Well... duh? A fairer comparison would be the cow vs jeep. A sea creature vs something designed for land isn't that great of a comparison because water is thick enough that you're going to need some kind of aerodynamic (fluodynamic?) adaptation to survive. Air is thin enough that evolution can sacrifice some aerodynamics for other traits.
At the speed cars move at, air behaves much like water. They're both fluids. The faster you move the more resistance it has, but also the more dense the fluid is the more resistance it has. Moving quickly through the air is similar to moving slowly through water.
I think it would be hydrodynamic and screw evolution I want my beef to be as aerodynamic as an F1.
So is a cow more aerodynamic than a Jeep? Edit: Nevermind, it got kind of answered in another thread.
Even though you already got your answer, yes. Yes they are lmao. All I was trying to say, however, was that it's not exactly fair to compare "creatures" that exist in two different mediums.
I'm gonna need to put oversized tires, a jack, and a custom air intake on it for all my trips to Walmart.
On the lobster?
This guy gets it
Thats because its...
HYDRODYNAMICALLY DESIGNEDhave you ever submerged a jeep? i have. doesn't go very fast.
Then why do they have those mufflers that stick above the car?
Lobsters go the other way though...
Hey now - I ain't judging nobody.
There’s a Jordan Peterson joke in here somewhere
Wouldn't a lobster technically be waterodynamic? Or eauodynamic? What's Latin for water...?
Hydrodynamic
Ugh, of course! Thank you! So dumb of me. Hydrohomies and all. Appreciate it.
eauodynamic is so fun to pronounce.
Cyclist hate this not because of the danger it pose, but because it's not aero.
That looks like a TJ generation. I’ve also seen these with the JK (usually compared with a cow). I’d be curious to see the JL/JT, though, because they did a very clever job of rounding it off while making it look like it’s still flat.
