RE: [ihc] Re: IH models

[Binder <Binder@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Seems I remember reading somewhere (some mainstream pseudo-science/tech
thing in the past 3 or so years... Mayhaps Scientific American or somesuch
or maybe a NASCAR techno-pub or something) that aerodynamics wasn't always
as intuitive as you might 'presume'.  For instance, it was observed that a
golf ball (dimpled surface) had 'better aerodynamics' than an equivalent
solid/smooth (non-dimpled) ball.  Ditto, certain shapes - some bullet-like
(cone) objects did better with some selected dimpling/scratches than the
equivalent smooth surfaced object.  

Still, when I think 'aerodynamic' and then look at my Scout and look at my
friends 2004 Maxima, aerodynamic ain't a word I think of for the Scout.
"Drag" comes to mind. But I did wax it a week or so ago (back when it was 75
degrees or so!), and I SWEAR I get better gas mileage... Hehehehe. Maybe it
just "FEELS" faster!  ;-)

Later,

--Pete

     .===============.
     ||             ||
  []_||_____________||_[]
   \/-----------------\/  Peter Ferris
   ||( )| | | | | |( )||  Binder AT pferris DOT com
   | ----------------- |  '77 Scout II, 304, a/t, p/s, etc.
  [/\_@@ ==== ==== @@_/\] More 'stock' than 'not'!
  [/>#################<\] http://www.pferris.com/Binder_Pix/Binder_Pix.php
  [/</]   \_/       [\>\] http://www.pferris.com/scout
  [/>/]             [\<\]


: gee thanks, Hoffs.  now i have to clean off my keyboard and 
: monitor!  you managed to catch me in mid-swallow of my 
: Barq's.  what a sticky mess.  i'm gonna make sure i'm not 
: eating or drinking anything from now on before opening your posts.
: 
: --Mac