Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianEdgar
But why stop at aerodynamics?
You can take a theory (often with a historical base), find cars that match the theory and, ipso facto, prove the theory 'true'.
We could take just this approach with optimal engine air/fuel ratios, engine ignition timing, suspension natural frequency, gearbox ratios - and so on.
And in every case, despite finding cars that apparently match our theory, our theory would likely be quite incorrect.
(Of course, you see this done all the time on car web discussion groups, not just this one.)
|
1) the original hypothesis became theory after multiple, independent parties observed empirical, prima facie evidence which supported the hypothesis. Like acceleration due to gravity at sea level. Or the speed of light. No amount of testing yields alternate results.
2) no amount of testing can produce flow separation with a streamlined body.
3) by default, if a shape generates flow separation, it is, by definition, NOT streamlined.
4) your confusion may stem from the examples you've chosen for examination. They are 'complex' shapes.
5) 'complex' shapes would create special challenges for an aerodynamicist, whereas,' simple,' streamlined shapes would not.
6) a 'notchback' GOODYEAR blimp would be challenging.
7) a 'squareback' GOODYEAR blimp would be challenging.
8) a 'raked-back' GOODYEAR blimp would be a challenge.
9) GOODYEAR blimps are not a challenge, as their engineering quanta have been known and cataloged since the 1920s.
10) the 2010 Audi A7 Sportback is a 'complex' shape.