The Kamm research cars

[orange4boy]

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).

You really love your stories. Everything is a big narrative to you in which you are the big hero rescuing us all from the evil baddies. I hate to break it to you, it all happens in your head. You give yourself permission to make all of these grand assumptions but damn those who point them out.

Because I'm asking you to stop making personal attacks and stop making baseless accusations of bad faith you assume I'm "defending the status quo" Of course, your version of the status quo is some unshakable truth we all must know because it exists in your head, right? Sure thing, buddy.

I have done and will continue to challenge "misinfomation" from anyone. Right now, though, I'm challenging your misinformation in the form of baseless accusations of bad faith. That's your real problem with me. You are the hero in your story. You never do those things. How dare I challenge you. Fascinating psychology.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

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.

* Dr Wolf described exactly what I was saying about the 911, and what the spoiler did to the ' adverse pressure gradient '
* With respect to 'more recent' aero textbooks, so far there's no indication that they possess any information which would overturn fluid mechanics as I know them. They nibble around the edges, but no 'grand gestures,' no 'opus magnus.' I routinely see more contemporary fluid mechanics textbooks that aren't worth bringing home.
* Some of your SAE reference materials speak of contradictory and opposing evidence within their own investigations. Like rotating wheel drag.
* You've yet to correct me. I can't get a word out of any of you. For about 9-months now for you personally.
* I really would like to know what you guys actually think. You just avoid direct communication like the plague.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

* Dr Wolf described exactly what I was saying about the 911, and what the spoiler did to the ' adverse pressure gradient '

This is quite ridiculous. You know better than I do what he said in an email to me?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

This is quite ridiculous. You know better than I do what he said in an email to me?

Shall be back track, and revisit the material. I recall that Wolf said something which was in total accord with my take.
The SAE Paper on the Audi A7 Sportback also had all the proper physics, and perfectly described how the 911 body failed attached flow, induced the vortices which induced the downwash, which gave the illusion of 'attached' flow, small high-drag wake, along with the persistent, long-lived, pseudo-Jaray longitudinal vortices/ high vortex-drag.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Shall be back track, and revisit the material. I recall that Wolf said something which was in total accord with my take.
The SAE Paper on the Audi A7 Sportback also had all the proper physics, and perfectly described how the 911 body failed attached flow, induced the vortices which induced the downwash, which gave the illusion of 'attached' flow, small high-drag wake, along with the persistent, long-lived, pseudo-Jaray longitudinal vortices/ high vortex-drag.

Um, you haven't read the SAE paper on the A7. You are going on my description in the book which was all about different rear diffusers for different body shapes, and mentioned the rear spoiler only in passing. And it didn't mention the 911 in the paper...

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by orange4boy

I have done and will continue to challenge "misinformation" from anyone. .

Yes, but here we're talking about car aerodynamics. And, from what you've already said, clearly you don't know enough about the subject to challenge the misinformation being spread on that topic.

That's fair enough - and the reason why Aerohead was able to spread misinformation here for so long is that few people here are reading current references, doing detailed on-road testing, etc - but it doesn't really help in improving the level of knowledge about car aero.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by orange4boy

You really love your stories. Everything is a big narrative to you in which you are the big hero rescuing us all from the evil baddies. I hate to break it to you, it all happens in your head. You give yourself permission to make all of these grand assumptions but damn those who point them out.

What a series of strange things to say - and you seemed to have drifted away from the topic... which is car aerodynamics.

Where people write things about car aero that I know are incorrect, I will try to correct them.

Where people (and in fact there's only one - so 'person') repeatedly writes incorrect things, so misleading others, and point-blank refuses to even look at references and citations that show his errors, well, after a while, I figure that he's doing it deliberately.

I actually think the "big heroes" here are those who have been strong enough to admit that they've been badly mislead over years by some absolute and utter rubbish. Not coincidentally, they're also the people who have followed my oft-stated advice:

Don't believe what I say - find out for yourself. Read any aero textbook of the last 15 years and do some on-road testing. Think about what is being written here, and assess it in the context of those readings and measurements.

Unfortunately, nearly everything that Aerohead currently writes here is either outright wrong, is misleading, or is wrong for current cars. That's a real shame, but that's how it is. Today's "how diffusers work" is a typical Aerohead example: completely wrong (as in, a 2 minute web search will show that), but when corrected, Aerohead refuses to acknowledge the error, let alone consult the cited reference.

Multiply that by dozens of examples and you end up with people on this forum who often have a very confused idea of car aerodynamics.

I've seen this before in web fora, but usually there are enough people with a sufficiently good knowledge of the subject to 'right the boat', so to speak. Some such people have appeared here, made their comment, seen how they were treated, and then left. (The person who made the brilliant suggestion to me of using a pitot tube to provide the static pressure ref when doing pressure testing is a good example of that.)

Unless you're really committed to learning (textbooks, SAE papers, actual on-car testing) you're much more likely to be blindsided by the 'wall of noise' and 'complete denial' approaches that Aerohead takes to criticism. I am just bloodyminded enough to take on such an approach, and furthermore, I hate it when I see car modifiers being misled. Since I typically make every one of my car modifications three times until I am happy with it, I am very slow - and when I think of people spending many hours doing pointless or incorrect aero car modifications, it makes my blood boil.

Thankfully, many people are starting to realise how badly they've been misled - and as for the others who don't want to realise that, I don't care so much!

[orange4boy]

Your constant return to the accusation that I’m against debate or of fighting misinformation after explaining to you on so many occasions my complete approval of fighting misinformation is truly amazing. It’s like you can’t hear it.

And, from what you've already said, clearly you don't know enough about the subject to challenge the misinformation being spread on that topic.

You just can’t stop with the put downs can you? You have a clear understanding of my knowledge of aerodynamics from one comment I made about the holy template of glory do you? Well done, sir. But if your command of aerodynamics is so comprehensive one wonders why you feel the need to put people down so much. Shouldn’t your deep knowledge and flawless argumentation be enough to convince people of the inferiority of your opponents without constantly having to point it out?

and you seemed to have drifted away from the topic... which is car aerodynamics

It was you who drifted into personal attacks. I stupidly intervened hoping to try to get you to return to aerodynamics and away from unfounded accusations and wild assumptions. One thing I learned from all this is that you can’t seem to understand the difference between a personal attack and legitimate debate. I have made no claims here of expert knowledge of aerodynamics but I sure know an ad hominem when I see one.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by orange4boy

Your constant return to the accusation that I’m against debate or of fighting misinformation after explaining to you on so many occasions my complete approval of fighting misinformation is truly amazing. It’s like you can’t hear it.

You just can’t stop with the put downs can you? You have a clear understanding of my knowledge of aerodynamics from one comment I made about the holy template of glory do you? Well done, sir. But if your command of aerodynamics is so comprehensive one wonders why you feel the need to put people down so much. Shouldn’t your deep knowledge and flawless argumentation be enough to convince people of the inferiority of your opponents without constantly having to point it out?

It was you who drifted into personal attacks. I stupidly intervened hoping to try to get you to return to aerodynamics and away from unfounded accusations and wild assumptions. One thing I learned from all this is that you can’t seem to understand the difference between a personal attack and legitimate debate. I have made no claims here of expert knowledge of aerodynamics but I sure know an ad hominem when I see one.

Hmm.

With all that you’ve written you’ve added absolutely nothing to improving knowledge of aerodynamics on this forum.

Noting at all I am afraid.

Do you actually have anything to say that will improve aerodynamic understandings?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

Um, you haven't read the SAE paper on the A7. You are going on my description in the book which was all about different rear diffusers for different body shapes, and mentioned the rear spoiler only in passing. And it didn't mention the 911 in the paper...

1) I was going by your language.
Since you had the material, I presumed, if nothing else, you could use it as a screenplay, script, story-board, to maintain continuity, ( that's why we drop $ 67.00 for your book ) when telling the tale.
2) The Audi paper wouldn't have mentioned the 911. However, the physics which describe the A7 are identical to those describing the actual 911 rear end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) You reported that, Dr. Thomas Wolf reported that, the 911 spoiler affected ' a stronger negative pressure gradient.'
4) This supports the conclusion that the 911 rear end was experiencing separation-induced phenomena.
5) Any other interpretation would defy the laws of physics.