Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Aerodynamics
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-21-2021, 08:57 PM   #21 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 18,936
Thanks: 5,271
Thanked 6,259 Times in 5,015 Posts
Compounded error bars?

__________________
.

Cold hearted orb that rules the night, Removes the colours from our sight, Red is grey and yellow white, But we decide which is right, And which is an illusion.
The Day Begins -- Moody Blues
_________________
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 04-22-2021, 06:23 AM   #22 (permalink)
Long time lurker
 
AeroMcAeroFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Uk
Posts: 149
Thanks: 68
Thanked 114 Times in 87 Posts
Margin of error

Car manufacturers almost always release drag coefficient data rounded to two decimal places, so the 0.31 is actually 0.31 +/- 0.005.

Maximum possible value:
0.315x0.937=0.295155

Minimum possible value:
0.305x0.937=0.285785

The error in the measurements even after the 6.3% drag decrease is thus 0.01, there is no way that 6 decimal places is in any way scientifically appropriate.

It is completely irrelevant whether it is 6%, 6.3% or 6.3000%, the margin of error from the original Cd is way too large to get anything remotely accurate.

Quote:
derived from this literature might offend only those who've never attempted the voyage.
I think the people it may offend are scientist and engineers who know the limitations of margin of error.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AeroMcAeroFace For This Useful Post:
aerohead (04-23-2021)
Old 04-23-2021, 11:19 AM   #23 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 12,460
Thanks: 20,041
Thanked 6,224 Times in 3,843 Posts
everyone else

Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianEdgar View Post
Um, to you it might need psychic powers. To everyone else it's pretty obvious that the change in drag wasn't 6.300000%.

Speculation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's an example of a reverse-engineering challenge involving Tesla's Model S
* Julian Edgar reports that the Model S has a 8% cooling-drag system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tesla Model S has been reported with:
Cd 0.26
Cd 0.247
Cd 0.24
Cd 0.225
Cd 0.208
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAE 2012-01-0178 provides us with a frontal area of 2.4-meters-squared ( 25.8333 sq-ft )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This gives us a range for the Model S drag factor, from CdA 6.7166 sq-ft ( 0.6239 meters-squared ), to, 5.3733 sq-ft ( 0.49919 meters-square )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This range offers a spectrum of at least five-different cooling-system drags.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Julian Edgar has not provided any specificity as to what ' 8% ' actually means, ' 8%' remains an unknown quantity to any of the 136,000 EcoModder.com members who might wish to 'engineer' cooling systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm often uncertain what underlies the motivation for some of Julian Edgar's posts. Certainly he must understand that members actually have a desire to 'engineer.'
And since the 'signal-to-noise ratio' of some mods complicates the ability to even discern an actual 'change' in drag, the need of highest specificity cannot be overemphasized.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2021, 11:37 AM   #24 (permalink)
Somewhat crazed
 
Piotrsko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: 1826 miles WSW of Normal
Posts: 1,772
Thanks: 176
Thanked 492 Times in 420 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroMcAeroFace View Post
Car manufacturers almost always release drag coefficient data rounded to two decimal places, so the 0.31 is actually 0.31 +/- 0.005.

Maximum possible value:
0.315x0.937=0.295155

Minimum possible value:
0.305x0.937=0.285785

.
If someone publishes a number, it is universally agreed that number is the observed data point. What you should have said is that actually the number observed could be between these two points, which would be odd unless the sensors were not calibrated to a standard.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Piotrsko For This Useful Post:
aerohead (04-23-2021)
Old 04-23-2021, 11:38 AM   #25 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 12,460
Thanks: 20,041
Thanked 6,224 Times in 3,843 Posts
scientifically appropriate

Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroMcAeroFace View Post
Car manufacturers almost always release drag coefficient data rounded to two decimal places, so the 0.31 is actually 0.31 +/- 0.005.

Maximum possible value:
0.315x0.937=0.295155

Minimum possible value:
0.305x0.937=0.285785

The error in the measurements even after the 6.3% drag decrease is thus 0.01, there is no way that 6 decimal places is in any way scientifically appropriate.

It is completely irrelevant whether it is 6%, 6.3% or 6.3000%, the margin of error from the original Cd is way too large to get anything remotely accurate.



I think the people it may offend are scientist and engineers who know the limitations of margin of error.
Probably depends upon the type of science one is doing.
When I'm 'noodling', I simply leave whatever is on the display, or move it into memory, for future re-insertion, for the duration of the calculations.
It would be 'more' work, and less time-efficient to do otherwise. Not to mention accuracy issues.
When I began formal studies, rolling force coefficients for tires easily ran to ten decimal places. Observed wind tunnel values, up to 4-places.
If you're looking for that 0.005 difference from a radiator shutter, you want as 'tight' an accounting as possible.
You know that it requires extremely advanced statistical analysis tools to even identify some 'trends' which are under scientific examination?
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
AeroMcAeroFace (04-24-2021)
Old 04-23-2021, 12:10 PM   #26 (permalink)
Long time lurker
 
AeroMcAeroFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Uk
Posts: 149
Thanks: 68
Thanked 114 Times in 87 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
Probably depends upon the type of science one is doing.
When I'm 'noodling', I simply leave whatever is on the display, or move it into memory, for future re-insertion, for the duration of the calculations.
It would be 'more' work, and less time-efficient to do otherwise. Not to mention accuracy issues.
When I began formal studies, rolling force coefficients for tires easily ran to ten decimal places. Observed wind tunnel values, up to 4-places.
If you're looking for that 0.005 difference from a radiator shutter, you want as 'tight' an accounting as possible.
You know that it requires extremely advanced statistical analysis tools to even identify some 'trends' which are under scientific examination?
I have no doubt that the measured value in the wind tunnel was to 4 or even 5 decimal places. However, the published number was to two decimal places.

Agreed, on the tiny change from a radiator shutter, they will do measurements down to 3,4 or 5 decimal places. However, that doesn't necessarily reflect in the published data, if the cD was actually 0.304 and then a radiator shutter was added that reduced the drag to an actual 0.299, the published number is still going to be 0.30.

The difference may be 1.6%, but it would be erroneous to claim that because the initial figure was 0.30 and there is a 1.6% reduction, that the new drag coefficient is 0.295.

Because as we see in the above example the actual figure is 0.299.

Quote:
What you should have said is that actually the number observed could be between these two points, which would be odd unless the sensors were not calibrated to a standard.
You are confusing accuracy of measurements with precision, read about it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision.
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AeroMcAeroFace For This Useful Post:
aerohead (04-23-2021), freebeard (04-23-2021)
Old 04-23-2021, 12:21 PM   #27 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 18,936
Thanks: 5,271
Thanked 6,259 Times in 5,015 Posts
Thanks. I gave it a shot at Permalink #2.
__________________
.

Cold hearted orb that rules the night, Removes the colours from our sight, Red is grey and yellow white, But we decide which is right, And which is an illusion.
The Day Begins -- Moody Blues
_________________
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to freebeard For This Useful Post:
AeroMcAeroFace (04-23-2021)
Old 04-23-2021, 12:27 PM   #28 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 12,460
Thanks: 20,041
Thanked 6,224 Times in 3,843 Posts
decimal places

Here are some automotive entities who publish drag coefficients to three decimal places:
Aston Martin
Audi
BMW
Bochum University
CALTY
Cambridge University
Chrysler
Citroen
Coventry University
Robert Cumberford
Daihatsu
Daimler-Benz Mercedes-Benz
Gary Eaker, A2 / Aerodyne
Eindhoven Technical University
Ferrari
FIAT
Ford
Fuji Heavy Industries ( Subaru )
G.A.C.
GALCIT ( Cal Tech )
General Motors
Holden
Honda
Hoxan
Hyundai
Ital Design
JEEP
Konigsegg
Lotus
MIRA
Mazda
NASA
Nissan
Opel
Penske Racing
Peugeot
Pininfarina
Polestar
Porsche
Renault
Shelby Super Cars ( SSC )
Tatra
Tesla
Trabant
Triumph
Toyota
Antoine Volanis
Volkswagen
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2021, 12:28 PM   #29 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 12,460
Thanks: 20,041
Thanked 6,224 Times in 3,843 Posts
two

Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroMcAeroFace View Post
I have no doubt that the measured value in the wind tunnel was to 4 or even 5 decimal places. However, the published number was to two decimal places.

Agreed, on the tiny change from a radiator shutter, they will do measurements down to 3,4 or 5 decimal places. However, that doesn't necessarily reflect in the published data, if the cD was actually 0.304 and then a radiator shutter was added that reduced the drag to an actual 0.299, the published number is still going to be 0.30.

The difference may be 1.6%, but it would be erroneous to claim that because the initial figure was 0.30 and there is a 1.6% reduction, that the new drag coefficient is 0.295.

Because as we see in the above example the actual figure is 0.299.



You are confusing accuracy of measurements with precision, read about it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision.
please see my # 28 permalink below
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/

Last edited by aerohead; 04-23-2021 at 12:29 PM.. Reason: add data
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2021, 01:06 PM   #30 (permalink)
Long time lurker
 
AeroMcAeroFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Uk
Posts: 149
Thanks: 68
Thanked 114 Times in 87 Posts
If the original data is three decimal places, then there is no issue deriving data to a higher level of precision (than you could with two decimal places), but even then it is still +/- 0.0005 and so no further precision can be gained.

Quote:
Thanks. I gave it a shot at Permalink #2.
Indeed you did, I didn't re-read the thread. It is very important and one many people on here don't fully understand, see below for one example, perhaps unfairly cherry picked, but certainly, and unfortunately, representative of many people here on ecomodder.

Quote:
I simply stated that, in order to satisfy 6.3% higher drag than the value which was provided, required 6-decimal place accuracy.


Last edited by AeroMcAeroFace; 04-23-2021 at 01:13 PM.. Reason: added item in brackets for clarity
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AeroMcAeroFace For This Useful Post:
aerohead (04-23-2021)
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com