Reducing lift on different body shape cars

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by AeroMcAeroFace

A template is fine if everything fits the template, like an american football, arbitrarily suggesting that using half a template, designed for bodies of revolution is the best thing for aerodynamic analysis is not supported in any literature.
I am awaiting a paper, expert opinion or book chapter supporting the template applicability. Not anecdotally, actually supporting it, written in a book. If it is so useful it should be somewhere.

While your awaiting you might continue your studies. Everything you seek was in Hucho's 2nd-edition.

[AeroMcAeroFace]

Originally Posted by aerohead

While your awaiting you might continue your studies. Everything you seek was in Hucho's 2nd-edition.

Which I have read, multiple times, along with the 1st and also the 4th edition. It does not, in my reading, show the applicability of the template to a car. Perhaps you can quote, or show a picture of where in the book the applicability is.

If it is so good it won't be cryptic, it will be there specifically, especially if universally applicable, I must have missed it.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

That comment could be more asinine, but I don't know how.
The Drag coefficient is sufficient proof, given those of other vehicles of the same frontal area.
Testing is unnecessary.
If we have to wait for an SAE Paper for every vehicle manufactured, you're expecting something that never was, and will never be.
There seems to be extreme cognitive dissonance with respect to what engineers do.

Yep, testing is unnecessary - who needs it when we have Aerohead's theory?

Normally, when testing shows a theory to be wrong, the theory is questioned. But not with Aerohead's theory! There, the theory always trumps the testing!

Seriously, this is just ridiculous.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by AeroMcAeroFace

Which I have read, multiple times, along with the 1st and also the 4th edition. It does not, in my reading, show the applicability of the template to a car. Perhaps you can quote, or show a picture of where in the book the applicability is.

If it is so good it won't be cryptic, it will be there specifically, especially if universally applicable, I must have missed it.

Keep reading it. Everything is there.
I've quoted it it at least 4-times in 9-months.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

Yep, testing is unnecessary - who needs it when we have Aerohead's theory?

Normally, when testing shows a theory to be wrong, the theory is questioned. But not with Aerohead's theory! There, the theory always trumps the testing!

Seriously, this is just ridiculous.

There's a context connected to your testing which evades you. That's the ridiculous part. Unknown unknowns.