Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianEdgar
No current professional car aerodynamicist uses the template for anything.
In fact one such aerodynamicist, who has worked for major car companies including leading car aero development (ie a real car aerodynamicist, not amateurs like us) told me how he very much enjoyed my video that debunks the template.
He didn't say: "Oh my gosh, don't you realise that the template is fundamental to all we do."
For those who think the template is so important, just read any current car aero textbook. "Optimal shapes" (all of them) are typically given only a few pages in the whole book - they're just not that important.
|
* A curious statement.
* Technical drawings ( blueprints) of contemporary passenger cars are available online to anyone. They offer multi-view images in 'true-length.'
* Comparisons to the template reveal current vehicles with template contours offered by: Porsche, Hyundai, Subaru, Chevrolet, Honda, Nissan, BMW, Buick, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Renault, Volkswagen, Aston Martin, Ford, Jaguar, OPEL, FIAT, SMART, Bugatti, Ferrari, Audi, Lightyear, Tesla,..........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you'd like to read about why the 'template' would not be chosen, a look at United States Patent Number 4,533,168, August 6, 1985 would be insightful. It's clearly spelled out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're interested in a specific contemporary aerodynamicist turning to the 'template' for a solution, I invite you to inspect Julian Edgar's handling of Audi's 2010, A7 Sportback, in SAE Paper Number 2011-01-0175, on page 186 of ' Modifying the AERODYNAMICS of Your Road Car, then the 180-degree logic reversal on page 195. Extremely curious!