Quote:
Originally Posted by orange4boy
Today's episode of "Aerohead the Evil and the Template of Doom"
In my opinion, Julian Edgar is presenting a straw man argument about Template and that it presents some danger to a large group of people in order to then present himself as the saviour. He provides zero scientific evidence or proof of any kind of the veracity of his claims other than anecdotal stories reported by him. The template is a sticky on this website. That's about all you can say about it with any confidence that is relevant to any one member or any one discussion of aerodynamics.
He presents a series of four ambiguous statements. He claims these are wrong. He claims the template is used in these ways. Proof. Where is the proof? Anecdotes are not proof. "I saw the template used in this way" Is not proof. It's not even surface level convincing.
|
If you'd been around here in the last year you'd have seen the template being used for every one of the ways I listed. That's why I made the list - otherwise the discussion just always went to generalities about template being good/bad, ignoring how it was actually being used.
Perhaps it wasn't being used like this when you were last here, but it certainly has been in the last year.
And the most important point seems to have been overlooked by you. And that's the theories and misunderstandings that people have developed from this completely fallacious notion of applying these shapes to existing cars.