Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
Interesting that the curved-wall,curved-ceiling,A2 wind tunnel data went uncontested, but somehow,the curved-wall,curved-ceiling,DARKO data, a wind tunnel of which shares its design from the same Gary Eaker of the A2, is immediately called into question.
Do you also slam Pininfarina? It has a remarkably small test section cross-section and 'blockage-ratio' , yet return some of the best numbers in inter-tunnel calibration model testing.
Have you read Alan Pope's book on low-speed wind tunnel testing?
And perhaps it didn't register, that Hucho commented, that it didn't matter what tunnel one used for vehicle-specific testing,as long as you stuck with the same tunnel.
And perhaps you're unaware that people like us weren't allowed into, or couldn't compensate for all the race teams which had 'big tunnels' pre-paid for all the tunnel time spoken for,for years into the future.
|
So if tiny wind tunnels without moving wheels are all that's needed, car manufacturers have chosen to build huge wind tunnels just because they like spending money? I mean seriously, anyone who defends data yielded from a tiny wind tunnel with a massive blockage factor is just off in another world.
And yes, I do have the cited book on wind tunnel testing. Five of the 18 chapters are devoted to the corrections needed to gain any useful data! And a small wind tunnel just makes everything worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You haven't proved any theory wrong so far.
|
I have comprehensively proved wrong many of your applications of theory to real cars. As I have said, I don't care what you believe, but when you start leading others astray with your poor advice, then I don't think that is right.