Ah, so it is your reading comprehension that is the culprit of your displayed stupidity. Well, you’re not alone so you can take comfort in that.

I stated that aerodynamics is not to blame for boring looking cars, and I substantiated that with good looking aerodynamically efficient cars.

Thanks for the kind words

No it is not. Go back to whatever school people told you that and demand a refund. CD is dimensionless.

Aerodynamics is based on ratio, reason and nature. To claim that you dislike that is as wrong as someone who claims to dislike sweet or fat food. The preference for the naturalistic aesthetic is hard wired in your brain. The strength of this appeal to nature is most clearly visible in the world of medicine, where…

These styling tricks aim to trick the light, trick the eye, disguise the bulk and sameness of today’s increasingly aerodynamic, regulated, and standardized cars.

Some strangely empty space here

Diana was already sort of taken by Citröen

Other princess names that Nissan could crib:

If you’re standing with your back to the bar...

Another innovation on the Chiron. 2D printed lights for lower weight.

Yes, but really, there is nobody around hating on trucks for using solid rear axles. Not even the ‘eurosnobs’.

Have fun crashing over every single bump in the road with your car that ‘is faster than an M3 around Laguna Seca’.

...or anyone else valuing decent ride?

Make a Lambo SUV version of that to outcrazy Bentley, retain Lamborghini credibility and find a different niche than corporate stablemate Bentley.

Somebody at Jaguar Land Rover told me that they don’t believe the Bentley Bentayga can do 187 mph because their people couldn’t push theRange Rover Sport SVR anywhere close to that, despite its weight advantage and 550 horses.

So you come up to people and ask them if they know their electric car is charged using coal-fired plants.

Newtons second law greatly complicates things in this case, as the second law assumes the source of the force can keep up in terms of power. It’s much more applicable to a constant-thrust engine such as a jet engine. You could do all sorts of complicated math starting from newtons second law to derive an acceleration…

The problem is not complicated at all. The nice thing from an energy point of view is that you also get the time into your equations. So you bring your problem into the real world. The energy equation is easily expanded to take into account driveline loss, aerodynamic drag and a power curve.

Nope, you’re just digging your own hole deeper.