The Kamm research cars

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Thanks for finding agreement.

Picture Added 02-23-2014 11:58 AM



I used the template to:

- Show where there is separated and attached flow
- Guide the shape of rear extensions
- Show how rear spoilers boat tails on [Type I] should be positioned and shaped
- Allow the assessment of the ‘aerodynamic purity’ of [Type I]

I saw it being used to give advice to someone as to how high his spoiler should be on a sedan (notchback). Just ridiculous.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

This is what you do all the time. Take the existing argument, realise that you're not going to win on evidence, and so change the proposition to something else.

I have never said the template is not a low drag shape. I have never said that any of the templates are not low drag shapes.

These are all low drag shapes:



But that does not in any way lead to the idea that you can do any of the following with any of them:

- Show where there is separated and attached flow on existing cars
- Guide the shape of rear extensions
- Show how rear spoilers on sedans should be positioned and shaped
- Allow the assessment of the ‘aerodynamic purity’ of cars

They are simply low drag shapes, and the idea that (for example) you can pick one line from them, superimpose it over a completely different shape and then draw some inference from it is absurd.

The argument is not whether these shapes are low in drag. The argument is about the way you were encouraging their application here - to do things that are completely unjustifiable. In fact, quite wrong.

You're evading the point. You're also embellishing and embroidering.
There are things you attribute to me that I have nothing to do with.
They exist only within your own mind, while reality lay outside.
The ASTs were offered for comparative anatomy.
If a particular vehicle initially exhibits a 'match' to a streamlined profile, then at some point diverges from the profile, one is witnessing a perfect setup for separation, by definition.
Profile drag has to do with profiles. Some are high drag. Some are exceptionally low drag.
If an individual is interested in really low drag, it's a no-brainer to pay particular attention to the profiles which produce really low drag.
And all this must be viewed within the context of amateur projects with heavy budget constraints.
It's really simple.

[orange4boy]

And the most important point seems to have been overlooked by you. And that's the theories and misunderstandings that people have developed from this completely fallacious notion of applying these shapes to existing cars.

A baseless claim. Without proof that statement is just one man's opinion. Prove it.

You can't, so I submit that you keep saying it in hopes that people start believing it. Of course that's another baseless claim but at least I can admit it.

This is all such a waste of time.

[orange4boy]

Hey, Aerohead. Have you really published your own theory? Or are you just applying your knowledge the best way you know how in the context of the problem, like everyone else here?

[orange4boy]

I saw it being used to give advice to someone as to how high his spoiler should be on a sedan (notchback). Just ridiculous.

Now collect all of the other ridiculous ideas on this site, who they were attributed to, whether they were implemented, whether they achieved the stated goal and divide that against all of the good advice etc, etc. Then you would have a nice ratio of success to fail based on the advice of every person who ever contributed to this site.

That would be an interesting study. Until you do that, this is just you metaphorically hitting arerohead over the head with a rolled up, straw filled template.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

That's not the argument.

The argument is how you were encouraging their use to purportedly achieve the following on existing cars:

- Show where there is separated and attached flow
- Guide the shape of rear extensions
- Show how rear spoilers on sedans should be positioned and shaped
- Allow the assessment of the ‘aerodynamic purity’ of cars

...and to do all of this often by picking just a tiny part of one of these shapes and placing it over the top of an existing car! Just crazy stuff - and not supported by any tech reference I've ever seen.

* I'm hoping that it begins the conversation.
* A vehicle of which its roofline profile begins with a streamlined profile, is subject to separation should its profile wander away from the profile. The profile is only streamlined if it remains uncorrupted. This is the premise of using an AST as a Go NoGo.
* As above, if the roofline has wandered away from an originally-streamlined contour, a comparison to the original, uncorrupted profile will illustrate exactly where the contour left the profile. Moving a spoiler up to the profile will at least help get the flow reattached to the spoiler. If you want additional, direct downforce, then so be it.
* The overlay of the streamline profile will inform the observer about the degree of fidelity to the actual streamline profile.
A look at a M-B CLK-GTR,Porsche918 Spyder, Aston Martin Vanguish, 2015 Corvette, 2017 911 Turbo S, Panamera, 2010 A7, Dodge Viper, and dozens of vehicles will demonstrate how the carmaker 'fixed' separation-induced problems by projecting the body or spoiler up to , and not beyond the streamline profiles of which the initial portion of the roof possessed.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by orange4boy

Hey, Aerohead. Have you really published your own theory? Or are you just applying your knowledge the best way you know how in the context of the problem, like everyone else here?

Everything about it is in Hucho's 2nd-Edition. I was was just stupid enough to connect the dots and see where it led.

[aerohead]

That's probably what Adam thought, the first time he laid eyes on Eve.
With going on 9-billion souls on the planet, it looks like it worked out okay.

[freebeard]

ridiculous
That's probably what Adam thought, the first time he laid eyes on Eve.

Another case of be careful what you ask for?

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by orange4boy

A baseless claim. Without proof that statement is just one man's opinion. Prove it.

You can't, so I submit that you keep saying it in hopes that people start believing it. Of course that's another baseless claim but at least I can admit it.

This is all such a waste of time.

You seem to be suffering from the delusion that I have a desire to persuade you of anything. Believe whatever you want! Why should I care what you believe?

None of your posts seem to do anything to improve car aero understanding or modification - so you're right about their being a waste of time.