Those interested in Geo Metro Kammback advice can skip this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kach22i
When you say useful, you mean following conventional wisdom, right?
As pointed out in this thread there are several Japanese hybrids which truncate the arc over the roof at a greater angle than "our template". The reason for this is still being debated, and that debate is healthy in my opinion.
Back when we talked about altering the roof of a +2005 Mustang to fit the template the idea of re-scaling the template for the canopy somehow gained more acceptance than in this thread.
|
I take it
Conventional wisdom would be the culmination of decades of aerodynamic research by seasoned professionals? Then yes, I would suggest sticking to conventional wisdom.
Yes, we do know each car is designed and modified on a case-by-case basis, HOWEVER, major changes such as the ideal angle of the rear glass are taken on by seasoned professionals in full-size wind tunnels in huge design and engineering facilities. They are tested and re-tested. They are built from the ground up to be a cohesive form.
Adding a kammback to an existing car without wind tunnel testing is an entirely different beast and we need to play it safe, using tried-and-true methods and forms in order to make things work as well as possible. We need to build off of known values and "conventional wisdom" to be reasonably confident the things we build will work as intended.
Throwing your hat in the ring because you think
maybe unconventional changes
might work in the right circumstances is not productive in this thread. Don't post an unfounded opinion as some sort of "alternate" fact.
Quote:
My goal in examining the re-scaling of the template is to discover the exceptions to the rules, not to redefine the rules or aero template.
There is something to be learned here, I just haven't quite figured out what yet.
|
Until you test these theories and exhibit some form of real-world expertise on them, please refrain from posting them in otherwise serious threads. Moving drawings around in Photoshop does nothing to advance aerodynamic theory and only serves to confuse those who don't know better.
If you haven't learned what you're trying to learn it might be good to learn it before trying to teach others.
We have the Unicorn Corral for spitballing about this kind of stuff, and I personally think that's where this "debate" should stay.
Until it's proven.
Until then, we have no reason to believe that the template is not serving its intended purpose. We have no reason to discard it or modify it. Next time, if you're thinking about using the template improperly, just STOP and think about what you're doing.
Just follow WWJD (What Would Jaray Do). Imagine having to explain to Paul Jaray why you're doing what you do. Saying "it looks like it'll work" or "why not?" isn't good enough.