Quote:
Originally Posted by ME_Andy
I've already acknowledged that the template isn't a perfect tool. That holds for all four of your bullet points.
Clearly it is a useful tool that provides a good approximation.
|
I know you're trying to be conciliatory, but unfortunately the template doesn't even hold for that.
Viz:
It is claimed to allow you to:
- Show where there is separated and attached flow on existing cars
This is very much yes/no - is the flow attached or separated? The template
definitely does not show this on cars.
- Guide the shape of rear extensions
Absolutely not.
The best shape rear extension will depend on a whole lot of factors, and following a preset template is no guide at all to gaining the best outcome.
- Show how rear spoilers on sedans should be positioned and shaped
Completely wrong. This confusion shown by Aerohead when describing how rear spoilers work is based on his belief in the template (and how rear spoilers worked on old cars), and following that advice will give terrible outcomes on any modern sedan.
- Allow the assessment of the ‘aerodynamic purity’ of cars
The idea that, if only car makers followed the template they would get so much better results, is complete rubbish. Therefore, overlaying a car and 'measuring it' against the template (to purportedly see how good the car is) is equal baloney.
After all, why not pick one of the other five low drag shapes with which to do the comparison?
The template is just one of a bunch of different, low drag, theoretical shapes. If it were presented as that, then that would be quite correct, and I'd have no issues.
I don't know, maybe it started off like that - but it's certainly gone into crazy land since!