[JulianEdgar]

It's very hard to argue when everything I write is twisted to suit your particular model of reality.

I've said it all before but I'll try again.

1. Yes, premature separation causes low pressures in the separated area. That's why I can write: "flow separation at the end of the roof of the older car is responsible for the low measured pressures on the rear of the car." It happened a lot on older cars.


but....

2. Flow separation seldom occurs on cars of the last 30 odd years. Therefore, the low pressures do not come from separation. They come from, as I said in the book, the airflow "airflow generating low pressures over the rear half of the car as the air wraps over the long curve*".

You then write "All aerodynamicists would agree with this comment, however not with the implied source of the low pressure" completely ignoring that in fact none of the four professional aerodynamicists who read the draft raised any issue with that statement.

Basically, like with many of your statements with regard to car aero, they reflect:

1) You haven't kept up with the literature...


2) ...so you apply models and understandings that were relevant 30-40 years ago but not to most cars now.

If you were to get out on the road and measure some pressures on recent cars, you would not have to rely on your theories about what you think is happening, and instead could actually see what is really happening.

(*I could have said instead "the lift comes from the camber of the body", but I try to write as simply as possible.)