Thank you

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by freebeard

It drives me nuts when people say 'angle' when they mean 'tangent' but I don't burn what little social capital I have trying to get people to change.

I meant what I said - angle. No curvature needed for a hatch extension, especially in initial tests.

[freebeard]

No curvature is needed for a tangent!

It's a trigonometric function based on the triangle. Think of it as the antinormal.

[Isaac Zachary]

Just as long as no one goes off on a tangent.

[freebeard]

ecomodder.com: What sort of shape are we in?

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by freebeard

No curvature is needed for a tangent!

As a writer, I use definitions that agree with the dictionary.


tangent
/ˈtan(d)ʒ(ə)nt/

noun

a straight line or plane that touches a curve or curved surface at a point, but if extended does not cross it at that point.

- Oxford

We've already seen other people here changing the definitions of words when it didn't suit them, but I didn't expect you to start doing so.

[jakobnev]

Just as long as no one goes off on a tangent.

Around here it's normal to go on a tangent.

[Vekke]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

No flat roads and no straight roads = near impossible to test. I currently drive 30 miles to my test location.

I also don`t like if something are said what is known to be false like the comment above. I havent seen Julian go fix his claims/comments in topics which have been proven wrong. Or say I was wrong.

When you read topics here you need to do your own research and see what is true or not. Is there any physical reason to valid or not. I trust physic laws more than anything else.

For the onroad testing:

I only quick test my changes on curvy road which had uphills and downhills sections. Results are even so accurate as Mr Edgar thinks is impossible on the road.

Works well for diesel and electric cars. Petrol ones I havent tested but don`t see any reason why it would not work also for petrol.

On that video Julian calculated accuracy of 0,6% to other direction and 0,7 percent to other.

Julian says only 1% accuracy is possible on onroad testing, because I believe thats the limit he has said in his books or that is what it possible for him. Opinion in the matter is not possible to get turned otherwise.

I on the other hand thin even more accuracy is possible when you think the testing even more what you want to achieve and how will you achieve them. That depends on what you testing, aero or engine mods etc...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhcDhwnwU0I

[Piotrsko]

Im gonna say that the available test measurement total accuracy is the only thing that affects the test. If it's a nonstandard test parameter, then you need to sample more and different to get the boundaries of that sample, so going up and down, left or right gives you meaningful data, but only if you measure all the data available. Besides, nobody takes only one data point for a test, you use the mean. If I use only one data point, my F250 gets 99mpg. (Down a steep hill towing a 7,000lb trailer with a tailwind, instantaneous)

[freebeard]

tangent
/ˈtan(d)ʒ(ə)nt/

noun

a straight line or plane that touches a curve or curved surface at a point, but if extended does not cross it at that point.

- Oxford

We've already seen other people here changing the definitions of words when it didn't suit them, but I didn't expect you to start doing so.

I blame Euclid.

I can cherry-pick definitions too, Oxford is correct only for a subset of 'curved'. Arcs rather than Bezier curves. How is your tangent measured? Rise over run? That's a tangent not an angle.

...that's not normal.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I blame Euclid.

I can cherry-pick definitions too, Oxford is correct only for a subset of 'curved'. Arcs rather than Bezier curves.

So another person here who doesn't accept what the standard dictionary says, but instead has their own definitions of words.

Why am I not surprised - all the better to add to the confusion.

Let's absolutely try to make car aerodynamic modification as difficult as possible, shall we? Hmm, how can we do that? I know! Let's use erroneous concepts, give words meanings that don't match standard dictionary definitions, and put in irrelevant links. That'll do it!

What a great game this is! Hours of fun! Let's see if I can do it.

Did you know that attached flow isn't really attached flow if the angle descends more quickly than the template?

Onomatopoeia boundary layer.

Irrelevant link.


Hey, I think I am getting the hang of it now!