Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Deltawing for LeMans in 2012


  • Please log in to reply
250 replies to this topic

#1 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,603 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 09 June 2011 - 12:12

Hi guys, seems the DeltaWing concept hasn't disappeared after being rejected as the IRL chassis. Now they are aiming at LeMans next year.



Wonder if it will work as well as conventional cars?

Advertisement

#2 chdphd

chdphd
  • Member

  • 1,438 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 09 June 2011 - 12:15

I think it's great that they are going ahead with this. It'll be interesting to see how it corners.

#3 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 09 June 2011 - 12:33

I think it's great that they are going ahead with this. It'll be interesting to see how it corners.


This has been going on for some time now.
Has there been any 'real' reporting and videos of the thing actualy lapping at speed, or is it all computer simulations.

#4 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 09 June 2011 - 15:58

How the hell did they get that past the FIA ......

Something different and innovative and doesn't look the same as everything else and in particular doesn't have components belonging to "The Village"? (The blonde hair kids with "the eyes" will come and get 'em soon....)



#5 GPD

GPD
  • New Member

  • 11 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 09 June 2011 - 16:14


I havent really got my head around this yet, I mean the aero and drag are fairly simple to understand, but I dont fully know how to believe in the narrow front track?

Can someone take the time to explain the dynamics of this concept? Im sure Dave W could shed more than some light ....?

#6 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,493 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 09 June 2011 - 23:56

I think it's great that they are going ahead with this. It'll be interesting to see how it corners.

You haven't seen the Reliant Robin videos?

#7 nodrift4me

nodrift4me
  • Member

  • 50 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 10 June 2011 - 01:32

About 40 seconds into the video, ".... halve the drag .....". Wouldn't it be easier to just use the existing cars and lose the wings? Add a little ground effect to get back much of the downforce but mostly use the existing equipment to keep it cheap. (with a bit less boost, or maybe none at all)

#8 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,603 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 10 June 2011 - 02:11

How the hell did they get that past the FIA ......

Something different and innovative and doesn't look the same as everything else and in particular doesn't have components belonging to "The Village"? (The blonde hair kids with "the eyes" will come and get 'em soon....)



Don't have to since they'll be running a Le Mans and the ACO dictates the rules for that, and will also for the prototype classes of the World Endurance Championship that starts next year.

Also, the rules probably don't preclude a deltawing style car in F1 (except for the covered wheels, of course).

#9 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,603 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 10 June 2011 - 02:13

You haven't seen the Reliant Robin videos?


The simulation clearly shows two front wheels, but with such a narrow track will it make any difference? And surely the front suspension would be compromised?



#10 munks

munks
  • Member

  • 350 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 10 June 2011 - 03:51

The simulation clearly shows two front wheels, but with such a narrow track will it make any difference? And surely the front suspension would be compromised?


When's the last time you saw the front suspension on an F1 car move?

#11 packapoo

packapoo
  • Member

  • 731 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 10 June 2011 - 05:47

Christ, I hope this one never gets off the drawing boards.
DG, what on earth are you thinking?

#12 DaveW

DaveW
  • Member

  • 400 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 10 June 2011 - 10:01

I think that is an ambitious program from the perspectives of both performance & time scale. Just the steering system will be an interesting challenge - especially managing the failure modes. I hope they don't become too much of a mobile chicane.

#13 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,921 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 10 June 2011 - 10:07

Indeed. There is no way with the people involved, the time put into the design, or modern design aids; that this can possibly work.

#14 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,864 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 10 June 2011 - 10:19

Don't have to since they'll be running a Le Mans and the ACO dictates the rules for that, and will also for the prototype classes of the World Endurance Championship that starts next year.


If it runs, it will run unclassified as an "experimental" entry, so outside any of the LMP classes.

#15 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,921 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 10 June 2011 - 11:11

That will be fun if any front runners have an incident with it.

What class was the funky electric Panoz in? The original GT one.

#16 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,864 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 10 June 2011 - 12:20

That will be fun if any front runners have an incident with it.

What class was the funky electric Panoz in? The original GT one.


GT1, but it didn't prequalify and never raced at Le Mans after all.

#17 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 1,891 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 10 June 2011 - 16:10

When's the last time you saw the front suspension on an F1 car move?



This is a common sentiment, but not an accurate one. F1 suspensions move enough that doing one wrong puts you firmly in the back of the bus.

The DeltaWing will have all sorts of problems. I looks like a great opportunity to really hurt someone to me. I hope I'm wrong.

#18 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 10 June 2011 - 16:15

Indeed. There is no way with the people involved, the time put into the design, or modern design aids; that this can possibly work.


:lol:

Edited by cheapracer, 10 June 2011 - 16:16.


#19 munks

munks
  • Member

  • 350 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 10 June 2011 - 20:54

This is a common sentiment, but not an accurate one. F1 suspensions move enough that doing one wrong puts you firmly in the back of the bus.


Well, I know the rear moves plenty. But the front moves so little that I think they just use some mildly flexible bonds between the arms and chassis, no? And I thought they added a rule in F1 that you had to have a working suspension because people were actually trying to do without at the front.

Wuzak's original point, though, was that the front suspension would be compromised on the DeltaWing. I'm pretty sure F1 designers compromise the front suspension quite a bit (mostly in movement, but sometimes in geometry) for aerodynamic purposes.

Advertisement

#20 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,230 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 10 June 2011 - 21:51

The F1 rulebook mandates that a pretense of front suspension must be maintained, so I'd assume that anyone in the sport would quite rightly assert that their cars are legal on this point. I haven't however been able to see any actual wheel travel relative to the sprung mass on the front of an F1 car from in-car cameras the past few years even when bashing curbs. Perhaps they move a few mm to attempt to attenuate contact patch loading variations due to tire resonances. The rule itself would be nonsensical if the rulemakers didn't foresee any potential advantage from eliminating the suspension entirely. Perhaps an essentially rigid front axle and a TMD would be the way to go if allowed.

#21 sblick

sblick
  • Member

  • 492 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 11 June 2011 - 00:56

Unconventional or a rethink is what makes racing racing. You finally get to see a new type of racecar built that no one has put rules on and it is nit pick everything. Why don't we want to enjoy the process? It is a whole new way almost. I am excited to see Dan Gurney and AAR build the car. I will be over the moon the first time it hits the track, and for reasons people have said I will be praying for the drivers health and well being. Although with computers these days almost all things are pretty well de-bugged before a "guinea pig" gets in, it will still be exciting to watch. If it wasn't going to be something to see why are Ford and Chevy fighting to be the powertrain source. The guys behind this aren't idiots.

#22 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,493 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 June 2011 - 06:44

:up:

#23 murpia

murpia
  • Member

  • 344 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 11 June 2011 - 21:52

The F1 rulebook mandates that a pretense of front suspension must be maintained, so I'd assume that anyone in the sport would quite rightly assert that their cars are legal on this point. I haven't however been able to see any actual wheel travel relative to the sprung mass on the front of an F1 car from in-car cameras the past few years even when bashing curbs. Perhaps they move a few mm to attempt to attenuate contact patch loading variations due to tire resonances. The rule itself would be nonsensical if the rulemakers didn't foresee any potential advantage from eliminating the suspension entirely. Perhaps an essentially rigid front axle and a TMD would be the way to go if allowed.

Just because you can't see it move, does not mean the suspension isn't doing it's job. On an F1 car the front suspension's job is to maintain an accurate and tunable front roll couple distribution (relative to the rear). Just bolting the wheels to the chassis won't achieve that. It also acts to damp and control the contact patch load oscillations of the front tyres, normally done via the 3rd elements (damper or inerter).

Regards, Ian

#24 WhizzMan

WhizzMan
  • Member

  • 56 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 12 June 2011 - 19:14

I don't see this car have half the drag, unless they plan on not putting any down force on those front wheels at all. The frontal area is at least as much as that of a conventional car and the amount of down force they want to generate will cause similar drag to current LMP designs, delta-wing or not. Even if they get that worked out because of the miracles of delta wings and they have solved the low speed no lift/down force problem of delta wings as well (guess why passenger planes still don't have them), I doubt LeMans will let them on the track, since nobody will be able to pass them with that ridiculously wide rear.

This all being said, I'd love to be proven wrong next year, since Audi vs. Peugeot burning diesel is getting boring.

#25 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,921 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 12 June 2011 - 19:25

I don't think the rear track is particularly wide, it just looks that way in comparison to the front.

#26 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 June 2011 - 01:43

I doubt LeMans will let them on the track, since nobody will be able to pass them with that ridiculously wide rear.


As Ross says optical illusion, most LeMans cars are a very wide 2 meters already and I'm sure all are within the rules as will be the Deltawing.


#27 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 896 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 13 June 2011 - 05:32

If you watched the LeMans race this weekend, with the two horrifying Audi crashes, the one thing that the ACO should do before next year is modify the rules to reduce the speed difference between the various classes. You can't really blame the crashes on the slower cars that the Audi's were trying to pass. It was just a matter of too great a speed difference between the prototype and GT classes. The Deltawing concept would do nothing to make the LeMans race safer or more competitive.

What makes the LeMans race so interesting is its unique mix of various classes, from prototype to GT to production. What would really make the LeMans race safer and more competitive, would be to change the minimum chassis weights, intake air restrictor sizes, brake materials, tire sizes, etc., such that the acceleration, braking, and cornering speeds are closer among the various classes. I'd rather see Audi racing a GT version of their R8 against a Lexus LFA or Porsche GT3 or Ferrari 458 or Corvette C6R or Jaguar XE or McLaren MP4-12.

As an engineer, I appreciate the technology behind the Audi and Peugeot diesel prototypes. But their success is only a result of the current ACO's weird regulations. If the ACO would create rules that favored participation in the GT classes, then they would have many more factory entrants, more manufacturer advertising support, and better racing.

#28 WhizzMan

WhizzMan
  • Member

  • 56 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 13 June 2011 - 09:16

As Ross says optical illusion, most LeMans cars are a very wide 2 meters already and I'm sure all are within the rules as will be the Deltawing.


Either it's an optical illusion and they'll flip sideways, or they will have to widen the rear track to compensate for the narrow front track. Compare the two-seater LMP2 CAD they use in that promotional video linked here to the width of an LMP2 car. There's at least 20 cm each side extra between the pod and the rear fenders.

The delta wing was designed to go fast in an almost straight line on an oval track. Claims for drag, weight and all that are compared to indy cars, not to LMP cars. These delta wings can't do corners and need a much wider track than prototype endurance racing is providing.

Again, I'm going by what limited information is available on these things. I'd love to see them work out the problems I see with the current design and prove me wrong.

#29 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,938 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 13 June 2011 - 11:13

Le Mans has always been about cars that have some (admittedly sometimes rather limited) sort of connection to road cars. The Deltawing has none - unless you count the Reliant Robin. It has no place in sports car racing.

#30 Ben

Ben
  • Member

  • 3,181 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 13 June 2011 - 12:24

If you watched the LeMans race this weekend, with the two horrifying Audi crashes, the one thing that the ACO should do before next year is modify the rules to reduce the speed difference between the various classes. You can't really blame the crashes on the slower cars that the Audi's were trying to pass. It was just a matter of too great a speed difference between the prototype and GT classes. The Deltawing concept would do nothing to make the LeMans race safer or more competitive.

What makes the LeMans race so interesting is its unique mix of various classes, from prototype to GT to production. What would really make the LeMans race safer and more competitive, would be to change the minimum chassis weights, intake air restrictor sizes, brake materials, tire sizes, etc., such that the acceleration, braking, and cornering speeds are closer among the various classes. I'd rather see Audi racing a GT version of their R8 against a Lexus LFA or Porsche GT3 or Ferrari 458 or Corvette C6R or Jaguar XE or McLaren MP4-12.

As an engineer, I appreciate the technology behind the Audi and Peugeot diesel prototypes. But their success is only a result of the current ACO's weird regulations. If the ACO would create rules that favored participation in the GT classes, then they would have many more factory entrants, more manufacturer advertising support, and better racing.


As someone who was stood on the pitwall when both crashes happened this weekend, I'd like to respectfully disagree that they were the fault of the ACO's regulations. If you watch Le Mans the movie you will see Porsche 917s running flat out passed essentially standard 911s. This is as much a speed difference as we see today. Personally I would say the McNish crash was a racing incident with blame more towards McNish for that level of risk-taking that early in the race. Rocky's crash was 100% the fault of the Ferrari driver IMHO, you simple can't move across at the fastest point on the track with those headlights shining in your mirrors.

On to the DeltaWing. Aesthetically I find it ugly, but I like the idea of achieving a similar overall pace using less energy. Le Mans is a circuit that forces you to run lower drag anyway so it's the right circuit to explore the concept. The ACO's Garage 56 is the right initiative to showcase it so overall I can't say I'm against it in any way.

On a pure technical level I think you could achieve similar results with a far more conventional (and aesthetically pleasing package). The main issue with lighter weight cars is the take-off speed goes down. If McNish's car had weighed 600Kg it would have more than likely flown into the crown. My blue-print for massive energy saving at Le Mans would be a 700-800Kg minimum weight with reduced plan area, say 1.8m wide and 4m long, to control the aero forces and make it safe to run that weight. Then a focus on KERS or TERS (I mean thermal energy recovery saystems, but I'm not sure if the acronym's been used before) along with diesel or other fuel technology.

A major environmental impact of long-distance racing is tyre usage. Audi did 5 stints on a set this year, but that's been a long time coming and only really feasible due to the use of rear tyres on the front (size-wise) to improve the load capacity. A small, lighter car would make it easier to achieve more than 5 stints and reduce environmental impact through total tyre usage and tyre freight costs. Dunlop and Michelin for Le Mans =~40 trucks so the environmental impact of the race is much more than just the cars themselves.

Ben

Edited by Ben, 13 June 2011 - 12:25.


#31 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 June 2011 - 12:30

Le Mans has always been about cars that have some (admittedly sometimes rather limited) sort of connection to road cars.


Lets see...

1998 Porsche's 911'ish looking winner but not even rear engined
1995 McLaren F1 that could be used on the road for a squillion bucks

Then you have to go back to the 60's (GT40) and further to substantiate your statement.

The turbocharged 300hp engine of the Deltawing and indeed the whole concept other than it's funny looks has closer connections to mass production road cars than ever hence why major manufacturers are willing to throw engines with their name at it.





#32 Ben

Ben
  • Member

  • 3,181 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 13 June 2011 - 13:37



Good comments from Vic Elford in this video about speed differences at Le Mans 40 years ago. Lets be clear the GTE Pro cars routinely do over 290 km/h now and the top speed of an LMP1 car is ~340 km/h. Hardly worse than 240 mph vs 180mph.

Ben

#33 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,938 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 13 June 2011 - 16:34

Lets see...

1998 Porsche's 911'ish looking winner but not even rear engined
1995 McLaren F1 that could be used on the road for a squillion bucks

Then you have to go back to the 60's (GT40) and further to substantiate your statement.

The turbocharged 300hp engine of the Deltawing and indeed the whole concept other than it's funny looks has closer connections to mass production road cars than ever hence why major manufacturers are willing to throw engines with their name at it.

Not so. The Porsche 956 and 962 even came with door and ignition keys. And the Dauer 962 that won in 1993 was theoretically a road car that you could buy, as was the GT1.

And there is more to Le Mans than just the top class. All those Ferraris, 911s, Corvettes, Astons etc are road car based.

Anyway I said cars that have some (admittedly sometimes rather limited) sort of connection to road cars. by which I meant vehicles that you might imagine could be made into road cars, with lights, covered wheels and so on. The Deltawing was designed for oval racing to be the replacement for the current openwheel Indycars and was designed as a single seater. Yes, I know it is sort of has covered wheels, but it comes from the wrong direction. We could have formula cars with mudguards (like the travesty that was latter day Can-Am) in Le Mans but it would be a betrayal of the race's legacy. I f they build a road going Delta wing with two seats, then it could be eligible, but not until then. All IMO of course.

#34 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,921 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 13 June 2011 - 16:58

Indeed. As much as I'm interested in the DeltaWing, I don't see how it fits at all within sportscar racing. As a stand-alone car it's not that interesting, but it was interesting within the context of trying to re-fire IndyCar.

#35 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,612 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 14 June 2011 - 00:45

I f they build a road going Delta wing with two seats, then it could be eligible, but not until then.

Sounds like a job for Cheapy. tandem seats would be good.

#36 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,493 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 14 June 2011 - 01:01

With blister canopies.

#37 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 14 June 2011 - 02:29

Not so. The Porsche 956 and 962 even came with door and ignition keys.

And there is more to Le Mans than just the top class.


Well so what, there's been 750cc cars entered as well in the past, who cares except for 2 people (on a good day) in TNF? :lol:

No there's not, nobody cares - sad but true.

"Who won the 1967 LeMans?" - GT40 of course!! "Correct! Now, who won the IOP?" - The what?


Sounds like a job for Cheapy. tandem seats would be good.

With blister canopies.


:lol: :lol:


#38 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,938 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 15 June 2011 - 11:11

Well so what, there's been 750cc cars entered as well in the past, who cares except for 2 people (on a good day) in TNF? :lol:

No there's not, nobody cares - sad but true.

"Who won the 1967 LeMans?" - GT40 of course!! "Correct! Now, who won the IOP?" - The what?

Somebody must care other than those two people, or all those LMP2 and GT cars wouldn't lay out all the cash to show up and you wouldn't have a Le Mans 24 Hour race. A field of only a dozen LMP1 cars would be a bit lost on the Sarthe. And if you look beyond the end of your nose, you might have seen all sorts of well known motor racing folk in the 'lesser' classes. Even Mr Fisichella was there.

As for who won the 1967 IOP, I don't know or indeed care as it was undoubtedly a French car since the ACO always wrote the rules to ensure there was a French victory somewhere each year. And if there was a foreign interloper, they made sure that they were DQ'd (ask Lotus).

Edited by BRG, 15 June 2011 - 11:12.


#39 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 15 June 2011 - 11:26

you might have seen all sorts of well known motor racing folk in the 'lesser' classes. Even Mr Fisichella was there.


And I'm sure Fizzy and the other well known drivers all paid out of their own pockets - "in the spirit of it all" ....... :lol:

I actually enter races myself (up till I came over here) knowing I have no chance of winning and mid field at best - people will always go racing and grids at events such as LeMans will always be full, even those that know they will be dead last (and that is awesome).


As for who won the 1967 IOP, I don't know or indeed care as it was undoubtedly a French car since the ACO always wrote the rules to ensure there was a French victory somewhere each year. And if there was a foreign interloper, they made sure that they were DQ'd (ask Lotus).


Porsche, but I had to search hard for it.

Edited by cheapracer, 15 June 2011 - 11:28.


Advertisement

#40 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,938 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 15 June 2011 - 11:35

And I'm sure Fizzy and the other well known drivers all paid out of their own pockets - "in the spirit of it all" ....... :lol:

I actually enter races myself (up till I came over here) knowing I have no chance of winning and mid field at best - people will always go racing and grids at events such as LeMans will always be full, even those that know they will be dead last (and that is awesome).

Well, Fisi, like Kimi, is paid handsomely by Ferrari to not drive their F1 cars! I don't know how much AF Corse are paying him for his LMS season, but doubtless something. But all those lesser teams are professional or semi-professional efforts, usually with a lot of sponsorship. So apparently a lot of people see value in being at Le Mans even if they are only making up the numbers. But as you so rightly say, people will always go racing just for the craic.

Porsche, but I had to search hard for it.

Now I am gobsmacked by that. It must have been a French entrant and drivers surely?

#41 sblick

sblick
  • Member

  • 492 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 15 June 2011 - 13:14

The Delta Wing had to be designed for Road Courses since half of Indy Car races are on road courses. I think people tend to forget that. It also was designed to get around the hairpin at Long Beach. This argument about an oval design is moot. :mad:

What is good about the car? It is in the scheme of things inexpensive to make. It is also very easily repairable since the engine is not a stressed member. From what we know it should be ultra stiff. Gas mileage could be in the teens. I think it would be better if they used a 2 liter that was less stressed to put out 350-400 hp and get better fuel economy. We argue about CoD but I don't see any race cars out there that do 235mph from 350hp if I read correctly. Unfortunately these are theoretical from CFD numbers but we will see when it hits the track.

Like the possibility that no downforce is created by wings. I know a lot of people have whined about the turbulence created by wings and how they have ruined racing. I would like to see if the ground effects tunnels really help to get closer racing.

#42 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 15 June 2011 - 13:31

What is good about the car? It is in the scheme of things inexpensive to make. It is also very easily repairable since the engine is not a stressed member. From what we know it should be ultra stiff. Gas mileage could be in the teens. I think it would be better if they used a 2 liter that was less stressed to put out 350-400 hp and get better fuel economy.


It's extremely dissapointing for me at least viewing that somebody has to see a unique concept to see that the above is possible - it is actually possible today, right now in any class 2, 3, 4 or 10 wheels.

Motor racing today is gripped by manufacturers and extremely greedy/wealthy people - hey that can be true in any sport or business but the bottom line is FIA motor racing as it stands is structured and controlled by the common licence holders with exceptions such independent management/entertainment groups of course (Oz V8 Supercars for example).


#43 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,938 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 16 June 2011 - 09:24

The Delta Wing had to be designed for Road Courses since half of Indy Car races are on road courses. I think people tend to forget that. It also was designed to get around the hairpin at Long Beach. This argument about an oval design is moot. :mad:

Not sure why you are mad over this? You have a point about road courses, but on the other hand, we have not seen this design negotiating the LB hairpin as yet, and personally I have some reservations that it would do it very well. The steering lock on a conventional OW car is barely adequate for that corner and the Deltawing doesn't look to have even that much lock. But someone needs to build one and try it, I guess.

What is good about the car? It is in the scheme of things inexpensive to make. It is also very easily repairable since the engine is not a stressed member.

Surely that is because it was designed to a particular brief that meant it would be the spec chassis? Engines as stressed members are pretty much the rule in custon raceing designs because it is the lighter and less complex solution. In competition with other designs on the race track, these virtues of the Deltawing would become disadvantages.

#44 sblick

sblick
  • Member

  • 492 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 16 June 2011 - 12:06

Not sure why you are mad over this? You have a point about road courses, but on the other hand, we have not seen this design negotiating the LB hairpin as yet, and personally I have some reservations that it would do it very well. The steering lock on a conventional OW car is barely adequate for that corner and the Deltawing doesn't look to have even that much lock. But someone needs to build one and try it, I guess.


Surely that is because it was designed to a particular brief that meant it would be the spec chassis? Engines as stressed members are pretty much the rule in custon raceing designs because it is the lighter and less complex solution. In competition with other designs on the race track, these virtues of the Deltawing would become disadvantages.

To cheapracer I totally agree with what you are saying. I know you can race for relatively cheap but keeping rich people and manufacturers out of the mix seems impossible at the top end of motorsports.
I am mad about this because it seems it is in half the posts here. "Well it was designed for ovals" and it was not designed to run only ovals. We all know this is a theoretical car until it actually hits the track in physical form, but Bowlby(?) has said he knew it had to make the hairpin at Long Beach. I too have doubts on whether it would make the hairpin at Long Beach, but right now I am taking his word for it. I personally think it will have a slightly wider front end on it to give it a better steering radius. IIRC the idea behind the engine not being a stressed member was for quick and cheap repair of the car.

#45 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 16 June 2011 - 12:30

To cheapracer I totally agree with what you are saying

it had to make the hairpin at Long Beach.


That simply makes you a savvy and wise individual.

There's a number of cars that struggle at Long Beach hairpin, I'm not going to dismiss a race car just because it can't negotiate 1 corner of thousands.


#46 machin

machin
  • Member

  • 44 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 02 July 2011 - 15:59

I'm sceptical but highly intrigued by the Delta-wing concept. There's a few things that have been suggested as benefits for the deltawing concept that could easily be applied to a "conventional" car (e.g. highly rear-biased weight distribution), -well if that's the case then why don't conventional cars do it then?!!!! I'm sure every car designer would like ground effects-tunnels instead of wings but the rules preclude it....

I just don't see the advantage of the narrow front track.. where as I can see the disadvantages... Still, I'm intrigued....

What I REALLY don't want is for the ACO to grant this car performance benefits that the conventional car's don't have... better power:weight, better under-floor aero etc... otherwise its just not a fair comparison is it? The problem is that the ACO has a history of doing just that to entice "different" cars into the race (extra power for the diesels being a recent example)...

Edited by machin, 02 July 2011 - 15:59.


#47 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 02 July 2011 - 20:27

Its artificial.
Typical modern business con.
They know it is difficult to design and build a conventional car to be better than current types.
To ensure control over the future, the concept is to design something obviously totaly different and in no way in technical competition with anything else.
Voila with the right rules (and 'support) no opposition.
Completely 'daft' thing.

#48 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,512 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 02 July 2011 - 20:46

I think it's great that they are going ahead with this. It'll be interesting to see how it corners.


Only if you like seeing slow, understeering cars, crashing into the scenery.

#49 TC3000

TC3000
  • Member

  • 1,129 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 02 July 2011 - 20:59

Its artificial.
* - Typical modern business con.
They know it is difficult to design and build a conventional car to be better than current types.
*- To ensure control over the future, the concept is to design something obviously totaly different and in no way in technical competition with anything else.
Voila with the right rules (and 'support) no opposition.
*- Completely 'daft' thing.


ahhh - that just sounds like your ESERU :cool: , glad to see you call it like it is.

#50 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 02 July 2011 - 22:07

ahhh - that just sounds like your ESERU :cool: , glad to see you call it like it is.


No comparison at all.
I gave up drawing delta shaped vehicles when I was still at Grammar School in the 1960s.
That was about the time I gave up on American car design with fins and space ship shapes.