Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianEdgar
You know, each time I keep looking through Road Vehicle Aerodynamics 2nd edition, or more generally now reading the 5th edition, I keep looking for this stuff about the template - in the way you describe it and use it. It's simply not there - as others here have also commented.
(A constellation of dots indeed! What, like it needed to be hidden so only the chosen one would find it?)
Unfortunately, it's a theory that was developed by you, was largely uncritically accepted here, and has then caused all sorts of distorted 'understandings' of car aero to have developed among members of this group. It's clearest when someone pops in after an absence, happily embracing the template - and then suddenly looks around, and realises everyone is staring at them in an odd way. (Well, everyone who has done any investigations of their own, anyway.)
Anyone who uses the template - any of the templates, take your pick - for the following purposes is likely to be on very shaky ground indeed:
- 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
Unfortunately all these uses were being made here, if not on a daily basis, then certainly on a weekly basis.
|
1) Since long before the pandemic showed up, I posted, exact quotes, and page numbers from the 2nd-edition, which fully illustrated the makings of the 'template.'
2) And I did it at least four times.
3) So here I am, many months later, and it appears that you've never given any effort to examine ANY of the data.
4) Four times!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What am I to make of such behavior?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've been Johnny-on-the-spot as judge, jury, and executioner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With an inspection of the material, every criticism of 'templates' fail.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ability of the VW- Flow Body to predict Cd 0.14 is immediately accepted at face value, while the AST is rejected, wholesale, even though the VW-Flow Body, when compared, is essentially the AST!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VW-Blunt Body ( solid border image ) is accepted immediately without question, even though it is virtually indistinguishable from the AST!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Same with the VW-Drop Shape!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And we're absolutely deadlocked on the issue until you do what would be considered, normal due diligence.