Want low drag? Don't follow a template.

[AeroMcAeroFace]

Originally Posted by freebeard

IMHO it's down to use case. The only area where Templatey McTemplate has application is in solar racers, and they deviate toward a longer fineness ratioi,

Maybe they do use a "template", which is one of the many low drag shapes, but papers usually suggest a few sketches, turn them into 3d models, do a baseline comparison, choose the best one or two and then refine using lots of wind tunnel/CFD. If it was as easy as just following a template I think there would be no need for any of that.

I think papers would say, we followed template number 7 and got really low drag, we did no wind tunnel testing because we didn't need to, the template did everything.

[AeroMcAeroFace]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

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

Maybe this is why it isn't in any technical literature, because when it was originally mentioned it was as a low drag shape. Then in subsequent revisions they edited it out because it has no application anywhere, other than a point of interest and far more important innovations and discoveries appeared making referencing an old shape as an example (and nothing more) completely pointless.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by JulianEdgar

That sounds literally incredible. Can you link to the evidence?

I think he's referencing this car.





Like any trade article, the author gets some things wrong and some things right--such as, "What's important is the comparative analysis of A-B testing throughout the day, as specific aero data will vary even from tunnel to tunnel." At A2, you have the further problem of no wheel rotation, no ground plane movement, and high blockage ratio, so I wouldn't use the absolute cD = 0.201 they found for the Camaro to compare cD figures for other cars.

The important takeaway from that article is this line: "One good test is worth a thousand opinions."