New (free) tech paper

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

Little to do with separation - Page 10 of the cited paper.

Independently verified by two additional entities?

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Independently verified by two additional entities?

Sure, read any current car aero textbook. Oh that's right, you refuse to do so....

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

Sure, read any current car aero textbook. Oh that's right, you refuse to do so....

A textbook that also fails in nomenclature? Apples to oranges? That will sure help.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

A textbook that also fails in nomenclature? Apples to oranges? That will sure help.

I've cited the page reference in the (free) paper, an approach that is supported by any current textbook.

If you want to make up some imaginary objection to that, well...

Separated flow has little to do with lift forces on most modern car shapes. If you kept up to date with your readings and understandings, you'd know that.

On the other hand, if you want to keep on pretending that current cars have flow patterns like they did 30 years ago, you can keep on being incorrect.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

I've cited the page reference in the (free) paper, an approach that is supported by any current textbook.

If you want to make up some imaginary objection to that, well...

Separated flow has little to do with lift forces on most modern car shapes. If you kept up to date with your readings and understandings, you'd know that.

On the other hand, if you want to keep on pretending that current cars have flow patterns like they did 30 years ago, you can keep on being incorrect.

Incorrect.
The local streamline pressure above the TBL determines the pressure at the separation line, and the pressure of the turbulence, should flow separation without vorticity occur. If vorticity does occur, drag will be even higher.
If the turbulence is unobstructed, it will affect the overall wake pressure, lowering base pressure, raising pressure drag, overall drag.
Low pressure, existing over any horizontal surface will impart lift.
Porsche's Macan would be an example. Mitsubishi's Mirage 'G' model would not.
And the separation is implicated in the Macan's Cd 0.37, vs the Mirage's Cd 0.27. Same basic roofline. One with separation, one without.
As to 'current'. Let's see how GM's reconstituted, 2021 HUMMER measures out. It's best was Cd 0.51 vs Cd 0.70 at it's worst.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

I've cited the page reference in the (free) paper, an approach that is supported by any current textbook.

If you want to make up some imaginary objection to that, well...

Separated flow has little to do with lift forces on most modern car shapes. If you kept up to date with your readings and understandings, you'd know that.

On the other hand, if you want to keep on pretending that current cars have flow patterns like they did 30 years ago, you can keep on being incorrect.

As I've said elsewhere, there are no 'fastbacks' that were analyzed anywhere in the paper.
You're lack of comprehension of that fact speaks volumes to your apparent ignorance on the subject.

[AeroMcAeroFace]

Originally Posted by aerohead

As I've said elsewhere, there are no 'fastbacks' that were analyzed anywhere in the paper.
You're lack of comprehension of that fact speaks volumes to your apparent ignorance on the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman - Fastback

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invinc...orance_fallacy

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by AeroMcAeroFace

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman - Fastback

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invinc...orance_fallacy

And from one of the cited references:

The fallacy of Invincible Ignorance mimics the consistency that comes from having a well-thought-out position. However it asks us to overlook the distinction between rational consistency and sheer stubbornness.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

As I've said elsewhere, there are no 'fastbacks' that were analyzed anywhere in the paper.
You're lack of comprehension of that fact speaks volumes to your apparent ignorance on the subject.

A good example of Aerohead's aerodynamic definitions no longer matching current, peer-reviewed, published technical papers.

There are a lot like this - one of the problems that comes with not keeping up with the literature.

"Coanda Effect" was another recent one.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Incorrect.
The local streamline pressure above the TBL determines the pressure at the separation line, and the pressure of the turbulence, should flow separation without vorticity occur. If vorticity does occur, drag will be even higher.
If the turbulence is unobstructed, it will affect the overall wake pressure, lowering base pressure, raising pressure drag, overall drag.
Low pressure, existing over any horizontal surface will impart lift.
Porsche's Macan would be an example. Mitsubishi's Mirage 'G' model would not.
And the separation is implicated in the Macan's Cd 0.37, vs the Mirage's Cd 0.27. Same basic roofline. One with separation, one without.
As to 'current'. Let's see how GM's reconstituted, 2021 HUMMER measures out. It's best was Cd 0.51 vs Cd 0.70 at it's worst.

There you go again, just repeating all that you've said for (I imagine) 30+ years.

There is very little flow separation on modern cars - go and do some testing, go and read some current aero textbooks, go and read some current technical papers.

Even go and read the tech paper I referenced in the first post in this thread!

And as for the Macan, you are just making stuff up to support your weird theories. Where is any tuft or smoke testing that shows separated flow on the roof of the Macan?

Oh wait, here's one. Look at all that separated flow on the roof - not!



It is truly amazing how you just make stuff up.