And to address your other points...
I said:
(2) [Aerohead] refuses to read any current aero textbooks or papers
Quote:
Originally Posted by orange4boy
A good idea and encouraged but not required or expected.
|
Sorry, I
would in fact expect it of someone who is giving advice on the modification of current cars, and who makes no qualification as to the relevance of the advice being given.
It's similar to someone giving advice on engine management, when the most recent formal book or tech paper they have read on the subject is dated 1987. As you'd expect, in that situation, a great deal of their advice will be wrong or misleading.
Cars have, in round figures,
halved in Cd since 1987, and that has come about because of major changes in aerodynamic flows around cars. Changes that Aerohead ignores.
I said:
(3) [Aerohead] has become increasingly erratic in the statements he makes in support of his odd theories
Quote:
|
That's pretty subjective.
|
Well, some others here have agreed with me. We're talking statements that are so obviously wrong (like that a Porsche Macan must have separated flow on the roof, because that's Aerohead's theory) that I can only describe them as erratic. But honestly, 'ludicrous' might be a more accurate term.
I don't care what Aerohead believes, but I do care a great deal when he misleads others. And to reiterate, we're not talking about nuances of opinion; we're talking about outright errors in understanding and advice.