Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnClark
Its used in science quite a bit. Go read some Nasa papers.
In this case the tests were run more like an A B C test.
A no clay
B with clay
C with dimples
Those factors aren't going to get you an 11% change. The fact that the A and B tests were so similar shows a high level of consistency in their test methods. A 5% change would be debatable but an 11% change can't be ignored.
|
Which is why the tests should be repeated. Heck, I'd be completely satisfied if they took off the clay, stuffed it in the back of the car and drove around and measured one last "A" after performing ABC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnClark
But then your introducing error because you have to create to sets of molds. and you can't be sure they are the same except for just the dimples. Pop on and Pop off panels will vibrate thus creating drag.
|
If both sets of panels are pop-on, then that's good enough. It's not like having clay layered over the top of your paint, exaggerating shut lines, panel gaps and edging around windows doesn't introduce error, right?
I was thinking a Fiero would be the perfect candidate, but the Taurus probably has better starting aero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnClark
Keep posting on their fan page then and get them to do it. I however haven't seen one decent argument that will nullify an 11% gain. In reality the gain may be lower but its not going to be negative
|
Aside from what has already been mentioned, consider... the car got better and better economy as the testing went on. If the clay introduced turbulence that caused worse consumption, it could have been masked by different testing conditions between "A" and "B-C".
Do the fiberglass molds. Then test the steel car back-to-back with the glass-bodied car. Economy should be within measurement error. If not, there's something wrong with your molds. Then pop on the dimpled panels. Measure. Pop off, measure. Pop on, measure. Pretty simple. Doesn't involve nearly a ton of clay.