A book to buy and read

[freebeard]

"...and pck crn frm yr fcs" is unnecessarily specific.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

"...and pck crn frm yr fcs" is unnecessarily specific.

I've seen this posturing behavior before. There's a presumption on the part of the creature projecting dominance, that the would-be supplicant will simply lay, exposing their abdomen, with tail tucked between their legs.
In political situations, one, over-confident in their self-inflated influence will presume what I've inferred. It's extremely apropos. Spot on.
Civility went out the window around a year ago when Julian's fingertips first began to speak. I'm not obligated to afford any courtesies.

[Vman455]

JulianEdgar hasn't been posturing; he's called you out on a lot of the BS you've been spewing which everyone here (including myself) have been caught up in for quite some time. Quite the contrary: he has consistently maintained, since his arrival on this forum, that we should be TESTING, observing, and experimenting. More than once he has posted that we SHOULD NOT take his word for it, but test, measure, and observe for ourselves. You have responded, consistently, with vitriol, name-calling, and, now, disgusting metaphors. You've set a new low bar.

* * * * *

Back on topic. My copy of Road Vehicle Aerodynamic Design, 3rd ed. (2009), just arrived a few minutes ago. Food for thought--literally the first sentence of Chapter 1:

As mentioned in the preface, an important feature of the subject of road vehicle aerodynamics is that it does not lend itself readily to mathematical analysis; there are no straightforward methods for predicting how air will flow around a given vehicle shape.

(emphasis added)

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Vman455

JulianEdgar hasn't been posturing; he's called you out on a lot of the BS you've been spewing which everyone here (including myself) have been caught up in for quite some time. Quite the contrary: he has consistently maintained, since his arrival on this forum, that we should be TESTING, observing, and experimenting. More than once he has posted that we SHOULD NOT take his word for it, but test, measure, and observe for ourselves. You have responded, consistently, with vitriol, name-calling, and, now, disgusting metaphors. You've set a new low bar.

* * * * *

Back on topic. My copy of Road Vehicle Aerodynamic Design, 3rd ed. (2009), just arrived a few minutes ago. Food for thought--literally the first sentence of Chapter 1:

(emphasis added)

Fine! If your a man, and a gentleman, you'll spare the personal judgement for another venue, and scientifically prove your thesis. And I recommend fluid mechanics.
Our reference materials are created such that no former research is repeated. No unnecessary redundancy. The last time I looked, The United States was still capitalistic. Citizens spend a fortune on higher learning so they don't fall into the trap of repeating former investigations, moving on to more prosperous enterprise.
If you've completely discounted the value of your time, that's fine. But to presume that I've nothing better to do with my life other than tilting at windmills with a Pitot-tube and Magnehelic you're extremely mistaken.
I didn't set land speed and distance records by reinvestigating every experiment conducted globally over the last 100-years.
If you sincerely believe that the fundamentals have all been superannuated since 1986, I invite you to shine some light on that. And be specific!
That WOULD be an extremely valuable contribution.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Vman455

JulianEdgar hasn't been posturing; he's called you out on a lot of the BS you've been spewing which everyone here (including myself) have been caught up in for quite some time. Quite the contrary: he has consistently maintained, since his arrival on this forum, that we should be TESTING, observing, and experimenting. More than once he has posted that we SHOULD NOT take his word for it, but test, measure, and observe for ourselves. You have responded, consistently, with vitriol, name-calling, and, now, disgusting metaphors. You've set a new low bar.

* * * * *

Back on topic. My copy of Road Vehicle Aerodynamic Design, 3rd ed. (2009), just arrived a few minutes ago. Food for thought--literally the first sentence of Chapter 1:

(emphasis added)

Aerohead emphasizes getting your shape "close". Julian emphasizes "testing".

Both are right.

Unfortunately, they have been butting heads. Though we have all benefited from their contributions, it does take some filtering to see the value. Julian does not get a pass for his veiled put downs of those "deemed" less capable than he and his cadre of experts. Neither does Aerohead. If you spank one, you should spank the other.

I've worked on aerodynamic projects. You start with theory and mathematical models to get the shape "close". Then you test and measure.

Few who read this forum will ever get to complete a clean-sheet project from start to finish but they can divine information from both viewpoints.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Aerohead emphasizes getting your shape "close". Julian emphasizes "testing".

Both are right.

Unfortunately, they have been butting heads. Though we have all benefited from their contributions, it does take some filtering to see the value. Julian does not get a pass for his veiled put downs of those "deemed" less capable than he and his cadre of experts. Neither does Aerohead. If you spank one, you should spank the other.

I've worked on aerodynamic projects. You start with theory and mathematical models to get the shape "close". Then you test and measure.

Few who read this forum will ever get to complete a clean-sheet project from start to finish but they can divine information from both viewpoints.

All I can say is, get as close as possible.
It's a known quantity. Hucho knows it, and he wrote that it's basically the only path to really low drag in a 3-D body. NASA ( NACA ) knew it in the 1920s. Lay knew it. Reid knew it. Heald knew it. Henninger knew it. Kamm knew it. Tremulis knew it. Korff knew it. The EPA knows it.
All the theory and testing is already baked in. Shape is everything. It starts and ends with shape. And all shapes are not created equal.
It took from 1974, to when I first published about the 'template' before I felt I'd completely vetted it. It's not some random, wishful, pluck-it-out-of-thin-air construction. Everything is straight out of Hucho's text, among others.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Citizens spend a fortune on higher learning so they don't fall into the trap of repeating former investigations, moving on to more prosperous enterprise.

Whether or not everything else is inarguable, this one is.

Outside of STEM, higher education is an induction into a loser's mindset.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Aerohead emphasizes getting your shape "close". Julian emphasizes "testing".

Both are right.

Unfortunately, they have been butting heads. Though we have all benefited from their contributions, it does take some filtering to see the value. Julian does not get a pass for his veiled put downs of those "deemed" less capable than he and his cadre of experts. Neither does Aerohead. If you spank one, you should spank the other.

I've worked on aerodynamic projects. You start with theory and mathematical models to get the shape "close". Then you test and measure.

Few who read this forum will ever get to complete a clean-sheet project from start to finish but they can divine information from both viewpoints.

I can see you might think that if you've just skimmed stuff. But unfortunately a great deal of what Aerohead writes here - and especially when he gives advice or theorizes - is simply outright wrong.

Whether that's because he hasn't understood the theory or is just mis-applying it, I don't know. Sometimes, he takes accepted (and correct) theory and then just extrapolates it into complete weirdness.

And then we have to add that he hasn't bothered keeping up with aero developments of the last 20-30 years.

The result is that he is grossly in error on many aero topics.

Just off the top off my head here are some of things he constantly gives incorrect advice on:

- attached and separated flow patterns
- pressure distributions on cars
- the relative importance of lift forces
- the lowest drag wheel designs
- how rear spoilers work on current cars
- best angles for rear diffusers
- sharpest rear angles that will retain attached flow
- flow patterns on current notchback cars

Then overlay all that misinformation with some truly weird conspiracy theories about how car makers develop cars, write in a pseudo-sophisticated mumbo jumbo that is often impenetrable, and we have a fascinating situation that has obviously developed over a long time.

Unfortunately, by far the number 1 source of misinformation on aerodynamics on this forum is Aerohead.

I used to think about half of what he wrote was wrong / misleading / irrelevant, but as he has now been nominating references in an attempt to support his misleading statements (and where I have them, I have been checking those references), I now realise it's even higher than that.

I don't like misinformation about car modification being spread: it costs too many people money and time - people who should be benefitting from the best info available, not wrong and/or outdated advice and strange theories.

[freebeard]

Unfortunately, by far the number 1 source of misinformation on aerodynamics on this forum is Aerohead.

Sez the guy that insists on capitalizing handles. aerohead has a given name, his initials are PK.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'seems to me that your greatest concern would be falling from grace as an aerodynamic guru, directly threatening book sales, should the buying public ever get wise to you, realizing that you're out of your depth in many things aerodynamics.
Perhaps you thought that, by including us in your book, that we'd be willing to submit to your dominance rituals, and peck corn from your feces.

You really are a quite disgusting man, aren't you?

And as for book sales, if I was here for that, I'd agree with everything everyone posted and ruffle no feathers, wouldn't I?

And just a reminder from real experts who have read the book:

"The best practical introduction to aerodynamics for the car enthusiast that I've seen. The author combines his own experience with published research to provide useful and reliable insights into the often bewildering world of automotive aerodynamics." Adrian Gaylard, head of aerodynamics, Jaguar Land Rover

"A really good book that should be added to the library of everyone working in automotive aerodynamics, as well as those making car aero modifications at home." - Rob Palin, former Tesla aerodynamicist

"This book covers a wealth of useful car aerodynamic information for the non-engineer." Professor Joseph Katz, author Race Car Aerodynamics

"Your book is unique! It was high time that someone covered vehicle aerodynamics through the practical eyes of someone like you." - Dr Wolf-Heinrich Hucho, the founder of modern vehicle aerodynamics


That's what they say, not me.