Want low drag? Don't follow a template.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by AeroMcAeroFace

Infinite is required to prove yes, however no evidence supporting disproval is enough for a theory to be accepted, and really we don't care if it is a theory that works or proven.

The evidence that I have seen six or even a million cows that are black and white does not prove my theory that all cows are black and white. It certainly supports my theory, however just one cow that is not black and white is sufficient to disprove.

If 5/6 vehicles fit the pattern and one doesn't then that means that the pattern is not universal, if 999,999/1,000,000 fit the pattern and one doesn't then that means that the pattern is not universal.

"It's almost like their designers started from some kind of template." Maybe they did, but I haven't seen any evidence supporting that, or that any modern car has started or used a template at any point.
It is a valid theory that they used a template as a starting point, but without supporting evidence.

Unfortunately the template is unlikely to ever be proven, even if there is no contrary evidence, it may be a valid and usable theory though.

I have never called anyone stupid, wrong or a liar. And I certainly don't doubt that the template has its uses or may work well for you. I am here to argue against the template, it should stand up to reasonable scrutiny. However that does not mean that anyone who believes in it is wrong.

"When you are pouring hundreds to thousands of hours into a build, you take these design details seriously. You read literature. You buy books. You do the best you can with the resources you have." I agree, of course, but whatever you think about the template, it is not mentioned in any literature or book I have ever read, (unless as a low drag shape, but no mention of applicability to other cars). So even if it is great and universally usable or not, I struggle to see how doing so much reading would lead you to a use template, which, as far as I can tell, is only ever mentioned on an internet forum.

I would welcome a scientific paper demonstrating use of a template, I want to see it, in fact if anyone is currently writing one I would like to co-author it, but so far there is not enough evidence for me to be convinced.

AERODYMAMIK DES KRAFTFAHRZEUGS!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

No remember, earlier you were (rightly) insistent that published scientific research evidence is required.

You have referenced none here - the SAE paper on the Audi does not in any way mention a template of any sort (so you've obviously not read it).

So where is the published evidence showing that a template can be used to do these things:

- Show where there is separated and attached flow on existing cars
- Guide the shape of rear extensions
- Show how rear spoilers on sedans should be positioned and shaped
- Allow the assessment of the ‘aerodynamic purity’ of cars)

You'd expect the peer reviewed literature to be full of it.

I've already explained to you that I procured a blueprint for that vehicle, performed the dimensional analysis, which led to every conclusion I discussed.
Everything I said was backed up in Audi's SAE Paper. Which also shreds any credibility of your conclusions about the Porsche 911, nineteen pages later in your book. Which was corroborated by Dr. Thomas Wolf's testimony.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

So where in the literature and the books is all this information about the template and applying it in this way?

- Show where there is separated and attached flow on existing cars
- Guide the shape of rear extensions
- Show how rear spoilers on sedans should be positioned and shaped
- Allow the assessment of the ‘aerodynamic purity’ of cars)

Surely you must be able to quote lots of publications that show all this?

For at least the 4th- time now, I'm telling you that what you seek is in AERODYNAMIK DES KRAFTFAHRZEUGS. Maybe Hucho will lend you his copy.
Or Bob Rufi. Or Pete Brock. Alex Tremulis has left us.
The University of Texas at Arlington has a reference copy which can not leave the premises. The librarian would photocopy it for you I'm sure. That's where I got mine.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

Yes, and that's how all modern car rear spoilers work - in attached flow. It's been that way for decades. (This 'reaching up to the template line' is just baloney.)

careful there hot-rod!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

Typical personal abuse. I gave you the references, now read them and learn.

From my experience with past recommendations, they all failed to provide any illumination of consequence. I'm a twice-shy from multiple stings now.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

I reply to individual posts with individual posts. Of you don't like that, too bad.

Three of the five posts were replies to the same poster. Too bad you have no appreciation for concision. It does help your post count.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

Typical Aerohead snide insult to another true aerodynamic expert.

How would a geographer, sociologist, journalist make the distinction. To 'know' that Wolf was an expert would require you to be a career aerodynamicists, with equal experience just to have a proper reference datum from which to make the call. By default.
Dr. Thomas Wolf was an employee of Volkswagen AG. I've seen nothing about his career which distinguishes him as exemplary or exceptional.
I've seen no Porsche product which distinguishes itself as exemplary or exceptional.
I've experienced enough PhDs to come to the personal conclusion that, they don't get an automatics pass, no matter who signs their paycheck.
Sychophancy doesn't run in the family.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I've already explained to you that I procured a blueprint for that vehicle, performed the dimensional analysis, which led to every conclusion I discussed.
Everything I said was backed up in Audi's SAE Paper. Which also shreds any credibility of your conclusions about the Porsche 911, nineteen pages later in your book. Which was corroborated by Dr. Thomas Wolf's testimony.

Can you quote the bit on the paper that mentions a template, or in fact any predetermined low drag shape?

I don't think you've ever read the paper if you're misquoting it like that!

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

How would a geographer, sociologist, journalist make the distinction. To 'know' that Wolf was an expert would require you to be a career aerodynamicists, with equal experience just to have a proper reference datum from which to make the call. By default.
Dr. Thomas Wolf was an employee of Volkswagen AG. I've seen nothing about his career which distinguishes him as exemplary or exceptional.
I've seen no Porsche product which distinguishes itself as exemplary or exceptional.
I've experienced enough PhDs to come to the personal conclusion that, they don't get an automatics pass, no matter who signs their paycheck.
Sychophancy doesn't run in the family.

Can everyone take special note of this: Aerohead is now denigrating the head of Porsche aerodynamics!

I defer to experts, take their advice and read what they have to say. Aerohead just denigrates any that don't match his views.

It's just unbelievable the arrogance that Aerohead displays.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

For at least the 4th- time now, I'm telling you that what you seek is in AERODYNAMIK DES KRAFTFAHRZEUGS. Maybe Hucho will lend you his copy.
Or Bob Rufi. Or Pete Brock. Alex Tremulis has left us.
The University of Texas at Arlington has a reference copy which can not leave the premises. The librarian would photocopy it for you I'm sure. That's where I got mine.

Yes, well some of us are using textbooks and SAE papers more recent than a 69 year old book.

Of course, if this were all really significant, it would be in every recent aero textbook, and many SAE papers, wouldn't it?

And it isn't.

So I guess it must be yet another example of where Aerohead is right and all the professional aerodynamicists are wrong. Truly amazing.