Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
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.  |
Short answer: Aerohead doesn't know of any evidence in any current technical literature that supports his use of a template.
Basically, Aerohead has grabbed a very old aerodynamic low-drag shape (fine) and then developed all sorts of weird purported uses for this shape (not fine), none of which are supported in any current references.
Along the way, he has unfortunately sucked lots of people here into believing in his weird theories - very sad.
But as I always say -
don't take my word for it. Look up some aero textbooks for yourself, read a variety of SAE papers on the development of car aerodynamics, do some basic tuft and pressure testing on different cars, then make your own judgement.