Quote:
Originally Posted by aardvarcus
Aeromcaeroface,
If you go back to the first post, the entire thread is actually about disproving the AST-I diagram.
To this end, a video was posted in which the AST-I diagram did not align with 6 selected cars. This was apparently considered effective "proof" to disprove the AST-I.
However all of the side-streamlined vehicles (5/6) in the video actually fit the AST-II. If you take screenshots and do overlays, you can easily see this for yourself.
Why would this not be effective "proof," if it can prove it wrong surely it can prove it right?
|
Because the claims are about application to
any vehicle (with attached flow) not that there are cars that fit the template.
There is a joke " why are you throwing spaghetti in the pond? to stop sharks. but there aren't sharks in the pond. that is because of the spaghetti."
I am sure we can all agree that if there were sharks in the pond then spaghetti would be proved useless, but just because there are no sharks doesn't mean it proves effectiveness of spaghetti.
Same thing here, if there is attached flow, that is not necessarily because it fits the template.
If the template were universally applicable, then it would be 6/6 and no contrary evidence would have ever been found.
Nobody is dismissing that there are cars that fit the AST-II template on the centreline that have attached flow, and I don't doubt that there are many cars that do fit the template on the centreline, but that doesn't mean that following a template is the best for your car.