Quote:
Originally Posted by California98Civic
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!
|
Not sure if you're just being naive or you haven't actually been following how The Template is often used here. There'd be little debate if The Template were presented
just as a low drag shape, that is (one of) the shapes that could be used to form a vehicle being done from scratch.
But it isn't, is it?
Instead it's used to try to 'achieve' all sorts of things - from setting rear spoiler heights, to deciding whether flow is attached or separated on an existing shape, to assessing the 'purity' of existing cars - and so on.
All are garbage.
(And you shortened the quote from Barnard to better meet your argument.)