast applies to supersonic speeds. Drag physics are kind of backwards at speeds higher than the speed of sound. For subsonic a round front with a pointy back is more aerodynamic. Like a snowcone.
Kinda yes kinda no.
The front, yes. But a long sloping back causes drag because the air stays attached to the surface. You want the air to detach from the surface when you're not using it to reduce drag.
But also aerodynamics are very complicated so blanket statements are usually not super accurate.
Detaching and becoming turbulent actually causes more drag because the boundary layer shrinks causing low speed air to be closer to the surface. Fluids are super non intuitive or i might be misunderstanding your meaning of detached. Dimensionless parameters make it even more non intuitive.
Dis right here.
It's funny to think that under that body is a really rudimentary chassis and some very basic parts. You'd feel unsafe just looking it what's meant to stop you, what's meant to steer you, and what's meant to help in a crash—or bare lack of.
That is one huge hood.