|
Julian,
Did I comment on your diagram use incorrectly? You are using the AST-I for all your overlays, are you not? In your videos and posts and such?
I really don't see that many users using that diagram (AST-I not II) on this site for those purposes.
Using a diagram at all may be absurd, but in terms of relative absurdity I would consider using a diagram that exactly matches the XL1, Prius, Insight, etcetera to be less absurd than applying a diagram intended for a use on a vehicle that is in cross section a hemisphere. Once again, I don't have any hemispheres parked outside.
If the notion of someone who does not have development resources mimicking the rear curvature as a function of height of some of the most respected low drag vehicles is absurd, then yes please count me among the absurd. I saw a really good quote on this the other day, it said "This is one occasion when copying one of the generic low-drag shapes will probably get you 90 per cent there."
The professionals may not use a diagram, but it is funny how so many of their "low drag" designs end up with almost exactly the same rear curvature as a function of height.
I don't think it is a groundbreaking revelation to make a higher drag vehicle (e.g. Toyota Tacoma) to have a rear curvature as a function of height that matches a respected lower drag design (e.g. Toyota Prius). But I also don't think that measured long term tank to tank 10% better MPG is the "wrong track." Perhaps it is a "non-ideal track", and there is perhaps a percent or so left on the table. If I was a professional, with all the professional modeling resources at my fingertips I could know for sure about that percent.
|