Vman 455 (tyrant)

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

As usual, you are misquoting the context of my reply. Maybe you didn't see it, so I will repeat what I was responding to.

"Julian has been a cancer to the site ever since he came on but he writes just well enough to confuse most people. His technical knowledge is shallow."

If my knowledge was shallow, why would professionals in the subject endorse my books?

It seems to me to be a pretty good question.

Addition: Let me put it another way. I am confident in what I write here - eg in identifying errors that Aerohead spreads - because my understandings and knowledge have been endorsed by real experts. If that hadn't occurred, to be honest I'd probably believe some of the BS that Aerohead spreads - but then again, if you've read any aero textbooks or done any aero testing, it's pretty easy to see issues in much of what he writes.

1) Do you know the origin of the expression BS?
2) Do you realize how offensive it is?
3) Do your professional experts use Bull-S--- in their professional communications, SAE Papers?
4) Do your professional experts have any idea that their names are associated with anyone who uses Bull-S--- on a casual basis, during discussion?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

In fact, California98Civic, I was thinking about you the other day.

There (what 5-6 months ago - more?) was Aerohead saying point-blank that fastbacks always had less lift than squarebacks.

And there were you, agreeing with him... and then desperately trying to find a tech paper - any tech reference - that actually supported this nonsense.

You found quite a few interesting tech sources, but - of course - none supported the falsehood that Aerohead was promulgating.

Then you went really quiet.

I just don't understand why, when you looked at the good evidence you'd found, you simply didn't say: 'Aerohead, actually you're wrong on this one.'

It's bizarre - all I can assume is that people would rather that falsehoods are repeatedly spread here, as long as they can 'stay loyal' to Aerohead.

I attempted to create a dedicated thread in which to address these issues, only to have it immediately killed by your associate Vman455.
He's just summarily killed my thread on US PATENT illustrations, which would have been exactly the type of pictorial information any member or guest might use in contemplation of modifications.
You attack me, then metaphorically kill me as soon as I attempt to clarify.
Do I shut you down when you may mistakes?
In the United States, someone is considered innocent of a crime until found guilty in a court of law.
During pre-trial discovery, the defendant is allowed to assemble prima facie evidence, germane to the particulars of the case.
You allege me to commit crimes, then unilaterally shut down my avenues for explanation and defense.
Which would put you behind bars in the United States.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

Actually, it's very interesting. When you write a book on a topic, and the book attempts to cover a broad area of that topic, it's a huge learning experience. That's because, if you are honest with yourself, you cannot just skirt past stuff you don't really know.

So at the moment, with my book I am writing on the history of suspension, I have just today written to an expert saying:

"If you know of any published information on torsional / bending stiffnesses of cars of the last 50 years, I am very interested! I also don't have any clear info on relating body stiffness frequency measurements to torsional and bending stiffness. There seems to be few technical papers available on these topics."

So, when I have obtained some information on this, and got my head around it, and being guided by real experts, I'll be pretty confident in commenting on this topic in a future discussion group talking about car suspension and torsional body stiffness.

It's been the same time after time with car aero. When you show that you're trying to understand, and are prepared to do the hard yards, I've found real experts just bend over backwards to help.

Why do they do that with little ol' Julian from Dalton, New South Wales, Australia?

Because they want good information out there!

They see so much absolute rubbish around that when someone comes to them and really wants the right info to publish, they're just so positive!

And the relevance to this group? When I see so much misinformation being spread, and I realise the source of that misinformation is one man, then yes, I try to correct it.

I started off expecting that person to acknowledge their mistakes, but I soon realised that Aerohead never, ever, ever does so - so then it becomes just silly. A silly game.

Except - except - that people trying to learn are being massively misled. And, as a hands-on car modifier who has spent thousands of hours modifying cars, I just hate seeing other car modifiers being misled.

1) I'll be happy to correct any mistakes when they've been pointed out.
2) As I've said many times, for over a year, you have never been respectful enough to provide me with a transcript of your back-and- forth communications with your professional experts, from which I would have access to the actual dialogue purporting to, say, discount not only the viability of a 'template,' but it's very premise.
3) In the meantime, the companies of which your experts work(ed) for, routinely USE the template for their lowest drag products.
4) It's very surreal!

[Vman455]

Well, I feel like I should have the final say here.

1) "Tyrant-at-Large" is a joke--it was a descriptor I invented for myself in a college society, based on the comic strip "Cavin and Hobbes"--that I selected when I registered here in 2012. I had honestly forgotten it was still my moniker, but I've changed it now to "moderator" to clear up any confusion.

2) I was asked to be a moderator months ago to keep an eye on things, since I'm frequently logged on here. I haven't posted very much in the last ~6 months, mainly due to other things going on in my life and also as a reassessment of my own online persona in the wake of the bans last fall, but I have been around. And, I've been mostly hands-off; California98Civic, you're right in that we probably should have closed more threads when it became clear that no productive discussion could result from them.

3) There are no degree requirements to be a moderator; this isn't a job, and I'm not paid (and to my knowledge, neither are the other mods!); I was simply asked to be an extra set of eyes and I said yes. That said, I hold *three* degrees, and one of those is an engineering degree; I teach at a university, although not in engineering; and I have had articles published in national journals in my field of expertise. That last one is to demonstrate that I have the necessary qualifications--namely, being able to read and write--to moderate an online forum.

4) The closed threads this week had either 1) devolved into unproductive argument, or 2) were started in attempts to restart the same argument, which already did not have anything to do with aerodynamics, the subject of this subforum. The threads on patents were *not* about using patent illustrations to design aerodynamic devices; they were about the broader subject of whether "ideas" are patentable. If you want to argue that, take it to the Off-Topic subforum--but if such a thread devolves again, we'll have no choice but to close it.

We can discourse civilly here; argue the merits of ideas; share results of testing and building and tinkering. We're all passionate and invested. Just be aware of passion overtaking intellect, be nice, and know when to step away from the keyboard.