View Single Post
Old 10-02-2020, 06:23 PM   #68 (permalink)
JulianEdgar
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,060
Thanks: 107
Thanked 1,605 Times in 1,136 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
Aerohead emphasizes getting your shape "close". Julian emphasizes "testing".

Both are right.

Unfortunately, they have been butting heads. Though we have all benefited from their contributions, it does take some filtering to see the value. Julian does not get a pass for his veiled put downs of those "deemed" less capable than he and his cadre of experts. Neither does Aerohead. If you spank one, you should spank the other.

I've worked on aerodynamic projects. You start with theory and mathematical models to get the shape "close". Then you test and measure.

Few who read this forum will ever get to complete a clean-sheet project from start to finish but they can divine information from both viewpoints.
I can see you might think that if you've just skimmed stuff. But unfortunately a great deal of what Aerohead writes here - and especially when he gives advice or theorizes - is simply outright wrong.

Whether that's because he hasn't understood the theory or is just mis-applying it, I don't know. Sometimes, he takes accepted (and correct) theory and then just extrapolates it into complete weirdness.

And then we have to add that he hasn't bothered keeping up with aero developments of the last 20-30 years.

The result is that he is grossly in error on many aero topics.

Just off the top off my head here are some of things he constantly gives incorrect advice on:

- attached and separated flow patterns
- pressure distributions on cars
- the relative importance of lift forces
- the lowest drag wheel designs
- how rear spoilers work on current cars
- best angles for rear diffusers
- sharpest rear angles that will retain attached flow
- flow patterns on current notchback cars

Then overlay all that misinformation with some truly weird conspiracy theories about how car makers develop cars, write in a pseudo-sophisticated mumbo jumbo that is often impenetrable, and we have a fascinating situation that has obviously developed over a long time.

Unfortunately, by far the number 1 source of misinformation on aerodynamics on this forum is Aerohead.

I used to think about half of what he wrote was wrong / misleading / irrelevant, but as he has now been nominating references in an attempt to support his misleading statements (and where I have them, I have been checking those references), I now realise it's even higher than that.

I don't like misinformation about car modification being spread: it costs too many people money and time - people who should be benefitting from the best info available, not wrong and/or outdated advice and strange theories.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JulianEdgar For This Useful Post:
aerohead (10-07-2020)