# Aerodynamic "dimple" design - why not more prevalent? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 6, 2026, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553 "2026-11-06T16:03:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Al128](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/al128/32/16541_2.png) [@Al128](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Al128)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2026, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/1 "2026-11-06T16:03:47Z")
Hi there, 'nother showerthought: We all know that the dimple-design of e.g. golfballs is aerodynamically superior (is that universally true?) - in the sense that a golfball without those dimples will not fly as far as the same ball with dimples. AFAIU the dimples produce areas of low and high pressure, that help flatten “dirty” air-turbulances and reduce the aerdynamic drag. So, why don’t we see the dimple-surface in (fast-wrooom-wrrooom) things like - (super)sportscars, - formula 1 / nascar - high speed trains - rockets/missiles/airplanes, etc… I suspect “rotation” (which the golfball has but my above examples not) might have something to do with it? … So are we under-utilizing this concept or does it not produce advantages on more laminate applications? ---
**Author:** ![Dorjan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dorjan/32/12440_2.png) [@Dorjan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorjan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2026, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/2 "2026-11-06T16:29:31Z")
Dimples solve an aerodynamics problem that is specific to a sphere travelling at golf-ball speeds. That is - boundary layer separation. The dimples induce turbulence to reduce pressure drag. It actually increases friction, but the reduction in pressure drag is higher than the increase in frictionand thus beneficial for the ball. Planes, Trains, Automobiles, missiles, etc. manage airflow differently. They are already optimally shaped to use laminar flow effectively. Dimpling their aerodynamic surfaces will just increase turbulence and friction where you don’t want it. There are cases where you DO want to induce turbulence in certain areas, and these are done with vortex generators, and turbulators. And in some cases even dimples are used in some areas on cars. ---
**Author:** ![markn\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@markn\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markn_1)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2026, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/3 "2026-11-06T16:40:22Z")
MythBusters built a car covered with golf-ball-like dimples, and found that it did significantly increase gas mileage, by about 11%. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/haRtzAfNMdI/maxresdefault.jpg "Could Covering Your Car In Dimples Like A Golf Ball Save Fuel? | MythBusters") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haRtzAfNMdI) ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2026, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/4 "2026-11-06T17:18:53Z")
First thing I thought of when I saw the thread title, LOL. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2026, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/5 "2026-11-06T17:54:02Z")
Great answer! Thank you. **[Reynolds number - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number)** has entered the convo. I know you know all this, but others may not. Speaking very hand-wavily, it’s a fluid dynamic parameter which is the characteristic size of turbulence in [whatever] conditions. Shark skin is rough like sandpaper. Which at first seems odd for a low drag high speed swimmer. Nope, it’s not a weapon or a defensive armament. Turns out at their speeds in water, it reduces their drag by ~10% versus a smooth-skinned fish. Smartest skin in the sea. There are ongoing efforts to apply this tech to airliner design. A 1% fuel burn reduction however achieved is a big gain in this biz; getting to 5% would be a grand slam home run. The problem is that at airliner cruise Reynolds numbers, the “sandpaper” needs to be microscopically rough, not sandpaper or golf-dimple rough. Easy enough to micro-perforate some plastic sheeting and adhere it to a wing. Much harder to have that survive being sandblasted every day by airborne dust, rain, snow, etc. It also turns out that rather little surface dirt or bugs or dents completely negates the gains over a much larger area than the bugs or dirt itself. If you’re to achieve, say, the full 10% gain, you need to be able to quantify how that gain is deteriorating over time so you can adjust fuel burn calculations appropriately. It’d suck to launch off across the ocean assuming your magic superskin was working great, only to learn the hard way the airplane is a bit dirtier than you thought. The alternative, always assuming it’s dirty and arriving w an unpredictable amount of excess fuel, has all sorts of other drawbacks, not least of which is wasting about 1/3rd of the fuel you carried unnecessarily just dragging that weight around. So making the surface durable and self-cleaning is the long pole in the adoption tent. See here for some attempts: > **[AeroSHARK | Lufthansa Technik](https://www.lufthansa-technik.com/en/aeroshark)** > > AeroSHARK is a durable bionic film that imitates the texture of sharkskin to optimize aerodynamic performance. By reducing drag, it enables significant fuel savings and lowers CO₂ emissions across long-haul operations. Applied across a global fleet,... **[Exciting New “Shark Skin” Technology To Cut Aircraft Fuel Usage – Aviation NETWorX](https://aviationnetworx.com/exciting-new-shark-skin-technology-to-cut-aircraft-fuel-usage/)**. Note the first Lufthansa Technik article is from 2022 and the second article dates from 2019. Bottom line: So far it’s one of those techs that’s mostly “still a few years away”. And may always be. ---
**Author:** ![Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/q.q.switcheroo/32/5713_2.png) [@Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.Q.Switcheroo)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2026, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/6 "2026-11-06T18:09:31Z")
Those are speed holes. They make the car go faster. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/whnms4CLJys/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEmCOADEOgC8quKqQMa8AEB-AG-AoAC8AGKAgwIABABGGUgXyhBMA8=&rs=AOn4CLChYw17sjDG51QC3kMVNuEPqej2BA "Speed Holes") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whnms4CLJys) ---
**Author:** ![Al128](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/al128/32/16541_2.png) [@Al128](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Al128)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2026, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/7 "2026-11-06T18:15:14Z")
… do I smell a Navier–Stokes adjacency here? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2026, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/9 "2026-11-07T15:21:43Z")
And that’s even with a lot of extra weight from all of the putty they used to get that surface, and without any other design changes. A properly-engineered dimple-car should be even better yet. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2026, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/10 "2026-11-07T15:45:28Z")
To be fair, the Mythbusters did run the test first with the car covered in the clay/putty/whatever, then collected all the scoop-out stuff and put it in the car so that the weight would be the same for both test runs. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2026, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/11 "2026-11-07T15:53:43Z")
Ah, I must not have seen that entire episode; I missed that. Still, the local optimum for all of the other parameters of the car’s shape would probably be shifted a bit by the dimpling. You’d want to iterate all of the rest of the design with the dimples. Plus, of course, optimization of the dimples themselves: What size (or distribution of sizes), what density, pattern or lack thereof in their placement, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Al128](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/al128/32/16541_2.png) [@Al128](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Al128)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2026, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/12 "2026-11-07T16:07:26Z")
it seems that the thread is currently somewhat in a bi-polar place… **It doesn’t work for cars … vs. Mythbusters episode (which produced an 11% fuel economy)…** (and I venture the guess that the dimple-size could/should be optimized for that special application) … It seems that the dimples should be ideally optimized in size for a given speed … I don’t know how the dimples would impact the results outside of their design-parameters (would the still work - but to a lesser extend) or could they even be counter-productive)? ---
**Author:** ![jjakucyk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3d9bf3/32.png) [@jjakucyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjakucyk)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2026, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/13 "2026-11-07T16:32:16Z")
I too was disappointed that there seemed to be no follow-up to the Mythbusters experiment, even just to confirm their results or try to optimize the design and dimple size. I suspect there’s a handful of reasons though. 1. The dimples on the hood, roof, and trunk will hold water that will splash around at higher speeds, or freeze into solid pucks in the winter that could go flying off. 2. Said water puddles will collect dirt and leave grungy deposits on horizontal dimples when the water evaporates. On the sides of the vehicle they will leave dirty streaks. 3. The steel dies used to stamp the body panels might be more expensive to make with the dimples (?) 4. The dimples could make attaching the panels and/or fitting other stuff behind them more difficult and thus more expensive (?) 5. The improvement in highway mileage is only marginally improving what’s already the most efficient driving type for most cars, not lower speed stop/go city driving, so the real-world gains average out to much less than the 11% reported. 6. Painting and body work is going to be more difficult and expensive. What might otherwise be a minor scrape would be more likely to snag a panel and dent it or even rip it off the car. 7. Ain’t nobody wants a car that looks like that in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Al128](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/al128/32/16541_2.png) [@Al128](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Al128)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2026, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/14 "2026-11-07T16:41:33Z")
very solid points for middle-of-the-road 😉 cars … but why not supercars, high speed trains … (as a matter of fact: pics of the new TGVs were what triggered my thoughts) [![](https://preview.redd.it/the-new-tgv-m-to-sncf-voyageur-in-villeneuve-saint-georges-v0-yt0asa4h4beg1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=4a6974e970b8372e55bb0d982816477f8210c2bc) ](https://preview.redd.it/the-new-tgv-m-to-sncf-voyageur-in-villeneuve-saint-georges-v0-yt0asa4h4beg1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=4a6974e970b8372e55bb0d982816477f8210c2bc) ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2026, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/15 "2026-11-07T16:42:53Z")
> [@jjakucyk](#): > > 1. Ain’t nobody wants a car that looks like that in the first place. I agree with your other points, but I completely disagree that there’s no market for weird-looking. Well, counter-argument, the Cybertruck; but still, a niche market that wouldn’t be economically viable for mass production. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2026, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/16 "2026-11-07T16:43:37Z")
SNAKE!!! ---
**Author:** ![jjakucyk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3d9bf3/32.png) [@jjakucyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjakucyk)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2026, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/17 "2026-11-07T16:46:34Z")
Supercars are more about looks and vroom vroom, efficiency be damned. For trains I think it only really matters on that front end, and that’s also more of an “it must be fast because it looks fast” marketing thing. Practically, some level of aerodynamics is important for fast trains so they don’t create pressure waves that would blow people off their feet on station platforms, or blow out the windows of trains on the next track (I think that happened with the Metroliner on the Northeast Corridor back in the day). ---
**Author:** ![Al128](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/al128/32/16541_2.png) [@Al128](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Al128)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2026, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/18 "2026-11-07T17:46:20Z")
> [@jjakucyk](#): > > Supercars are more about looks and vroom vroom, efficiency be damned. I disagree… Supercars are all about efficiency, **especially** related to aerodynamics … you cant be DA FASTEST w/out ~~good~~ great aerodynamics, no matter how many horsepowers you put behind it. (too lazy to look it up, but there is a V(sqared) somewhere in that equation… so aerodynamics are 4 times as important if you double your speed from 100 to 200km/m … and 9 times as important for 300km/h)… so every bit of aerodynamics you manage to optimize in a supercar, brings huge gains up in the speed-regions the real-guys are playing. Coincidentially, a (streetlegal! and rather inexpensive at $250k) BYD supercar surpassed 500km/h just one or 2 days ago …here is a website with the video (2nd vid down) > **[BYD supera los 500 km/h con un coche eléctrico y obtiene un récord reconocido...](https://grandepremio.com/es/autos/byd-supera-los-500-km-h-con-un-coche-electrico-y-obtiene-un-record-reconocido-por-la-fia/)** > > El Yangwang U9 Xtreme alcanzó los 503,17 km/h en una ruta cerrada en Abu Dhabi, con el piloto alemán Marc Basseng al volante. El hiperdeportivo chino también logró dos récords Guinness. those are insane numbers … I love how he cruises leisurely at 350km/h with 55% throttle … ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2026, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/19 "2026-11-09T11:00:38Z")
> [@Al128](#): > > Supercars are all about efficiency, **especially** related to aerodynamics … you cant be DA FASTEST w/out ~~good~~ great aerodynamics, no matter how many horsepowers you put behind it. Sure, but not every model is trying to achieve fastest car of all time. Most are content to be ludicrously fast, which is almost trivial in the electric / hybrid car era. Even for those models that are trying to be the absolute quickest, I think aesthetics still comes into it. If it turned out that the most efficient design was to put a pair of buttocks shape on the front of the hood, manufacturers would still be reluctant to use it. It would water down the prestige of having the fastest car, and mean they might be less likely to recoup any of the costs by selling any. WRT the golf ball dimpling, actually I could imagine it being done in an attractive way, but it’s still an (expensive) risk. So I would not put it in the bracket of “won’t be done” but rather “no-one has taken the plunge yet, like a whole bunch of other ideas that could hypothetically improve performance slightly if carefully implemented” ---
**Author:** ![Al128](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/al128/32/16541_2.png) [@Al128](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Al128)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2026, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/20 "2026-11-09T12:16:21Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > WRT the golf ball dimpling, actually I could imagine it being done in an attractive way, but it’s still an (expensive) risk. So I would not put it in the bracket of “won’t be done” but rather “no-one has taken the plunge yet, like a whole bunch of other ideas that could hypothetically improve performance slightly if carefully implemented” agree … I always wondered why it’s not been done at least at the level of those Concept Cars … that could a.) get you talked about and b.) help gauge “customer reception” … Having said that, I could also foresee it for the top-of-the-line-models of sportive cars, to create a “visual gap” between the normal great cars and the t.o.t.l. greatest of those … e.g. - Nissan GTR normal and - GTR-Nismo? (w/dimples) … or same for Porsche, where the fastest ones don’t even have door-handles and electric windows, just door-loops to shave off 100grms of dead weight and win 1/10th of a sec for 1-100/200 km/h time. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2026, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553/21 "2026-11-09T12:52:28Z")
Right. Honestly if it can get the efficiencies that the mythbusters found, it does seem viable. At first blush I thought it would be ugly, but then in my mind’s eye I saw an orange supercar with some dimpled surfaces, and it seemed pretty cool. And heck, it’s apparently quite a challenge at the moment to make a supercar that stands out. > **[Check out this image](https://chatgpt.com/s/m_6af1c1412f508191b0dc518059f3b061)** > > View the full image in ChatGPT. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aerodynamic-dimple-design-why-not-more-prevalent/1034553.md?page=2)