Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianEdgar
This is what you do all the time. Take the existing argument, realise that you're not going to win on evidence, and so change the proposition to something else.
I have never said the template is not a low drag shape. I have never said that any of the templates are not low drag shapes.
These are all low drag shapes:
But that does not in any way lead to the idea that you can do any of the following with any of them:
- 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
They are simply low drag shapes, and the idea that (for example) you can pick one line from them, superimpose it over a completely different shape and then draw some inference from it is absurd.
The argument is not whether these shapes are low in drag. The argument is about the way you were encouraging their application here - to do things that are completely unjustifiable. In fact, quite wrong. |
You're evading the point. You're also embellishing and embroidering.
There are things you attribute to me that I have nothing to do with.
They exist only within your own mind, while reality lay outside.
The ASTs were offered for comparative anatomy.
If a particular vehicle initially exhibits a 'match' to a streamlined profile, then at some point diverges from the profile, one is witnessing a perfect setup for separation, by definition.
Profile drag has to do with profiles. Some are high drag. Some are exceptionally low drag.
If an individual is interested in really low drag, it's a no-brainer to pay particular attention to the profiles which produce really low drag.
And all this must be viewed within the context of amateur projects with heavy budget constraints.
It's really simple.