Best Lookng Kamm Rear Ends?
Discussion
Never have understood why the Aston Volante has received so much flak for the Kamm tail whereas the very similar Lusso has never had anything but praise. It always seemed to me that Aston brought the car into the 1960s from the rather staid rears of the 1950s and matched the voluptuous front.
I realise that the 330 is not a Kamm but still very lovely.
Several other Ferraris have Kamm tails which look like an afterthought (GTO)
http://www.conceptcarz.com/events/eventVehicle.asp...
Quite like the Shelby Daytona but not very subtle
Any more beauties?
john2443 said:
I'm not sure that is a Kamm tail is it, in fact there are a few on the thread that aren't, correct me if I'm wrong, but a Kamm should be a sloping, teardrop, shape that's chopped off flat.
You are correct according to Wiki as it seems that the front of the car must be aerodynamic and teardrop shaped for the least turbulent flow of air. Perhaps the TR6 is a bit blunt at the front!"There is controversy about the proportions of a true Kamm tail. According to the classic definition the tail should be cut off where it has tapered to approximately 50% of the car's maximum cross section,[10] which Kamm found represented a good compromise—by that point the turbulence typical of flat-back vehicles had been mostly eliminated at typical speeds. Thus a minivan is not a Kammback, and neither are numerous cars that have truncated tails.
In addition to aerodynamic efficiency, Wunibald Kamm also emphasized vehicle stability in his design.[4] He proved mathematically and empirically the effectiveness of the design.[6] The Kamm-back, or K-form, was a body with a smoothly contoured front that continues to an abrupt vertical flat surface in the rear.[7]"
I have always loved the Marcos 3 litre, thanks for posting. The GT 40 is just brutish!
tapkaJohnD said:
This one's pretty damn good - and it was made by a snowstorm!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/emilymills/541121533...
JOhn
There will be another prize for the identification of that car!https://www.flickr.com/photos/emilymills/541121533...
JOhn
I did not realise the competition when I started. this thread so I now think that the Kamm must have some beneficial effect and not be just cosmetic .
For instance the DB6 was meant to have created about 100 lbs downforce at three figure speeds whereas the DB5 was deemed to be unstable at these speeds.
A Shelby Daytona gained perhaps 20 mph on the Mulsanne straight.
The Charger is about as ugly as the Alfa Tipo 33 is beautiful!
I think that a line must be drawn between cars that have a definite Kamm tail where the whole car has been designed around airflow from the front to the rear with little compromise (Shelby Daytona) and cars that have been tweaked at the rear end with a mini spoiler just to improve the airflow a bit but not dig into boot space. (Early Aston Virage)
I think that a line must be drawn between cars that have a definite Kamm tail where the whole car has been designed around airflow from the front to the rear with little compromise (Shelby Daytona) and cars that have been tweaked at the rear end with a mini spoiler just to improve the airflow a bit but not dig into boot space. (Early Aston Virage)
tapkaJohnD said:
Vanin,
As I think an earlier poster said, Prof.Kamm claimed no downforce for his design, but stability and low drag.
John
I thought that the reason Aston put the Kamm tail on the DB6 was because the DB5 was deemed to be unstable at 120 mph due to lift at the rear. The Kamm put 100 lbs downforce instead of the uplift and therefore gave stability.As I think an earlier poster said, Prof.Kamm claimed no downforce for his design, but stability and low drag.
John
Are you saying that Kamm's designs did not include the flip up tail but just the cut off teardrop?
slomax said:
ive always loved the Marcos back end, especially on the 3 litre.
I think that there are a lot of lovely rear ends on this thread thanks for posting. I have also learned a thing or two such as the flip tail not being part of Prof Kamm's theory.I think the Marcos seems to be the shape most faithful to the teardrop as it tapers both horizontally and vertically at the rear as well as being gorgeous.
I am not sure of its c. of drag but then the same early 128 bhp V6 Essex engine would be pushed to make a Capri do 115 mph, it managed at least another 10 mph with the Marcos.
[quote But Kamm tails don't always work. The DB6 looks dreadful next to a DB4. OK not just because of the rear end but the wheelbase etc which wrecks the design.
[/quote]
Now that is very subjective and stirring! It is one of those comments reinforced by repetition. The poor DB6 suffers a lot from this, abandoned Supperleggera bodywork, much heavier, a truck to drive. I call it crapetition, a new word for the Oxford Dictionary!
The DB4 has a purity of line and is very 1950s and ordinary in many ways looking very much like many other cars of the time. Particularly the AC Greyhound from the rear and not unlike many Austin/Morris Farina designs both front and rear.
Again referring to my first post, I have never heard anybody say that the rear of the Lusso looks dreadful? It is very similar.
Read this month's Octane!
[/quote]
Now that is very subjective and stirring! It is one of those comments reinforced by repetition. The poor DB6 suffers a lot from this, abandoned Supperleggera bodywork, much heavier, a truck to drive. I call it crapetition, a new word for the Oxford Dictionary!
The DB4 has a purity of line and is very 1950s and ordinary in many ways looking very much like many other cars of the time. Particularly the AC Greyhound from the rear and not unlike many Austin/Morris Farina designs both front and rear.
Again referring to my first post, I have never heard anybody say that the rear of the Lusso looks dreadful? It is very similar.
Read this month's Octane!
The Mk 111 is gorgeous too.
I think that a problem with the DB6 from some angles is that if it had the same triangular window as the 4 and 5 it would emphasise the line from the top of the doors to the rear which disappears in some paint colours when viewed from the side.
This gives a slab sided image in a photo which does not appear in the flesh.
It's best angle is a three quarter viewed from the rear.
The 4 and 5 have an awkward looking joint where the roof meets the tail. There is a rather sharp curve which makes it look as though the roof has been added as an afterthought as opposed to the way the 6 roof flows into the rear.
We all have our good and bad sides when posing do we not?!!
I think that a problem with the DB6 from some angles is that if it had the same triangular window as the 4 and 5 it would emphasise the line from the top of the doors to the rear which disappears in some paint colours when viewed from the side.
This gives a slab sided image in a photo which does not appear in the flesh.
It's best angle is a three quarter viewed from the rear.
The 4 and 5 have an awkward looking joint where the roof meets the tail. There is a rather sharp curve which makes it look as though the roof has been added as an afterthought as opposed to the way the 6 roof flows into the rear.
We all have our good and bad sides when posing do we not?!!
LordBretSinclair said:
So when did you last actually drive a DB6 for any length of time?????
I drive this particular example on a regular basis and it's a joy to drive - nothing like a truck !!!!
I do not think you have quite understood what I mean by crapetition, which is the repetition of crap.I drive this particular example on a regular basis and it's a joy to drive - nothing like a truck !!!!
Journalists read other journalists pieces without doing their own research. Auction houses are worse.
The DB6 is a delight to drive, is not a truck and they only made a few changes to the sub structure to the roof which supports the aluminium panel and which actually weighs less than the Superleggera original as well as being stronger.
The car actually weighs less than a top range VW Golf.
The answer to your question is thirty four years.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff