Quote:
Originally Posted by Vman455
JulianEdgar hasn't been posturing; he's called you out on a lot of the BS you've been spewing which everyone here (including myself) have been caught up in for quite some time. Quite the contrary: he has consistently maintained, since his arrival on this forum, that we should be TESTING, observing, and experimenting. More than once he has posted that we SHOULD NOT take his word for it, but test, measure, and observe for ourselves. You have responded, consistently, with vitriol, name-calling, and, now, disgusting metaphors. You've set a new low bar.
* * * * *
Back on topic. My copy of Road Vehicle Aerodynamic Design, 3rd ed. (2009), just arrived a few minutes ago. Food for thought--literally the first sentence of Chapter 1:
(emphasis added)
|
The context of the book and its author are also interesting.
Dick Barnard has a strong background in aviation aerodynamics, where as he says, it's much easier to use equations to make predictions. When we were working on my book, he was always very cautious about advancing theories about what was actually happening in car aero. He used to say to me words to the effect:
"Tell them
what is happening, not
why it is happening. They (our readers) don't need to know why it is happening, and often it will be too complex for them to understand anyway."
I often remember those words when I read Aerohead's theories - the ones that usually don't match actual, measured, reality.
From what Dick - and also Dr Wolf of Porsche - have said to me, it's very easy in car aero to underestimate the complexity of what is actually going on. It's like ignition timing in car engines - you can theroise all you like but the interactions are so complex that timing charts are still constructed by testing.