Slowman wrote:
RChung wrote:
The test of any theory is the quality of the predictions it makes, and using wind tunnel measured parameters you can make predictions that closely agree with performance in the real world.
Here's a different but clever approach; you can't do it on your own, but it's pretty damn neat. Plus, "ring of fire" is a great name.
https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/2/6/221
does this test prove out the validity of a wind tunnel test using a bike fixed in an upright position? or does this test prove that a bike in that fixed upright position is demonstrably identical, minus a meaningless variance, to a bike ridden freely in a wind tunnel? were the latter possible?
Well, both field-tested and wind-tunnel-tested parameters do a good job predicting performance in the real world, and field-derived parameters agree with wind-tunnel-derived parameters.
That is, they give you the same results, and the same predictions. Wind tunnel measurement is faster and easier (but more expensive), and you can do controlled yaw. You can do observed yaw in field tests but you obviously can't do controlled yaw. If I weren't so poor and if my time weren't worth so little I'd've never figured out a way to do field tests.