There are other cyclists who have tried fairings, several websites have faired bikes in their archives. you might want to try:

http://www.speed101.com

http://www.ihpva.org

http://www.wisil.recumbents.com

What I've done different is that I stuck with an upright bike, instead of a recumbent.
However, I always wanted a utility bike, for haulage. The aerodynamics are secondary. My theory is that it would be easier to test an experimental fairing on a utility bike that has a front platform. This gives me more protection if a car cuts me off, like in one of those dreaded "right hooks".

As for the iMac, It really looks a lot like the Type 9 fairing, but it's not fiberglass and I therefore can't trust it to be load-bearing. With fiberglass, I can add layers and small pieces to re-inforce the shell in critical weight bearing areas. But the similarity is superficial. The Type 9 is one piece, including frame and fairing. The iMac case, is three pieces, one of them colored, the other two translucent clear.

I've tried lots of ideas, and many things that people said would never work, actually worked. The Type 6 was a velomobile, and the Type 5 just had the front end of the Type 6. Both Types 5 and 6 went faster than an unfaired bicycle due to their aerodynamics. Types 7 and 9 however, were designed by people in Florida, who had test ridden the Type 5, and said it was too hot, on account the fairing blocked most of the wind. So the Types 7 and 9 are really too small to deflect wind around the rider, and don't offer any speed advantage.

I have more ideas, but I don't have the time or the money to build all of them!

I've come to the conclusion that fairings work best when the rider is completely enclosed, like a velomobile. But as I said, the Floridians say it's too hot, maybe that's why velomobiles are produced in Northern countries like the Netherlands and Denmark. Those countries also have lots of bike paths, where the people don't have to worry about getting hit by a car.

Lets get back to the original subject: The Box. I'm not thinking "outside the box", I'm just thinking about the box itself. This may be dull and unimaginative, but let's talk about the box. I could have mounted a box on the bike, it would be fine for carrying groceries. Maybe I should stick with quadrilateral & rectilinear boxes, instead of adding compound curves?
A front mounted box would block the riders vision just as much as a fairing, though , wouldn't it? I've tried coroplast boxes on other bike recently, one a ten inch cube, the other a twelve inch cube. There's a big difference. I could make a variety of front boxes, besides ten and twelve, I might try eight inch cubes. I might go bigger and try fourteen and sixteen inch cubes. Coroplast is pretty cheap. Now put on your thinking hat: a sixteen inch cube is Eight times the volume of an eight inch cube! Don't think outside the box, just think inside a different box.

Size and proportion are important factors. There are many parameters. Refinement of a design from this year to the next is an option.

What if I am riding a bike with a large , cubic box on the front end, and I have to negotiate a tight turn, where I might brush against some fixed obstacle (car, fence, pedestrian, shopping cart, another bike, etc.)... Would it be better if the box had rounded corners, say, to a minimum of one inch radius? The rounded corners might prevent the corners from digging into the obstacle, so that I might glance off, rather than snag, would they not? Would the rounded corners reduce wind drag as well? Yes they would.



Well, I've been droning on quite a bit. I'll let you digest this reply, and you can ask more questions if you wish.