Quote:
Originally Posted by aardvarcus
Yes there are different "templates" (diagrams) from different sources.
I am not sure who on this site over the past decade has been encouraging the use of the AST-I over the AST-II. I have been on this site about that long, and have not seen any pressure to use the older version. The OP of this thread is just about the only one I know doing overlays using the old version.
|
Well I have been around here for a bit longer than that, not as a member though, and I don't remember anyone saying "Don't use the template in the tools section, it is wrong" Why is it in the tools section if it is the wrong tool?
Imagine a builder turning up at your house, wearing a tool belt with a hammer in it, but then every time he needs a hammer he goes back to the van to get a different hammer, uses it and puts it back in the van. You would question why he doesn't put the hammer that he uses in the tool belt.
It seems like whatever shape that a car maker uses there is a different template that fits.
Which is
the one that is supposed to predict separation?
And if there is one that can predict separation (along the centreline), surely you need a correction factor for boundary layer thickening and transition to turbulent flow? Upstream effects are important and not usually considered.
I have seen so many people using the template in the tools section for their "assessment" of how aerodynamic a car is, rarely is there someone "correcting" them and using a different template to "assess" the car.