Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
|
I started to, but there was so much that was wrong / outdated / irrelevant I gave up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
Anything that can't be falsified should still be valid. No?
|
It's a nice idea, but no, it's not valid.
Specific example: Aerohead's understanding of how car shape influences drag works for the BMW 2002 (and notchback cars of a similar age), but is completely wrong for current cars. This in turn leads him to give quite incorrect advice as to how apparently low drag shapes create lift - or don't, as the case may be.
And there are many other examples.
I have no idea of Aerohead's circumstances, but in an area like car aero, if you stop reading any material after Hucho second edition, you're likely (to a greater or lesser degree) to be wrong in multiple areas in any advice you give.
I agree with what I have read from Aerohead on coastdown testing, and testing of models in wind tunnels without taking into account Reynold's numbers inconsistencies.
But so much of other material that he states - usually with no qualifications at all - is simply garbage.
And garbage that I think is dressed up in high falutin' language that gives it false credibility. (But as a teacher of writing, that might be just my unwarranted bias.)