Happy 2025! Somehow, we’re a full quarter into the 21st century, and, like all of you, that just means there’s one thing on your mind right now: The shocking and sober realization that it has been a full century since one was able to buy a new Rumpler Tropfenwagen.
That’s right! Any Rumpler Tropfenwagen you see on, say, Facebook Marketplace or Craigslist is going to be a full century old at this point, no matter what the seller claims. So keep that in mind!
It’s hard to believe this amazing car has been off the market for 100 years! This was the first actually streamlined car, with a drag coefficient of 0.28 (as tested by Volkswagen engineers in 1979, maybe on a dare?) which is the same as a 2009 Chevy Volt, for example, or a C6 Corvette or a freaking Koenigsegg Jesko!
The Rumpler Tropfenwagen was an astounding achievement, way, way ahead of its time. Introduced in 1921, this was a mid-rear engined car that seated four to six people (depending on model), had a novel W6 engine, with three banks of two cylinders, and also the first application of swing axles. I get that swing axles today don’t enjoy the best reputation, but they were one of the first viable powered-rear-axle independent suspension setups.
Look at those beautiful swing axles! And that bonkers curved radiator!
The 36 hp engine was enough, thanks to the revolutionary aerodynamics, able to get the not-small car up to over 70 mph!
Here, watch some Rumplers in action:
And did you catch that fantastic early semaphore/trafficator-style turn indicator? Look!
Hot damn, that’s the stuff.
The Rumpler was also something of a movie star, showing up in Fritz Lang’s 1927 futuristic sci-fi film Metropolis, though sometimes not always in the ideal context:
Only about 100 Tropfenwagens were made, so the ones seen in Metropolis represent a pretty good percentage of all the Rumplers that were out there.
Amazing cars, no question. But as of today, you’re a century late to buy one. Sorry to be the one to give bad news to start your year, but I felt you had a right to know.
Were there different models of this car? I’m seeing three different windshield designs: three glass panels mounted vertically and assymetrically in the cutaway view, a single curved and sloping panel in the movie still, and a half-height curved panel over a flat pane in the last illustration.
I think semaphores deserve a resurgence. I’d like to add some to my modern car. Wireless units would be nice, mounted magnetically, with cascading LEDs.
The Rumpler Tropfen wagon combination of conning tower and greenhouse is a.awesome as it gets. How cool it would be to put a greenhouse like that on VW bus and let all that light in.
Rumpler Tropfen(schwimm)wagen seems like a missed opportunity.
I’m reminded of the MAYA strategy – “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable”. The Rumpler was the most advanced automobile it was technically possible to produce in 1922-24 but it was a long way from acceptable. Cars looked a certain way and this one just didn’t. And its’ benefits weren’t accessible because the roads weren’t good enough to reach and sustain a 70mph cruising speed or even much more than 35.
It was also very expensive and being sold pretty much exclusively in Germany at a time when Germany’s economy was less than stellar, neither of which helped
The unconventional engineering also meant that it would likely have always remained expensive in comparison to more conventional cars, even if the unit cost could have been reduced with mass production
Look, I know I said I wanted a parsh for Christmas (and you’re LATE), but one of these would do.
Two words: MUSEUM HEIST.
Two Tropfenwagens are known to survive and are in museums:
https://www.deutsches-museum.de/verkehrszentrum/ausstellungen/mobilitaet-und-technik/objekte#c9993
and
https://technikmuseum.berlin/assets/Technikmuseum/Bilder/Dauerausstellungen/Luft-_und_Raumfahrt/technikmuseum-luftfahrt-tropfenwagen-rumpler.jpg
I’m in. Do we get to share driving time if we need more crew? Maybe the two us can pull it off.
Watching the video, with such a pointy backside could this be one of the only vehicles every made that required two rear license plates to satisfy visibility requirements?
I’ve always wondered how to effectively mount license plates on cars with pointy rear ends, given that I like the idea of cars with pointy rear ends. Somehow I never considered the idea of TWO rear license plates… Not sure if the DMV would go for that…
It took a century for the average new car o catch up to the Tropfenwagen’s drag coefficient value. That is a lot of fuel and resources needlessly wasted on whatever sort of styling the marketing people think looks cool and which they can quickly replace with something else to keep selling more cars with whatever new styling they advertise…
As a species, we can do so much better than this.
Cx is good, SCx less so as the car is high. Also, it seems not very space-efficient despite the compact engine, and not very safe (driver is the collapsable zone, as in any forward cab). These are far bigger issues than a simple styling problem
We actually had quite a few cars that hit 0.27 in the mid to late ’90s. Like the Dodge Stratus and it’s sisters. Or the Opel Calibra. Or the Audi A8. Or the Mazda Millenia.
Embrace the jellybean. Reject creases.
…in the mid to late ‘90s.
Ok, so what about all the years before that. The car makers obviously COULD do better. But they didn’t.
Actually we did. There were at least two cars sold each year in the U.S. with 0.28 or better from 1978 to 1996. It was only once the early 2000s started and you had half-assed compliance with new for 2004 crash regulations drunkenly hook up with The Fast And The Furious tuner styling that created the giant inlets in bumpers where the trend reversed and the numbers started getting worse. Then you pile on the airflow disrupting headlight designs (if you ever notice how the headlights protrude from the car, they’re trying to reduce wind noise), the creases in the sides to improve body rigidity, the brick wall level blunt front ends because god forbid a car have an overhang due to the bumper, and the focus on placing the front wheels as far forward and as far out as can be managed so that marketing can wax on about “sporty” handling characteristics and you get the terrible drag coefficients of modern cars. The fastback roofs and extreme rake of the front windshield on modern sedans are them trying to fix all of that. It’s the equivalent of looping progressively more belts into eachother to hold up your pants when you could just buy smaller pants and get rid of the belts entirely.
This is not really correct. The bottom line is, cars are mostly economical enough for customers now. Very, very few buyers are going to sacrifice appearance or equipment for an extra couple of mpg. OEMs put a lot of effort into aero and improving economy on existing form factors because compromised streamliners wouldn’t sell to the mainstream, and they attract fines if they don’t.
How much of it is a mix of all these factors though? Intended design versus crash safety regulation versus checkbox items? There’s a lot of facets of modern car design that keep the average Cd above 0.31 like the noise reduction surfaces, and I’ve always wondered what specific combination of factors is considered valuable enough to keep things from going lower.
From what I understand one of the biggest ones from about 2004 to 2010 was maximizing interior volume as safety standards warranted thicker A-pillars ad door bars with more airbags. That meant shorter rear decks as the rear windshield got pushed back, flatter sides to the greenhouse instead of the curves up into the roof that had started in the late ’80s, and pushing the front wheels as far forward as they could, leaving a blunter faced more upright sedan/hatchback. That definitely reduced aerodynamic efficiency, but what else has gotten us to the point where modern cars are back to where they were circa 1986 or so?
Can we? Wouldn’t we? /s
“And that bonkers curved radiator!”
The cutaway drawing shows a square or rectangular radiator. Which came first, the conventional radiator or the curved radiator? Seems like maybe a case of continual adjustments and improvements? Much like the Tucker Torpedo where they kept making adjustments and improvements so #1 has a lot of differences from #50? How much would a 1921 Tropfenwagen (#1) have been different from a 1924 Tropfenwagen (#100)? Yeah, the Rumpler Tropfenwagen and the Tucker Torpedo are mighty fascinating. Alas, all too quixotic. What would today’s automotive landscape look like if these had actually succeeded??
The chassis with the curved radiator does not come from a Rumpler Tropfenwagen, but from a Benz Tropfenwagen, for which Rumpler’s design was further developed for a racing car.
https://mercedes-benz-publicarchive.com/marsClassic/en/instance/ko/Benz-RH-2-litre-Teardrop-racing-car-1923–1925.xhtml?oid=6790
I’d rather have this than an ID.Buzz.
I always find it interesting how much attention the spare tire gets in old car ads. It must have been important to consumers. Along with luggage space.
It was, tires had to be replaced frequently
It don’t mean a thing
If it ain’t got that swing.
Sadly, we are not: we are 24 years and a day or two into the 21st century.
The 21st century began on January 1st 2001, not January 1st 2000.
Ha, yeah, the debate continues… it could be argued that your contention for what constitutes a century relies on the assumption that the year ending in ’00’ simply does not exist and that counting must start with the year ending in ’01’ but most people think of xx99 as the end of a century and since 0-99 contains the same number of units as 1-100 it stands to reason that a century that ends with ’99’ would start with ’00’ so it has a full hundred years.
Word
Your first year (of life) you are 0 years old. Someone born in 1900 would be 1 in 1901 and 100 in 2000. That person would rightfully say a century begins with year ‘00.
I don’t accept that the first year was called 0001. It was really 0000
That would have been my grandfather.
How old were you when you stopped being a teenager and were in your 20s? After your 30th birthday were you in your 20s or thirties?
There is no year zero. It was probably a mistake, but it’s too late to fix.
Also, nobody was sitting around thinking “why are the years running backwards” believe me.
You must be a lot of fun at parties.
(I am, too.)
Getting eerie proto Tucker Torpedo vibes from that last pic.
Expecting one of these of FB Marketplace soon, out in Ass-End, with the listing text “Ran when parked.”
There’s a possibility, someone is selling an immaculate 1902 White steam roadster on there right now, you’d think there’d be more specialized venues for marketing something like that, but evidently not.
I should be surprised but I’m not. Every time I take the back roads instead of the interstate I’ll be on some 2 lane and see something interesting parked under a tree or against a barn or something. Driving through Appalachia I’ve seen a TVR, a Henry J, bugeye Sprite and I think I remember seeing a Dino at one time. Off roads that Waze and all the other nav apps don’t even bother to name.
It might be on Hemming’s too
I miss their blog and the ‘Car Spotting’ photo feature
Torch, I am sort of surprised that you mentioned the swing axles but didn’t also make a comment about the position of the leaf springs on said axles. Not quite Corvette-style transverse, but still an interesting setup.
Yes, semi elliptic leaf springs as trailing arms, not sure I have seen that before.
I’m impressed by the spare tire storage solution as well.
Be that as it may I’m sure it was still unsafe at any speed.
Who knew Ralph Nader was almost half a century late?!
Nader’s point was that the carmakers sacrificed safety for profit. He called out other cars, too, but the Corvair (actually a good car) got the bad press that everyone remembers