Ref my earlier post I spent a bunch of today imbibing Cybertruck. Rivians are almost as common as Toyota Tundras around here so I’ve seen a lot of those recently too.
IMO (and YMMV) the Rivian nose & headlights is one of the ugliest designs ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. As the old saying had it: “If that was my dog I’d shave its ass and teach it to walk backwards.”
The CT, at least from the front is clearly the better-looking vehicle. And with a smaller frontal area the CT is probably the more aero-efficient.
I say “probably” only because I know just enough aero to know that low speed drag (and <100 knots = low speed) depends on many factors, with front area being but one. I suspect the CT has a greater wetted area, which matters more than naive intuition might suggest.
Aero under the vehicle is important, and lifted trucks are at a disadvantage there. The Cybertruck can get pretty low, as can the Rivian.
The aero at the transition from the roof to the bed is interesting, Sharp creases are ususally not good for drag, but it might be better than the abrupt cutoff of roof to bed in a traditional pickup. The Tonneau cover might help that a lot.
If you put some bug feeler/antenna thingies out the top that waved madly like roaches do, people would have run screaming the other way.
But the Rivian “face” is still uglier. It looks like a mindless android hell bent on “serving” us in a cheerful voice until it kills us with the hidden laser beam.
Based on my experience once trying to warm the interior of a small car with an ordinary portable space heater of around 1500 watts on a cool winter day, I think you’re greatly underestimating the heat requirement unless the outdoor temperature is quite mild or that tent is really well insulated, which I doubt. You should probably at least triple that number. An ordinary room is much bigger than that tent, of course, but also much better insulated.
I guess it depends on how warm you want it. You are also in a sleeping bag. But sure, if it’s 1500W that’s what it is. I doubt anyone would want to be living in that tent for more than a few days anyway.
maybe there was a niche that the italians could have carved out for themselves:
I have the feeling that they wanted to do something radical, maybe a “re-think the concept of a car” (like that stuff ever worked for anybody) … but then didn’t have the courage to follow through completely (like Musk did)…
and it seems, car-design - that’s one of those “if you wanna jump over the creek you need to do it completely, aiming for 80% will result in instant failure” kind of things.
So the Fiat Multipla folks only achieved “This is really ugly”, while Elmo followed through all the way to “My God, why on earth would anyone make this thing?”
I always enjoyed seeing the Truly Nolen cars. Often VWs, but many other compact cars were/ are used.
The base of the ears is spring loaded and at highway speed they partly lay back against the roof. Like a threatening cat, which is a nice juxtaposition for a mouse.
Anyhow, at some speeds you’d sometimes see the car zipping down the highway with the ears flapping 180 degrees out of phase with each other. Looked really silly. Aerodynamics can be weird.
This is exactly what I thought. They both have similar “lines” assuming you can call bulbous blobs “lines”.
Search for images of any modern supersport (Yamaha R1, Suzuki GSX-R1000, etc) and you’ll notice a similar amount of clearance/stance. Those bikes aren’t being taken off any sweet jumps either
I’ve never sat on a Multistrada, but I would guess it is a firmer rear suspension that doesn’t squat down easily like on a dirt bike/dual sport (my Suzuki DR650 has a lot of clearance, but when I sit on it it squats down quite a bit as it is a soft suspension).
