Quote:
Originally Posted by Vman455
... This excerpt considers the impact of practical factors, such as occupant room, and physical parameters, such as ground clearance, on the 'ideal' form. Even if we were building cars from scratch--which most of us aren't--slavishly following a 'template' will not by default obtain the best results for a marketable car. ...
|
Hi Vman455,
This is a great post. I add the words in bold just to point out that a core disagreement in aerohead/Edgar argument seems to me to be about expectations and goals. One position accommodates the mass market for cars as it is, with evolutionary changes perhaps) while the other position seems to advocate altering the underlying assumptions of what "the market" perceives as "practical" and "attractive."
I see affirmation of both positions in the quote you provide. Barnard clearly describes an ideal shape as to aerodynamics. As he says, "the 'ideal' form for a road vehicle is ... a cambered version, slightly flattened on the underside, with the optimum geometry being dependent on the ground clearance." That's not an affirmation of "The Template," obviously. And his following assertion that other design demands for the market require changes to the ideal form is reasonable. But he clearly does not disclaim the reality of an "ideal" shape (with optimazations).
FWIW, in general, I like and agree with the approach you describe. I just also love the ideal shape discussions because there is good learning in trying to understand them. Cheers!