Quote:
Originally Posted by Vekke
Julian in science opinions should be backed with research papers. You havent shown any facts that give any proof to your claims. However during this thread people have proven you have used the old template which did not match the cars on your video. If you would have used the latest version of the template which is AST-II you would have seen different results. I wrote here in this topic already long time ago that the data of the template is in many topics spreads wide.
If the data is proving the template is the correct way to go if you want low(est) drag and you cannot provide any real evidence to prove otherwise then no wonder if everyone still believes that template is the way to go. No rumor opinions from Dr wolf or any aerodymic mastermind you say will make any difference when all evidence shows otherwise. Only scientific research opinions matter in science.
Due to reason you have not done your basic research correctly you have ended up using the wront template and created wrong assumptions. Like I wrote even my Lupo 2l roofline is done based on that template. Enen the old template is still better than just guessing how to make it. I knew how to make it, ended just using the old template (my mistake, but the roof was chopped when the new template was just launched and I was too eager just to execute). I remember reading of the new template and also assumed that the aerotool would be using the latest template. However assuming something is the worst enemy of knowing, I think you have also said that many times.
I have seen more than enough proof to still believe that using the template really is the best way to go if you want low drag in your vehicle projects. How to use it in the whole design of the vehicle then just requires more knowledge to solve complex issues that are when designing the sides and underside of the vehicles.
If you are honest human being then real apology to Aerohead is in place and you go and correct the errors you say in your video because they clearly are not true.
I am not asking any more evidence from your side as I think you would have given those already if you have any.
|
You know, anyone reading this would think the template just dominates current aerodynamic textbooks and papers -
and not that it is barely mentioned!
If you want scientific research opinions, why don't you go and read the aero textbooks for yourself? Start with the best - Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles, 5th edition, and see how much space they devote to 'optimal shapes' - two pages in 1300.
Find me some SAE engineering papers that talk about how the template - or any other similar shape - was used in the aero development of cars.
Find me a single professional aerodynamicist that uses a template when they develop cars - or even one who subscribes to the notion than any template could be used!
Seriously, you ask for research papers and yet you - and no-one else - can provide even one SAE paper that supports the notion of a template in the way it is is used in this group.
You want research papers? Go and read them. Maybe start with the couple of hundred SAE papers I read when researching my book.
You're in Germany hunting for a job - why don't you go and talk to some professional car aerodynamicists and learn some real information rather than believing rubbish on a web discussion group?
(And it's very funny that when I show in a video how absurd the template is (you know, the one in the tools section of this site, the one that is used here all the time), people then just suggest using another template!)