Why are hatchbacks and SUVs' rear window vertical, relative to sedans' at around 45°?
I noticed this angular difference while reading these Quora and Reddit posts about why sedans don't have rear wipers, as the aerodynamic reason fails to remove precipitation as efficaciously as wipersn.
Wouldn't a 45° rear window be better for SUVs, to lessen road debris spattering the rear window?
window aerodynamcs vehicle-dynamics
add a comment |
I noticed this angular difference while reading these Quora and Reddit posts about why sedans don't have rear wipers, as the aerodynamic reason fails to remove precipitation as efficaciously as wipersn.
Wouldn't a 45° rear window be better for SUVs, to lessen road debris spattering the rear window?
window aerodynamcs vehicle-dynamics
4
Bringing the rear roofline inward to tilt the window would reduce the carrying capacity back there, a primary concern for people buying SUVs is "how much stuff can I get back there?"
– Patrick Hughes
2 days ago
1
A sloping rear window between a flat roof and trunk has the paradoxical property that in a certain speed range, the air flow is UP the window, not down, and air (and dirt) are trapped in an eddy behind the window. I used to have a car where rain water moved up the rear window driving between about 40-60 mph. In that situation, a rear wiper doesn't do anything very useful - it pushes the water down but it immediately flows back up.
– alephzero
2 days ago
add a comment |
I noticed this angular difference while reading these Quora and Reddit posts about why sedans don't have rear wipers, as the aerodynamic reason fails to remove precipitation as efficaciously as wipersn.
Wouldn't a 45° rear window be better for SUVs, to lessen road debris spattering the rear window?
window aerodynamcs vehicle-dynamics
I noticed this angular difference while reading these Quora and Reddit posts about why sedans don't have rear wipers, as the aerodynamic reason fails to remove precipitation as efficaciously as wipersn.
Wouldn't a 45° rear window be better for SUVs, to lessen road debris spattering the rear window?
window aerodynamcs vehicle-dynamics
window aerodynamcs vehicle-dynamics
edited 2 days ago
Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2♦
109k16168363
109k16168363
asked 2 days ago
Greek - Area 51 ProposalGreek - Area 51 Proposal
1235
1235
4
Bringing the rear roofline inward to tilt the window would reduce the carrying capacity back there, a primary concern for people buying SUVs is "how much stuff can I get back there?"
– Patrick Hughes
2 days ago
1
A sloping rear window between a flat roof and trunk has the paradoxical property that in a certain speed range, the air flow is UP the window, not down, and air (and dirt) are trapped in an eddy behind the window. I used to have a car where rain water moved up the rear window driving between about 40-60 mph. In that situation, a rear wiper doesn't do anything very useful - it pushes the water down but it immediately flows back up.
– alephzero
2 days ago
add a comment |
4
Bringing the rear roofline inward to tilt the window would reduce the carrying capacity back there, a primary concern for people buying SUVs is "how much stuff can I get back there?"
– Patrick Hughes
2 days ago
1
A sloping rear window between a flat roof and trunk has the paradoxical property that in a certain speed range, the air flow is UP the window, not down, and air (and dirt) are trapped in an eddy behind the window. I used to have a car where rain water moved up the rear window driving between about 40-60 mph. In that situation, a rear wiper doesn't do anything very useful - it pushes the water down but it immediately flows back up.
– alephzero
2 days ago
4
4
Bringing the rear roofline inward to tilt the window would reduce the carrying capacity back there, a primary concern for people buying SUVs is "how much stuff can I get back there?"
– Patrick Hughes
2 days ago
Bringing the rear roofline inward to tilt the window would reduce the carrying capacity back there, a primary concern for people buying SUVs is "how much stuff can I get back there?"
– Patrick Hughes
2 days ago
1
1
A sloping rear window between a flat roof and trunk has the paradoxical property that in a certain speed range, the air flow is UP the window, not down, and air (and dirt) are trapped in an eddy behind the window. I used to have a car where rain water moved up the rear window driving between about 40-60 mph. In that situation, a rear wiper doesn't do anything very useful - it pushes the water down but it immediately flows back up.
– alephzero
2 days ago
A sloping rear window between a flat roof and trunk has the paradoxical property that in a certain speed range, the air flow is UP the window, not down, and air (and dirt) are trapped in an eddy behind the window. I used to have a car where rain water moved up the rear window driving between about 40-60 mph. In that situation, a rear wiper doesn't do anything very useful - it pushes the water down but it immediately flows back up.
– alephzero
2 days ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
For the angle of the rear window, vertical is basically for the load volume / carrying capacity, getting things with a high roof line opening.
Well, some sedans or sedans with a hatch-back did have rear wipers...
Here's one with a wiper: parkers-images.bauersecure.com/gallery-image/pagefiles/189881/… so you are indeed correct some have a rear wiper.
– juhist
2 days ago
@juhist well, I was going to go with the Chrysler Solara or the Sunbeam, but a Vauxhall is proof enough...
– Solar Mike
2 days ago
add a comment |
The reason for the question in the title (why vertical?) is that car has a maximum possible length if you want it to be maneuverable in tight spaces. For example, my Toyota RAV4 hybrid is approximately 4.6 meters long. Quite long, in my opinion. Compared to the Toyota Yaris I used to have, it's much less maneuverable.
If the car was longer, say 5.0 meters long (like Tesla Model X), you couldn't maneuver the car through very tight corners. One of the reasons why I don't have a Tesla Model X (another being its width, third being its price).
Now, Tesla Model X doesn't have a vertical rear window, the window being more like 45 degrees. My Toyota RAV4 hybrid has a vertical rear window.
This means that if you want to transport large objects, a Tesla Model X with its 5.0 meter length is probably approximately as useful as my 4.6 meters long Toyota RAV4 hybrid. Same indoor dimensions at the roof level, much different external dimensions.
Now, would a 45 degree rear window be better? I would say not better, because it would make the car too long externally if it has any useful large object carrying capacity, or make the car's carrying capacity too limited if the external dimensions are sensible.
Am I alone in this opinion? You know, some people actually buy Tesla Model X. I even know somebody who has a Tesla Model X! Personally, I'm happy with my vertical rear window and wouldn't change to a 45 degree window. I'll buy an electric or plug-in-hybrid SUV the day when you can purchase one that has small enough external dimensions, large enough internal dimensions (necessitating a vertical rear window), sensible enough price and made by a reputable manufacturer I can trust.
add a comment |
There are basically two options to reduce air resistance at the rear of the car to a minimum.
One is to make the rear flat and vertical. That way, the air flowing over the car doesn't create any turbulence until it has "passed" the rear of the car.
The other way is to make body into an airfoil shape by bringing the roof level down smoothly and raising the floor level at the rear, so the air flow does not separate from the car bodywork. That has been carried to its logical conclusion in experimental solar powered cars (image source: Wikipedia)
Introducing a "backward facing step" by having a flat roof, a vertical rear window, and a flat top to the trunk is pretty much the worst of all worlds, aerodynamically. Hence the rear window is sloped to get closer to an airfoil shape.
In practice, body designs are a compromise between aerodynamic efficiency, functionality and aesthetics - for example a 30-ton truck with a flat rear panel is both functional (to maximize the volume of the cargo space) and aerodynamic, but not pretty!
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "224"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmechanics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f63138%2fwhy-are-hatchbacks-and-suvs-rear-window-vertical-relative-to-sedans-at-around%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
For the angle of the rear window, vertical is basically for the load volume / carrying capacity, getting things with a high roof line opening.
Well, some sedans or sedans with a hatch-back did have rear wipers...
Here's one with a wiper: parkers-images.bauersecure.com/gallery-image/pagefiles/189881/… so you are indeed correct some have a rear wiper.
– juhist
2 days ago
@juhist well, I was going to go with the Chrysler Solara or the Sunbeam, but a Vauxhall is proof enough...
– Solar Mike
2 days ago
add a comment |
For the angle of the rear window, vertical is basically for the load volume / carrying capacity, getting things with a high roof line opening.
Well, some sedans or sedans with a hatch-back did have rear wipers...
Here's one with a wiper: parkers-images.bauersecure.com/gallery-image/pagefiles/189881/… so you are indeed correct some have a rear wiper.
– juhist
2 days ago
@juhist well, I was going to go with the Chrysler Solara or the Sunbeam, but a Vauxhall is proof enough...
– Solar Mike
2 days ago
add a comment |
For the angle of the rear window, vertical is basically for the load volume / carrying capacity, getting things with a high roof line opening.
Well, some sedans or sedans with a hatch-back did have rear wipers...
For the angle of the rear window, vertical is basically for the load volume / carrying capacity, getting things with a high roof line opening.
Well, some sedans or sedans with a hatch-back did have rear wipers...
answered 2 days ago
Solar MikeSolar Mike
18.2k21032
18.2k21032
Here's one with a wiper: parkers-images.bauersecure.com/gallery-image/pagefiles/189881/… so you are indeed correct some have a rear wiper.
– juhist
2 days ago
@juhist well, I was going to go with the Chrysler Solara or the Sunbeam, but a Vauxhall is proof enough...
– Solar Mike
2 days ago
add a comment |
Here's one with a wiper: parkers-images.bauersecure.com/gallery-image/pagefiles/189881/… so you are indeed correct some have a rear wiper.
– juhist
2 days ago
@juhist well, I was going to go with the Chrysler Solara or the Sunbeam, but a Vauxhall is proof enough...
– Solar Mike
2 days ago
Here's one with a wiper: parkers-images.bauersecure.com/gallery-image/pagefiles/189881/… so you are indeed correct some have a rear wiper.
– juhist
2 days ago
Here's one with a wiper: parkers-images.bauersecure.com/gallery-image/pagefiles/189881/… so you are indeed correct some have a rear wiper.
– juhist
2 days ago
@juhist well, I was going to go with the Chrysler Solara or the Sunbeam, but a Vauxhall is proof enough...
– Solar Mike
2 days ago
@juhist well, I was going to go with the Chrysler Solara or the Sunbeam, but a Vauxhall is proof enough...
– Solar Mike
2 days ago
add a comment |
The reason for the question in the title (why vertical?) is that car has a maximum possible length if you want it to be maneuverable in tight spaces. For example, my Toyota RAV4 hybrid is approximately 4.6 meters long. Quite long, in my opinion. Compared to the Toyota Yaris I used to have, it's much less maneuverable.
If the car was longer, say 5.0 meters long (like Tesla Model X), you couldn't maneuver the car through very tight corners. One of the reasons why I don't have a Tesla Model X (another being its width, third being its price).
Now, Tesla Model X doesn't have a vertical rear window, the window being more like 45 degrees. My Toyota RAV4 hybrid has a vertical rear window.
This means that if you want to transport large objects, a Tesla Model X with its 5.0 meter length is probably approximately as useful as my 4.6 meters long Toyota RAV4 hybrid. Same indoor dimensions at the roof level, much different external dimensions.
Now, would a 45 degree rear window be better? I would say not better, because it would make the car too long externally if it has any useful large object carrying capacity, or make the car's carrying capacity too limited if the external dimensions are sensible.
Am I alone in this opinion? You know, some people actually buy Tesla Model X. I even know somebody who has a Tesla Model X! Personally, I'm happy with my vertical rear window and wouldn't change to a 45 degree window. I'll buy an electric or plug-in-hybrid SUV the day when you can purchase one that has small enough external dimensions, large enough internal dimensions (necessitating a vertical rear window), sensible enough price and made by a reputable manufacturer I can trust.
add a comment |
The reason for the question in the title (why vertical?) is that car has a maximum possible length if you want it to be maneuverable in tight spaces. For example, my Toyota RAV4 hybrid is approximately 4.6 meters long. Quite long, in my opinion. Compared to the Toyota Yaris I used to have, it's much less maneuverable.
If the car was longer, say 5.0 meters long (like Tesla Model X), you couldn't maneuver the car through very tight corners. One of the reasons why I don't have a Tesla Model X (another being its width, third being its price).
Now, Tesla Model X doesn't have a vertical rear window, the window being more like 45 degrees. My Toyota RAV4 hybrid has a vertical rear window.
This means that if you want to transport large objects, a Tesla Model X with its 5.0 meter length is probably approximately as useful as my 4.6 meters long Toyota RAV4 hybrid. Same indoor dimensions at the roof level, much different external dimensions.
Now, would a 45 degree rear window be better? I would say not better, because it would make the car too long externally if it has any useful large object carrying capacity, or make the car's carrying capacity too limited if the external dimensions are sensible.
Am I alone in this opinion? You know, some people actually buy Tesla Model X. I even know somebody who has a Tesla Model X! Personally, I'm happy with my vertical rear window and wouldn't change to a 45 degree window. I'll buy an electric or plug-in-hybrid SUV the day when you can purchase one that has small enough external dimensions, large enough internal dimensions (necessitating a vertical rear window), sensible enough price and made by a reputable manufacturer I can trust.
add a comment |
The reason for the question in the title (why vertical?) is that car has a maximum possible length if you want it to be maneuverable in tight spaces. For example, my Toyota RAV4 hybrid is approximately 4.6 meters long. Quite long, in my opinion. Compared to the Toyota Yaris I used to have, it's much less maneuverable.
If the car was longer, say 5.0 meters long (like Tesla Model X), you couldn't maneuver the car through very tight corners. One of the reasons why I don't have a Tesla Model X (another being its width, third being its price).
Now, Tesla Model X doesn't have a vertical rear window, the window being more like 45 degrees. My Toyota RAV4 hybrid has a vertical rear window.
This means that if you want to transport large objects, a Tesla Model X with its 5.0 meter length is probably approximately as useful as my 4.6 meters long Toyota RAV4 hybrid. Same indoor dimensions at the roof level, much different external dimensions.
Now, would a 45 degree rear window be better? I would say not better, because it would make the car too long externally if it has any useful large object carrying capacity, or make the car's carrying capacity too limited if the external dimensions are sensible.
Am I alone in this opinion? You know, some people actually buy Tesla Model X. I even know somebody who has a Tesla Model X! Personally, I'm happy with my vertical rear window and wouldn't change to a 45 degree window. I'll buy an electric or plug-in-hybrid SUV the day when you can purchase one that has small enough external dimensions, large enough internal dimensions (necessitating a vertical rear window), sensible enough price and made by a reputable manufacturer I can trust.
The reason for the question in the title (why vertical?) is that car has a maximum possible length if you want it to be maneuverable in tight spaces. For example, my Toyota RAV4 hybrid is approximately 4.6 meters long. Quite long, in my opinion. Compared to the Toyota Yaris I used to have, it's much less maneuverable.
If the car was longer, say 5.0 meters long (like Tesla Model X), you couldn't maneuver the car through very tight corners. One of the reasons why I don't have a Tesla Model X (another being its width, third being its price).
Now, Tesla Model X doesn't have a vertical rear window, the window being more like 45 degrees. My Toyota RAV4 hybrid has a vertical rear window.
This means that if you want to transport large objects, a Tesla Model X with its 5.0 meter length is probably approximately as useful as my 4.6 meters long Toyota RAV4 hybrid. Same indoor dimensions at the roof level, much different external dimensions.
Now, would a 45 degree rear window be better? I would say not better, because it would make the car too long externally if it has any useful large object carrying capacity, or make the car's carrying capacity too limited if the external dimensions are sensible.
Am I alone in this opinion? You know, some people actually buy Tesla Model X. I even know somebody who has a Tesla Model X! Personally, I'm happy with my vertical rear window and wouldn't change to a 45 degree window. I'll buy an electric or plug-in-hybrid SUV the day when you can purchase one that has small enough external dimensions, large enough internal dimensions (necessitating a vertical rear window), sensible enough price and made by a reputable manufacturer I can trust.
answered 2 days ago
juhistjuhist
8,90163269
8,90163269
add a comment |
add a comment |
There are basically two options to reduce air resistance at the rear of the car to a minimum.
One is to make the rear flat and vertical. That way, the air flowing over the car doesn't create any turbulence until it has "passed" the rear of the car.
The other way is to make body into an airfoil shape by bringing the roof level down smoothly and raising the floor level at the rear, so the air flow does not separate from the car bodywork. That has been carried to its logical conclusion in experimental solar powered cars (image source: Wikipedia)
Introducing a "backward facing step" by having a flat roof, a vertical rear window, and a flat top to the trunk is pretty much the worst of all worlds, aerodynamically. Hence the rear window is sloped to get closer to an airfoil shape.
In practice, body designs are a compromise between aerodynamic efficiency, functionality and aesthetics - for example a 30-ton truck with a flat rear panel is both functional (to maximize the volume of the cargo space) and aerodynamic, but not pretty!
add a comment |
There are basically two options to reduce air resistance at the rear of the car to a minimum.
One is to make the rear flat and vertical. That way, the air flowing over the car doesn't create any turbulence until it has "passed" the rear of the car.
The other way is to make body into an airfoil shape by bringing the roof level down smoothly and raising the floor level at the rear, so the air flow does not separate from the car bodywork. That has been carried to its logical conclusion in experimental solar powered cars (image source: Wikipedia)
Introducing a "backward facing step" by having a flat roof, a vertical rear window, and a flat top to the trunk is pretty much the worst of all worlds, aerodynamically. Hence the rear window is sloped to get closer to an airfoil shape.
In practice, body designs are a compromise between aerodynamic efficiency, functionality and aesthetics - for example a 30-ton truck with a flat rear panel is both functional (to maximize the volume of the cargo space) and aerodynamic, but not pretty!
add a comment |
There are basically two options to reduce air resistance at the rear of the car to a minimum.
One is to make the rear flat and vertical. That way, the air flowing over the car doesn't create any turbulence until it has "passed" the rear of the car.
The other way is to make body into an airfoil shape by bringing the roof level down smoothly and raising the floor level at the rear, so the air flow does not separate from the car bodywork. That has been carried to its logical conclusion in experimental solar powered cars (image source: Wikipedia)
Introducing a "backward facing step" by having a flat roof, a vertical rear window, and a flat top to the trunk is pretty much the worst of all worlds, aerodynamically. Hence the rear window is sloped to get closer to an airfoil shape.
In practice, body designs are a compromise between aerodynamic efficiency, functionality and aesthetics - for example a 30-ton truck with a flat rear panel is both functional (to maximize the volume of the cargo space) and aerodynamic, but not pretty!
There are basically two options to reduce air resistance at the rear of the car to a minimum.
One is to make the rear flat and vertical. That way, the air flowing over the car doesn't create any turbulence until it has "passed" the rear of the car.
The other way is to make body into an airfoil shape by bringing the roof level down smoothly and raising the floor level at the rear, so the air flow does not separate from the car bodywork. That has been carried to its logical conclusion in experimental solar powered cars (image source: Wikipedia)
Introducing a "backward facing step" by having a flat roof, a vertical rear window, and a flat top to the trunk is pretty much the worst of all worlds, aerodynamically. Hence the rear window is sloped to get closer to an airfoil shape.
In practice, body designs are a compromise between aerodynamic efficiency, functionality and aesthetics - for example a 30-ton truck with a flat rear panel is both functional (to maximize the volume of the cargo space) and aerodynamic, but not pretty!
answered 2 days ago
alephzeroalephzero
1,0641510
1,0641510
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Motor Vehicle Maintenance & Repair Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmechanics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f63138%2fwhy-are-hatchbacks-and-suvs-rear-window-vertical-relative-to-sedans-at-around%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
Bringing the rear roofline inward to tilt the window would reduce the carrying capacity back there, a primary concern for people buying SUVs is "how much stuff can I get back there?"
– Patrick Hughes
2 days ago
1
A sloping rear window between a flat roof and trunk has the paradoxical property that in a certain speed range, the air flow is UP the window, not down, and air (and dirt) are trapped in an eddy behind the window. I used to have a car where rain water moved up the rear window driving between about 40-60 mph. In that situation, a rear wiper doesn't do anything very useful - it pushes the water down but it immediately flows back up.
– alephzero
2 days ago