The Kamm research cars

[freebeard]

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

Can't say the same about aerohead. I know, I've spectated.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

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.

1) How is it that you have the power to look into a person's soul and ascertain that they are willfully attempting to deceive. 'Bad faith' implies that you possess such power. And I thought we agreed long ago, as rules of engagement, that we would limit our discussion to only the 'content.' Not the 'motivation.'
2) How do you prove intent?
3) Given the non-continuity and incoherence manifested in some of your presentations, how do we know that you're actually speaking from a position of knowledge when your speech betrays such command?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the 'template', does the fact that automotive corporations repeatedly use aerodynamic templates to set speed records, or fuel economy records mean anything, whether they're mine, or Jaray's, Lay's, Koenig-Fachsenfeld's, Buchheim et al., Hucho, etc. ?
Facts and data don't appear to mean anything anymore.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm very thankful to you for the references you've contributed, with respect to the current state-of-the-art, however, upon investigation, my experience is that, these materials represent 'pilot-fish' attacking only parasites on the aerodynamic 'shark,' whereas, the research of earlier times constituted the 'Orca' which will EAT the 'shark.'

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

1) How is it that you have the power to look into a person's soul and ascertain that they are willfully attempting to deceive. 'Bad faith' implies that you possess such power. And I thought we agreed long ago, as rules of engagement, that we would limit our discussion to only the 'content.' Not the 'motivation.'
2) How do you prove intent?
3) Given the non-continuity and incoherence manifested in some of your presentations, how do we know that you're actually speaking from a position of knowledge when your speech betrays such command?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can only assume that it is bad faith when you doggedly continue to spread misinformation, despite being corrected numerous times and given the references that would enable you to correct your misunderstandings.

Today's complete error in your description of how rear diffusers work (other thread) is a perfect example. We can all be certain that (1) you won't acknowledge your error, and (2) you won't consult the reference to correct your misunderstanding, and (3) you'll happily continue to spread that particular piece of misinformation. I'd call doing that: bad faith.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by orange4boy

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

No I don't think so. You're trying to encourage the previous status quo, and unfortunately from a position where (1) it appears you don't know much about car aerodynamics (otherwise, you'd be appalled at all the misinformation that has been spread here), and (2) you haven't been following the debates here (or you wouldn't keep rehashing ground that has been exhaustively covered in the last few months - eg all the absurd ways the template has been being used).

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

I can only assume that it is bad faith when you doggedly continue to spread misinformation, despite being corrected numerous times and given the references that would enable you to correct your misunderstandings.

Today's complete error in your description of how rear diffusers work (other thread) is a perfect example. We can all be certain that (1) you won't acknowledge your error, and (2) you won't consult the reference to correct your misunderstanding, and (3) you'll happily continue to spread that particular piece of misinformation. I'd call doing that: bad faith.

1) your assumption is incorrect.
2) no one has established the veracity of your claim of 'misinformation'
3) if you'll please publish, in your own tongue, a scientific rebuttal, which overturns the logic of my argument, you'll immediately have an apology, and a thanks for finally moving the ball down the court. I haven't been 'corrected' so far as I can discern.
4) none of your references possess such information.
5) a clarification between page - 186 of your book, and page-195 of your book would be a great contribution, as they contradict one another.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

1) your assumption is incorrect.
2) no one has established the veracity of your claim of 'misinformation'
3) if you'll please publish, in your own tongue, a scientific rebuttal, which overturns the logic of my argument, you'll immediately have an apology, and a thanks for finally moving the ball down the court. I haven't been 'corrected' so far as I can discern.
4) none of your references possess such information.
5) a clarification between page - 186 of your book, and page-195 of your book would be a great contribution, as they contradict one another.

In addition to me, there have been at least two other people correcting you and citing references that show your misunderstandings. In all cases you simply ignore what has been said and don't read the references.

If you have a specific criticism of my book, by all means spell it out.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

In addition to me, there have been at least two other people correcting you and citing references that show your misunderstandings. In all cases you simply ignore what has been said and don't read the references.

If you have a specific criticism of my book, by all means spell it out.

1) that hasn't been my experience yet.
2) 'simply ignore' This is a perfect opportunity to flesh out your thesis in just a few words. Specificity.
3) References I have looked at failed to sway me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- specific criticism of your book has to do with the handling of the SAE Paper on the Audi A7, on page 186,( which is essentially spot-on with respect to fluid mechanics ), versus how the Porsche 911 rear spoiler physics is handled on page-195, which is in total opposition to the physics of the Audi.
Dr. Thomas Wolf's comments only supported my contention of what was explaining the phenomena.

[orange4boy]

I can only assume that it is bad faith when you doggedly continue to spread misinformation, despite being corrected numerous times and given the references that would enable you to correct your misunderstandings.

No. You can't. You can't assume that as fact no matter how right you think you are or how wrong you think others are. Not the least reason being that language and communication are not perfect. Sharing knowledge will always be fraught with errors in transcription and comprehension. We can assume there will be errors, we can't assume those will be in bad faith without hard proof of bad faith. You do not have that.

Today's complete error in your description of how rear diffusers work (other thread) is a perfect example. We can all be certain that (1) you won't acknowledge your error, and (2) you won't consult the reference to correct your misunderstanding, and (3) you'll happily continue to spread that particular piece of misinformation. I'd call doing that: bad faith.

I have pointed out several errors in your posts.

We can all be certain that (1) you won't acknowledge your error, and (2) you won't consult the TOS to correct your misunderstanding, and (3) you'll happily continue to spread that particular piece of misinformation.

I'd still not call doing that: bad faith because that would be an assumption which is literally a conclusion drawn without proof. Do you even science?

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by orange4boy

No. You can't. You can't assume that as fact no matter how right you think you are or how wrong you think others are. Not the least reason being that language and communication are not perfect. Sharing knowledge will always be fraught with errors in transcription and comprehension. We can assume there will be errors, we can't assume those will be in bad faith without hard proof of bad faith. You do not have that.

Um, we seem to be having some difficulties with the meaning of words. An assumption isn't a fact, it is - by definition - an assumption!

My assumption is that, given how Aerohead refuses to correct his aerodynamics errors (that what's this subforum is about, isn't it?), despite having those errors pointed out many times and suitably referenced, that he is continuing in bad faith.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

1) that hasn't been my experience yet.
2) 'simply ignore' This is a perfect opportunity to flesh out your thesis in just a few words. Specificity.
3) References I have looked at failed to sway me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- specific criticism of your book has to do with the handling of the SAE Paper on the Audi A7, on page 186,( which is essentially spot-on with respect to fluid mechanics ), versus how the Porsche 911 rear spoiler physics is handled on page-195, which is in total opposition to the physics of the Audi.
Dr. Thomas Wolf's comments only supported my contention of what was explaining the phenomena.

I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Dr Wolf, in his written feedback on my book, was in agreement with my description of how the 911 rear spoiler works. It bemuses me how you just make things up.

You've said frequently that you've not read any aero textbooks more recent than 1987.

You've ignored all the corrections and references that I, Vman455 and AeroMcAeroFace have been giving you.