I want to build a 100-mpg car (and I want it to look vintage)

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Regarding the AST: truncation of the tail has been a key part, so I don't see the shown overlays as evidence against its use, but for it.

What has truncation of the tail got to do with The Template?

[freebeard]

It's what makes it work in the real world. The full taper adds 50% or more of unusable space.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by freebeard

It's what makes it work in the real world. The full taper adds 50% or more of unusable space.

Yes.

But any car shape can be truncated. Truncation, as such, has nothing to do with using The Template as the shape guide.

I was writing in response to:

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Regarding the AST: truncation of the tail has been a key part, so I don't see the shown overlays as evidence against its use, but for it.

Prior to the rear of the car, the two nominated cars don't follow The Template shape - and yet they're very low drag cars... again, how amazing is that!

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

What has truncation of the tail got to do with The Template?

The cars posted align with the template pretty well. They have truncated tails, which is part of the AST deal.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

Yes.

But any car shape can be truncated. Truncation, as such, has nothing to do with using The Template as the shape guide.

I was writing in response to:







Prior to the rear of the car, the two nominated cars don't follow The Template shape - and yet they're very low drag cars... again, how amazing is that!

It seems that you've misunderstood the intended uses of and precautions given for the AST.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

The cars posted align with the template pretty well. They have truncated tails, which is part of the AST deal.

I am sorry, but if you think the upper rear angle of the cars aligns well with The Template rear angle, you must see things quite differently to me.

Of course, there's absolutely no requirement to follow The Template when designing a low drag car (or additions to any other car) and it's a damn shame that so many people have been sucked into believing that on this group.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

It seems that you've misunderstood the intended uses of and precautions given for the AST.

No, I have watched how it actually has been used here. For example, to:

• to determine whether airflow is attached or separated
• to determine the required height of rear spoilers
• as an assessment tool to judge the aerodynamic purity of production cars
• to guide the best shape of rear car extensions to existing cars

All completely unjustifiable!

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

No, I have watched how it actually has been used here. For example, to:

• to determine whether airflow is attached or separated
• to determine the required height of rear spoilers
• as an assessment tool to judge the aerodynamic purity of production cars
• to guide the best shape of rear car extensions to existing cars

All completely unjustifiable!

Have you seen the text information that usually accompanies the AST? I believe there are notes on at least one version.

[Fat Charlie]

When I was first reading about the template, it was made clear that it was a 2-D form and that actual 3-D cars would be able to deviate from it quite well.

But it was a starting point. Short of making and testing multiple prototypes with your daily driver, you could do a lot worse than building to the template, testing, and being happy with the results.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

When I was first reading about the template, it was made clear that it was a 2-D form and that actual 3-D cars would be able to deviate from it quite well.

But it was a starting point. Short of making and testing multiple prototypes with your daily driver, you could do a lot worse than building to the template, testing, and being happy with the results.

As I said, it's obviously gone down a waaay different rabbit hole in the years since!

And, "you could do a lot worse than" is, with respect, rather strange logic isn't it? Don't we want people to achieve the best that's possible for them?

That's just like saying: "When tuning, run an AFR of 12.5:1 at full load - you could do a lot worse than that, you know." Well, yes you could - but it's also very likely you could do better.