Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianEdgar
You seemed to have lost the thread in your tirades of personal abuse.
What we're asking for is evidence in any current technical aerodynamic literature that supports the way you use your template, viz:
- Show where there is separated and attached flow on existing cars
- Guide the shape of rear extensions
- Show how rear spoilers on sedans should be positioned and shaped
- Allow the assessment of the ‘aerodynamic purity’ of cars
So far, you haven't provided any evidence - and neither has anyone else. Not much of a surprise when all purported uses are absurd.
It's just a crying shame that so many people here have been sucked in by such rubbish.
|
That's the point. For you, evidence is something temporal. If it's not 'current', then you automatically discount or dismiss it out of hand.
It seems that it is absolutely impossible for you to wrap your head around the potentiality that, evidence from 1922 could clearly support solutions for questions asked today. Something Hucho told you explicitly about on the very first page of his 2nd-Edition ( PREFACE ).
And I don't know why you don't retain information from the 2nd-Edition as if it never existed. It's a great mystery to me.
Hucho laid out everything which led to the 'template', as 'templates' exist back into the 18th Century as far as aerodynamics go. There's nothing novel about them. And you were admonished by Hucho to learn about all that as well.
The aerodynamics that's 'rubbish' to you, is the 'Golden-Goose' to others. Your education hasn't taken you far enough yet, although I know it's in you to master it. I'm enviable of your command of certain subjects. Truly!
If you know of Kamm, then you'll find his body of work in Fachsenfeld's book.
Kamm worked from Walter E. Lay's research.
It's all about 'templates.'
And you'll see how their 'templates' predicted.
Stores closing. I'll talk to you next Wednesday.
