Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
[time for some popcorn. It's gonna be epic]
|
Honestly, there is a lot of misinformation discussed here (and of course some excellent information as well). I sometimes think that people don't even stop to think for a moment before accepting advice / statements that have been made. Then they apparently become gospel - weird.
- Streamlined bodies don't develop lift? What, then, is an aircraft wing?
- Airflow over the curved upper surfaces of a car doesn't develop lift? Really, when you can see in any pressure measurement diagram of a car all that top surface lift?
- Percentage drag reductions can be precisely quantified as fuel economy gains? And that's apparently irrespective of the car?
- Kamm tails (as opposed to the use of simple separation edges) are somehow great for drag? Really? What's an example, and don't give me those K cars from the 1930s that now measure at 0.37!
- There is a perfect streamline template shape? And this is irrespective of the thickness of the boundary layer (which will be car-dependent)?
- Box cavities are a panacea? And that despite almost no mention in the technical literature?
- Coast down tests are accurate? And that's when even the experts hate them (unless they're using very sophisticated equipment).
- Full wheel covers are always best for low drag? There are specific, recent tech papers than contradict that.
It's a bit frustrating when you see so many people putting in work and enthusiasm to modify the aero of their cars when there is so much poor advice being given out.
Note that I am not throwing the baby out with the bath water - there is some excellent information here, and some very good testing (especially mileage over long periods). And that's great. But it's so frustrating reading older threads where suggestions are made, I think to myself 'that won't work' (or - often - 'the difference will be so small, forget it'), and then after a lot of time and effort, the OP says 'that didn't make any difference'.