The Kamm research cars

[orange4boy]

I did notice that most of the "abuse" you claim was all generated in a thread in which you misrepresent "The Template" and used divisive language. Not defending it, just an observation. If I were trying to get clicks by any means, that's what I would do.

Sorry, you'd rather that misinformation is disseminated? That's what we're talking about here - incorrect information. Factually wrong. Misleading of others.

No, but welcome to the internet. What are you proposing to do about it? Aggressively accuse and insult each other until the disinformation magically disappears? Censor posts? Who will police that? Who will scour this forum and remove content that is incorrect or non factual? Who will issue ecomodder licences on giving advice? Are you a trained aerodynamicist? Is Aerohead? All I know is you seem to be people and you are on the internet. As always, I will treat everything I read on here with skepticism including what you, aerohead and everyone else posts.

I'm not defending Aerohead, I think you both have gone over the line in your battle, but I'm appealing to both of you stop getting into pissing fights. I'm realizing that's pretty pointless on my part. You both seem to enjoy this greatly. If so, carry on but it makes picking out the important information difficult and annoying and the personal insults, general statements, (the cult) and petty bickering are very off-putting and more importantly, counter productive to changing minds.

The least probable way of changing people's minds is by insulting and berating them. Here's some "science" to back that up:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ng-to-science/

Most people on here are familiar with empiricism. Testing and empiricism have been encouraged in this community since the beginning.

Do you have convincing and reliable empirical evidence that ecomodder is a cult besides individual anecdotal examples? That would be excellent information to back up your claim!

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by AeroMcAeroFace

Why are new innovations and new ways of reducing drag not celebrated?

Ah well, haven't you been following the sub-forum's long-held philosophy?

First, no automotive aerodynamic developments have occurred since 1987. (In fact, really truly, none have occurred since the 1930s.)

Second, all aerodynamic discussion needs to be done through the analytical prism of using a template. "Dimensional analysis" I see it's now being called.

Third, testing (except for rudimentary tuft testing and completely ineffective coast-downs) during aero modification development is to be avoided. Just too many variables to make it of any use at all.

Fourth, informed comment needs to be expressed in the most obscure language possible, all the better to give a lack of understanding in the person seeking advice.

Fifth, any new technical papers that are cited must be analysed using the four above approaches. Strangely enough, this usually leads to their content being dismissed.

But thankfully, most of these are slowly changing.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by orange4boy

I did notice that most of the "abuse" you claim was all generated in a thread in which you misrepresent "The Template" and used divisive language. Not defending it, just an observation. If I were trying to get clicks by any means, that's what I would do.

If I were trying to get clicks, I'd agree with all the BS here and we'd be all one happy family. And one of Aerohead's pieces of personal abuse was directed at another forum member, not me.

No, but welcome to the internet. What are you proposing to do about it? Aggressively accuse and insult each other until the disinformation magically disappears? Censor posts? Who will police that? Who will scour this forum and remove content that is incorrect or non factual? Who will issue ecomodder licences on giving advice? Are you a trained aerodynamicist? Is Aerohead? All I know is you seem to be people and you are on the internet. As always, I will treat everything I read on here with skepticism including what you, aerohead and everyone else posts.

I'm not defending Aerohead, I think you both have gone over the line in your battle, but I'm appealing to both of you stop getting into pissing fights. I'm realizing that's pretty pointless on my part. You both seem to enjoy this greatly. If so, carry on but it makes picking out the important information difficult and annoying and the personal insults, general statements, (the cult) and petty bickering are very off-putting and more importantly, counter productive to changing minds.

Aerohead spreads vast amounts of misinformation here, stuff that is completely wrong. You don't seem to understand that. What do I intend to do about that? While I can be bothered, to rebut it. Perhaps because you are not familiar with the subforum, you also don't seem to realise that there are several people who agree with me, and who are also pointing out the major errors that Aerohead spreads. (Not surprisingly, they're also the people who have been reading current aero references.)

Most people on here are familiar with empiricism. Testing and empiricism have been encouraged in this community since the beginning.

I am sorry, but again you don't seem to be at all familiar with the forum - and I am only ever referring to the aerodynamics section. Until recently, almost no testing of aerodynamic development was occurring. No pressure testing, no throttle stop drag testing, no lift/downforce testing - just completely ineffective coastdowns and some tuft testing. Instead, making guesses from drawings was being actively encouraged as the best way of going about aero modification.

Do you have convincing and reliable empirical evidence that ecomodder is a cult besides individual anecdotal examples? That would be excellent information to back up your claim!

Now you're not even quoting me correctly - pot, kettle, black. I said: "Ecomodder has been described to me as 'being like a cult' - and there are certainly some similarities!". And I stand by that.

[freebeard]

Ah well, haven't you been following the sub-forum's long-held philosophy?

[enumerated charaterizations]

But thankfully, most of these are slowly changing.

You are ascribing aerohead's premise to the forum as a whole. Please stop. Each subforum has it's own character. Were I to ascribe an overall philosophy it would be along the lines of: Proof-of-concept in Coroplast, then A-B-A testing.

orange4boy — JulianEdgar is proudly ignorant of Internet culture. Early on I quoted XKCD: XKCD: Duty Calls

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by freebeard

You are ascribing aerohead's premise to the forum as a whole. Please stop.

Well, I don't think it is just Aerohead's philosophy. You do pretty well all of these things too.

[freebeard]

First, no automotive aerodynamic developments have occurred since ...(the 1930s.)

[Aston Martin Valkyrie ]

Second, all aerodynamic discussion needs to be done through the analytical prism of...

[Thee Holy Template ]

Third, testing .... is to be avoided. .....

[what, get out of my chair?]

Fourth, informed comment needs to be expressed in the most obscure language possible...

[guilty as charged]

Fifth, any new technical papers that are cited must be analysed using

[adversarial generative artificial intelligence]

Final score: I'll grant you two out of the five. You do address Aerodynamics being only a sub-forum?

[orange4boy]

Julian,

I never said you should "go along with all of the BS on this site".

You don't seem to realize there is a difference between directly rebutting something in a discussion and making vast derogatory generalizations based on subjective criteria. The former is fine, the latter is not.

For example:

Ah well, haven't you been following the sub-forum's long-held philosophy?

The idea that this sub has a "philosophy" is an arbitrary characterization. It is subjective and false. Let's call this "X" It could accurately be classified as misinformation. Rebutting X, as I'm doing here is fine. Saying "J.E. is wrong about X" is fine. Going around ecomodder and writing "J.E. is delusional and spreading misinformation" basd on X, is not. Call that accusation "Y" Why is it not OK? It's not civil. It's defamation. It's against the forum rules. That's why. No amount of you being wrong about X justifies me saying Y.

Some light hearted sarcastic ribbing:

[Groan]

1. You have refused to change your mind.

2. You have not read my link.

3. You have not responded to all of my points as you have previously demanded of others. Pot, kettle, etc.

See how this is all circular and pointless?

Rebut all you want but please avoid mean spirited snark, over generalizations, put downs and personal vendettas. None of us has evidence that anything Aero has posted was done in bad faith. Suggesting as much is just as wrong as unsupported claims. It's not like he or anyone else here has a monopoly on being wrong. (...or right)

As far as I can tell, Aerohead uses "the template" as a general guide and he has said as much. He did not design the program that automatically applies it to cars. Posting examples of incorrectly applying "the template" using that program is not proof that it's "false". It's not a theory. It's a guideline based on an "ideal shape". Not the only ideal shape but a practical one for beginners to use as a basic tool. AFAIK it was never meant to be a "theory" or the only way to apply aerodynamics in the way that you characterize it.

Now you're not even quoting me correctly - pot, kettle, black. I said: "Ecomodder has been described to me as 'being like a cult' - and there are certainly some similarities!". And I stand by that.

I apologize. You are obviously not implying Ecomodder is a cult.

Lastly, what's the worst that could happen here with supposed bad aero advice on this forum? Someone gets slightly worse MPG? Oh god. Please save us.

Anyway, Love your work. Your online etiquette? Not so much.

Cheers.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by orange4boy

As far as I can tell, Aerohead uses "the template" as a general guide and he has said as much. He did not design the program that automatically applies it to cars. Posting examples of incorrectly applying "the template" using that program is not proof that it's "false". It's not a theory. It's a guideline based on an "ideal shape". Not the only ideal shape but a practical one for beginners to use as a basic tool. AFAIK it was never meant to be a "theory" or the only way to apply aerodynamics in the way that you characterize it.

I apologize. You are obviously not implying Ecomodder is a cult.

Lastly, what's the worst that could happen here with supposed bad aero advice on this forum? Someone gets slightly worse MPG? Oh god. Please save us.

Anyway, Love your work. Your online etiquette? Not so much.

Cheers.

It is quite obvious that

(1) You haven't been reading this sub forum much

and

(2) You don't spend hundreds of hours modifying your car, sweating blood tears and money.

If you did (1) above, you'd know that what you have written about Aerohead (eg how he applies the template) is simply not correct, and that yes, Aerohead is now quite obviously spreading misinformation in bad faith.

If you did (2) you would never be flippant about bad car modification advice being given out. To you it's apparently trivial; it's not to me - but then I actually work on modifying my cars and spend a lot of effort doing so.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by orange4boy

As far as I can tell, Aerohead uses "the template" as a general guide and he has said as much. He did not design the program that automatically applies it to cars. Posting examples of incorrectly applying "the template" using that program is not proof that it's "false". It's not a theory. It's a guideline based on an "ideal shape". Not the only ideal shape but a practical one for beginners to use as a basic tool. AFAIK it was never meant to be a "theory" or the only way to apply aerodynamics in the way that you characterize it.

I apologize. You are obviously not implying Ecomodder is a cult.

Lastly, what's the worst that could happen here with supposed bad aero advice on this forum? Someone gets slightly worse MPG? Oh god. Please save us.

Anyway, Love your work. Your online etiquette? Not so much.

Cheers.

It is quite obvious that

(1) You haven't been reading this sub forum much

and

(2) You don't spend thousands of hours modifying your car, sweating blood tears and money.

If you did (1) above, you'd know that what you have written about Aerohead (eg how he applies the template) is simply not correct, and that yes, Aerohead is now quite obviously spreading misinformation in bad faith.

If you did (2) you would never be flippant about bad car modification advice being given out. To you it's apparently trivial; it's not to me - but then I actually work on modifying my cars and spend a lot of effort doing so.

[orange4boy]

(1) You haven't been reading this sub forum much

and

(2) You don't spend thousands of hours modifying your car, sweating blood tears and money.

(1) Well, not lately at least, but a quick perusal makes it obvious there are two tango partners in this number

(2) False. Something, something, ten second internet search.

If you want to claim some kind of moral high ground, you probably shouldn't do some of the exact same things you find so objectionable in other people. Just sayin'.

I'm trying to encourage civility, not stifle debate. F#*k me, right?