Want low drag? Don't follow a template.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Yep! There's the old perspicacity-deficit disorder as always. I don't know how you dress yourself. Foot into sleeve. Neck into fly.......................

More personal abuse, more attempts to distract from the point that there is no support at all for the use of a template in any current aerodynamic technical literature.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

Dr Wolf is the fifth current profesional aerodynamicist you have denigrated in this group. All have vastly more knowledge of aerodynamics than you or I.

The pattern is that you denigrate anyone who disagrees with you - whatever their experience, qualifications and status.

I defer to professional car aerodynamicists, take their advice and read what they have to say.

About what? Are you in possession of a VASTINTELLIMETER?
I can disparage anyone who's made no real contribution to mankind over their entire professional career. I have a moral obligation to do so, if able to make the distinction. If they were anyone of note, they'd be household words. The only reason I've had the misfortune to come to know some of them is because of you. Thanks for nothing.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

More personal abuse, more attempts to distract from the point that there is no support at all for the use of a template in any current aerodynamic technical literature.

You wittingly avoid the very document that would shatter your distorted worldview, after pretending to desire, and make a big deal out of the identification of same document; then attack the messenger when they deliver on your request. Behavior best interpreted by a clinician.
Your words/ behavior is so bizarre that, perhaps, only a visit to a psych ward would be a logical solution. They could help with the incivility, ungentlemanly conduct, chronic confabulation , visions of grandeur, and self-importance. Undeserved.
And you might ask your father how hard one should push combat veterans with PTSD.
Next time your passing a nearby church, why don't you stop and go in and attack the clergy for using a document that's thousands of years old. Certainly, any religion invented yesterday will be far superior! It'll be 'current.'

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

You wittingly avoid the very document that would shatter your distorted worldview, after pretending to desire, and make a big deal out of the identification of same document; then attack the messenger when they deliver on your request. Behavior best interpreted by a clinician.
Your words/ behavior is so bizarre that, perhaps, only a visit to a psych ward would be a logical solution. They could help with the incivility, ungentlemanly conduct, chronic confabulation , visions of grandeur, and self-importance. Undeserved.
And you might ask your father how hard one should push combat veterans with PTSD.
Next time your passing a nearby church, why don't you stop and go in and attack the clergy for using a document that's thousands of years old. Certainly, any religion invented yesterday will be far superior! It'll be 'current.'

More personal abuse, more attempts to distract from the point that there is no support at all for the use of a template in any current aerodynamic technical literature.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

More personal abuse, more attempts to distract from the point that there is no support at all for the use of a template in any current aerodynamic technical literature.

words of a seemingly complete coward. Terrified to reveal their manifest ignorance of aerodynamics. Forever hiding under the skirts of others, incapable of defending their thesis in their own tongue. Pitiful! Ignorant. Illogical. Irrational. Incoherent. Defies physical law. Disrespect of all, then feigns surprise when receives push-back, as if everyone else is presumed spineless, and as impotent. Hypocritical. Left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
Want low drag? Don't follow Julian Edgar.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

words of a seemingly complete coward. Terrified to reveal their manifest ignorance of aerodynamics. Forever hiding under the skirts of others, incapable of defending their thesis in their own tongue. Pitiful! Ignorant. Illogical. Irrational. Incoherent. Defies physical law. Disrespect of all, then feigns surprise when receives push-back, as if everyone else is presumed spineless, and as impotent. Hypocritical. Left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
Want low drag? Don't follow Julian Edgar.

You seemed to have lost the thread in your tirades of personal abuse.

What we're asking for is evidence in any current technical aerodynamic literature that supports the way you use your template, viz:

- 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

So far, you haven't provided any evidence - and neither has anyone else. Not much of a surprise when all purported uses are absurd.

It's just a crying shame that so many people here have been sucked in by such rubbish.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

You seemed to have lost the thread in your tirades of personal abuse.

What we're asking for is evidence in any current technical aerodynamic literature that supports the way you use your template, viz:

- 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

So far, you haven't provided any evidence - and neither has anyone else. Not much of a surprise when all purported uses are absurd.

It's just a crying shame that so many people here have been sucked in by such rubbish.

That's the point. For you, evidence is something temporal. If it's not 'current', then you automatically discount or dismiss it out of hand.
It seems that it is absolutely impossible for you to wrap your head around the potentiality that, evidence from 1922 could clearly support solutions for questions asked today. Something Hucho told you explicitly about on the very first page of his 2nd-Edition ( PREFACE ).
And I don't know why you don't retain information from the 2nd-Edition as if it never existed. It's a great mystery to me.
Hucho laid out everything which led to the 'template', as 'templates' exist back into the 18th Century as far as aerodynamics go. There's nothing novel about them. And you were admonished by Hucho to learn about all that as well.
The aerodynamics that's 'rubbish' to you, is the 'Golden-Goose' to others. Your education hasn't taken you far enough yet, although I know it's in you to master it. I'm enviable of your command of certain subjects. Truly!
If you know of Kamm, then you'll find his body of work in Fachsenfeld's book.
Kamm worked from Walter E. Lay's research.
It's all about 'templates.'
And you'll see how their 'templates' predicted.
Stores closing. I'll talk to you next Wednesday.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

That's the point. For you, evidence is something temporal. If it's not 'current', then you automatically discount or dismiss it out of hand.
It seems that it is absolutely impossible for you to wrap your head around the potentiality that, evidence from 1922 could clearly support solutions for questions asked today. Something Hucho told you explicitly about on the very first page of his 2nd-Edition ( PREFACE ).
And I don't know why you don't retain information from the 2nd-Edition as if it never existed. It's a great mystery to me.
Hucho laid out everything which led to the 'template', as 'templates' exist back into the 18th Century as far as aerodynamics go. There's nothing novel about them. And you were admonished by Hucho to learn about all that as well.
The aerodynamics that's 'rubbish' to you, is the 'Golden-Goose' to others. Your education hasn't taken you far enough yet, although I know it's in you to master it. I'm enviable of your command of certain subjects. Truly!
If you know of Kamm, then you'll find his body of work in Fachsenfeld's book.
Kamm worked from Walter E. Lay's research.
It's all about 'templates.'
And you'll see how their 'templates' predicted.
Stores closing. I'll talk to you next Wednesday.

Short answer: Aerohead doesn't know of any evidence in any current technical literature that supports his use of a template.

Basically, Aerohead has grabbed a very old aerodynamic low-drag shape (fine) and then developed all sorts of weird purported uses for this shape (not fine), none of which are supported in any current references.

Along the way, he has unfortunately sucked lots of people here into believing in his weird theories - very sad.

But as I always say - don't take my word for it. Look up some aero textbooks for yourself, read a variety of SAE papers on the development of car aerodynamics, do some basic tuft and pressure testing on different cars, then make your own judgement.

[ME_Andy]

It doesn't have to be recent, Julian. We don't cite Isaac Newton every time gravity is mentioned.

I don't get why you have so much trouble with this.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by ME_Andy

It doesn't have to be recent, Julian. We don't cite Isaac Newton every time gravity is mentioned.

I don't get why you have so much trouble with this.

Does every current physics book cite the theory of gravity and discuss it in detail? Yes, they sure do.

Now, does any current aerodynamic textbook cite a theory of the template and discuss it in detail? No, they sure don't.

I don't get why you have so much trouble with this.