|
Julian,
I truly have not noticed the prevalent use of that template here.
In a hemisphere, the top profile matches the side profile, somewhat by definition. Creating that would obviously be different than creating a profile only used for the top or the side. Hence why I do not understand your use of it. In the sense of separately formed top and side profiles, yes the vehicles I am copying use separately formed top and side profiles just like mine, not the same curve. In the sense of matching exactly, no not all of them in all dimensions.
I do not understand the constant relation of aerodynamic principals to engine air to fuel ratios. Air to fuel ratios could be related to my toaster. I set my toaster on 4, and it burns the bread. I don't know if your toaster reacts the same way. But I don't know what that has to do with AFR. And I don't know what AFR has to do with Aerodynamics in this context. I also don't think my diesel in my current project has strong opinions about AFR, so I will leave the air to fuel ratio to those who prefer spark ignition over compression.
Is modifying to mimic imparting different physics from designing from scratch?
I did test alternatives, some of which are documented on this site. I built the best one, but obviously as I did not test an infinite number I leave open the possibility of something better. I am not aware of anyone who has designed an add on aero device for a 2nd gen Tacoma that imparts more MPG gain than the final one I built, but I stand ready at any time to be bested by a better design.
I ran some overlays of the vehicles in your anti-template video, using the commonly used here AST-II, and found the results interesting. Five out of six were a perfect match, either in overall slope or the spoiler rising to hit the profile! The Sagitta was the one that did not match.
I find it interesting that 5 of the 6 vehicles used to disprove the template concept actually all follow a "template", one that is posted and commonly used here.
|