Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
* It goes back to the fluid mechanics ground rules Hucho wrote about :
' the essential experimental results, presented as ground rules of fluid mechanics and brought to general validity wherever possible;'
Hucho, page one of he Preface
* fundamentals are fundamentals.
* it's the whole point of his book!
* and I promise to continue whenever something dovetails into what's already established in the public domain.  |
[Shrug]
It's a fallacious, superficial argument premised - as so many of yours unfortunately are - on a rather literal and/or simplistic understanding of what is being discussed.
The rules of thermodynamics haven't changed in 100+ years - but today we don't design engines like those of the 1930s, or even 1960s or 1980s.
The rules of resonant mechanical systems haven't changed in 100+ years - but today we don't design suspension systems like those of the 1930s, or even 1960s or 1980s.
But I for one, will always keep reading historic documents on engine and suspension design - and aerodynamics - because I think the historic context informs current thinking.
But it's a completely different thing to think that it should
dictate current thinking.
If you presented historic examples in the context of 'hey, look at this - isn't it interesting?' I'd be applauding what you do. But you don't - you pretend (or even believe?) that this history should be directing what we do now - and that is just ridiculous.
Your approach has unfortunately led you to have lots of mistaken beliefs about what is happening with airflow on current cars and then to - unforgivably* - advise people based on those erroneous beliefs. And you have been very successful - I can see time and time again people on this group parroting the falsehoods you have disseminated.
(*I don't care what you believe - lots of people believe all sorts of weird stuff. But I do care when you are leading others astray based on your incorrect beliefs.)