Quote:
Originally Posted by kach22i
Again, flawed as any 3D template is and using only the latter half in 2D is, it's better than nothing at all for the novice experimenter.
The starting point is not flawed if it gets one to a working end point.
I have commented before about what I describe as an engineer's affinity for efficiency. This affinity for chasing an idealized solution often ignores less efficient designs which may lead to narrow thinking.
The attraction of the Morelli design for me and others is that it dares to color outside of these standard coloring book lines.
It is outside the box that we learn more about the box.
|
No, I think you have it quite reversed. Using a template of any type makes us think in 'the box' that the templates creates. Far better to test a variety of approaches and see what works, rather than have the template already directing us in a certain direction.
Concrete example: when I made the roof extension to my Skoda Roomster, I tested many different angles until I found that which gave the best results. The final design therefore took into account everything happening on the car - boundary layer thickness, wake pattern, etc. I didn't have any preconceptions as to what would work - which I would have had, if I'd thought a template (any template) would be a guide.
Quote:
Thank you Julian for describing the differing boundary layer thickness dependant on the body forefront.
I have struggled to understand this before and your comments click into place many lose ends that went underexposed and undetermined in this forum in the past.
|
That's OK. Templates (and Aerohead's endless discussion of ideal shapes) I see as relevant only if we were all developing cars from scratch. If we are working with an existing car shape (ie modifying it) I think templates - any templates - are worse than useless.