Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDevil
My point is that a difference in opinion can be a great starting point for further learning. If we keep things civil of course.
|
Absolutely. But all that falls down if someone - in this case Aerohead - refuses to change what they write here,
irrespective of all the evidence against it.
In some cases, we're talking about absolute and completely obvious errors (eg how Reynolds numbers are calculated).
So the forum moves from learning about what is correct and incorrect - to learning in your words "anything I read on aerodynamics as opinion".
That's just crazy: facts are facts.
Reynolds Numbers (to continue the example) are
not calculated using area (as Aerohead has stated).
That's not my opinion; that's a fact. Look in any aero textbook to see for yourself.
The template does
not show where there is attached and separated flow when it is overlaid on car profiles (as Aerohead has stated).
That's not my opinion; that's a fact. Tuft test a car and find out for yourself.
A 10% reduction in aero drag does not automatically give a 5% reduction in fuel consumed (as Aerohead has stated).
That's not my opinion; that's a fact. Look in any aero textbook to see for yourself.
I am just amazed that so many people here would rather have a happy forum full of incorrect information rather than challenge the massive amount of misinformation that keeps getting promoted.
We're not talking subtleties in aerodynamic understanding and application - we're talking about completely wrong information! And nearly all of it comes back to one source - what Aerohead posts here.