Jeremy Cato writes another article about aerodynamics. Misinformation ensues.
 

We recently roasted Jeremy Cato, The Globe and Mail's chief auto writer, for praising the 2010 Camaro's 0.37 coefficient of drag as "pretty slick" (see http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...-0-a-7741.html ).

In today's Report on Green Solutions for Earth Day, Cato attempts to parlay his "knowledge" of things aerodynamic into general article about how automakers are increasing efficiency in the wind tunnel.

How to stop being a drag
Auto designers are finding that sharp edges can be just as aerodynamic as smooth curves

Here's a doozy of a quote:

What he fails to mention however are the actual figures:

http://www.zercustoms.com/news/image...dynamics-b.jpg

Ford Flex: 0.355 (source)
Chevy Traverse: 0.33 (source)

http://image.automobilemag.com/f/gre...se-driving.jpg

If the Flex gets better fuel economy than the Traverse, superior aerodynamics apparently isn't the reason. (Note: I don't know the reference area for each vehicle, so it's possible the CdA of the Flex could be less - but that's not a wind tunnel achievement, which is what the article suggests.)

The entire article isn't horrible - in fact, I'm happy to see the importance of aero being discussed in the mainstream press - but Cato doesn't do his homework (inexcusable, as the chief auto writer for Canada's biggest newspaper). And it bugs me that as a result, there are undoubtedly people out there this morning saying, "my, my! I didn't realize the Ford Flex was so wonderfully aerodynamic!"

Which leaves me skeptical about this other potentially interesting tidbit he relays:

Of course you can't comment on the article... hah.


edit: there is a button to send a letter to the editor at the bottom though

"as aerodynamically efficient as possible"... is this guy a journalist or a marketter? Is he being paid directly by these people to write articles about their cars? It strikes me that he is throwing away the term "journalistic integrity" with every article that we see here on ecomodder.

Is it possible that the total drag (CdA) of the ford is better than the Chev? Either way, they both suck.

Someone send him a link to these threads for his amusement :) We'd gladly help to educate him.

It could have less drag overall but as I think metro said it would have alot more to do with the frontal area of the car(wheel base on the Ford might be a hair narrower) than with its aero properties as the traverse is obviously more aero friendly in shape.

But he says SHAPE. The shape is not more aero. < is aero, C is kinda aero, I. . .not aero.

If the volt were aero as possible it will look like a rain drop and have polymer riblet adhesive applied over its outer-layer of paint that will make it look funny. I feel like its going to look alot more like a Camaro than a rain drop. . .and I feel like its going to have shiny glossy paint rather than a matte polymer over-top of its paint.

If you squint at the Volt, you can see a Prius / Insight shape in there. There's just some 'styling' to make it look different.

-grabs PM's shoulders and shifts to point in a new direction- you were looking at the 2010 Prius. The brick is the volt.

Lol. :d

Here's a perfect picture. The back end of the Volt is a hatch, just like the prius. They made it look like a sedan, but it's not.

http://www.gm-volt.com/o/volt_prius.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3399/...248030dfa7.jpg

That's because I only link the lousy ones. :)

He's capable of producing some decent articles. But stuff like this just makes me cringe.

Maybe I'm just missing the distinction: perhaps he's not a "journalist", he's a "reviewer". One supposedly presents issues, the other delivers an opinion.

But delivering factual errors with your opinion is still a bad idea!

lawls... I bet the mirror design shaves 3pts off the cD

That's a funny, yes?

Just checking.