[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

It's not 'trumpet blowing' to say I have written a book on the topic. It's a statement of reality. If I have already written all that I know about the topic in 100,000+ words and 400+ pics, why would I waste my time doing it all over again?

I do the videos only to promote the books. No more, no less. In fact, at the moment I have stopped doing them because Covid has depressed book sales so much it's not worth my time doing the videos.

I honestly don't understand the philosophy that poor advice is better than none. Why not instead aim for good advice? And why this idea that information that is clearly and demonstrably wrong should not be challenged? I've seen that also in other discussion groups and it strikes me as ludicrous: that because we shouldn't rock the boat, we shouldn't call out stuff that people write which is completely wrong. Not just a bit deceptive, but outright wrong.

I've never said that 'the template' is not a low drag shape: I'd imagine it is. But the way that idea has been extrapolated to purport to give guidance to the height of rear spoilers, to guide the shape of car extensions, to be used as some kind of benchmark when judging the aero of existing cars - all are just rubbish. But it gets worse, because the template has then (apparently) fed into Aerohead's weird theory that flow will not stay attached if the shape curves downwards more quickly than the template - and in turn that has led (apparently) to his completely wrong theory on how lift occurs on modern cars.

It's a skyscraper built on a base of sand, and it has resulted in massive misunderstandings that can be seen across almost all aero topics on this group.

Only to the uneducated would it appear a weird theory. Your extremely qualified as uneducated in the face of data and information,repeatedly thrown at your feet. Graduate and post -Doc level material.
We're casting pearls before swine.