Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianEdgar
That's not the argument.
The argument is how you were encouraging their use to purportedly achieve the following on existing cars:
- Show where there is separated and attached flow
- 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
...and to do all of this often by picking just a tiny part of one of these shapes and placing it over the top of an existing car! Just crazy stuff - and not supported by any tech reference I've ever seen.
|
* I'm hoping that it begins the conversation.
* A vehicle of which its roofline profile begins with a streamlined profile, is subject to separation should its profile wander away from the profile. The profile is only streamlined if it remains uncorrupted. This is the premise of using an AST as a Go NoGo.
* As above, if the roofline has wandered away from an originally-streamlined contour, a comparison to the original, uncorrupted profile will illustrate exactly where the contour left the profile. Moving a spoiler up to the profile will at least help get the flow reattached to the spoiler. If you want additional, direct downforce, then so be it.
* The overlay of the streamline profile will inform the observer about the degree of fidelity to the actual streamline profile.
A look at a M-B CLK-GTR,Porsche918 Spyder, Aston Martin Vanguish, 2015 Corvette, 2017 911 Turbo S, Panamera, 2010 A7, Dodge Viper, and dozens of vehicles will demonstrate how the carmaker 'fixed' separation-induced problems by projecting the body or spoiler up to , and not beyond the streamline profiles of which the initial portion of the roof possessed.