Now, come on--you quoted this:
Quote:
However, as their shapes are too different from actual car geometries these results will not be fully transferable to the development of production vehicles. This is especially true where complex body surfaces are involved, such as the A-pillars, the highly curved rear end or the wheelhouse region.
Actual optimization is therefore often done on real production cars.
|
And then you reached this conclusion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by orange4boy
Do you mean that we will be able to use the limited tools and technology at our disposal to apply aerodynamic principals to create, if you will, a “template”, to guide the shapes with which we may modify our vehicles?
|
But the first quote is a caution
against using simple bodies to predict flow over a real car because the flow around them is too complex to predict with something like a template. For example, just because a researcher tested a cylindrical body and found that it had lowest drag with a 22-degree taper doesn't mean that a 22-degree taper will give lowest drag on any car.
(Also, the "context from the experts" you posted refers to the Ahmed body and SAE body, not the DrivAer models. It isn't clear in your subsequent posts that you understood that).