Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Nissan Deltawing: The Future of Motorsport?


  • Please log in to reply
806 replies to this topic

#101 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 05 June 2012 - 19:24

It could. If people adopt it it would certainly be a very different form of what we are used to.

And it's had an impressive amount of non-sports coverage. Nissan is definitely getting their money's worth. And the check is pretty big all things considered.



It could. Just create another series for this: Bonneville racing. Because it has even less resemblance to road cars than F1.

Good luck with that.

Advertisement

#102 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 17,972 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 05 June 2012 - 19:24

Expanding the thought: But goes way faster. With uncovered wheels and barn door wings.

The whole exercise is comparing apples and oranges.


If you want rid of brn door wings, F1 will need to reintroduce venturi tunnels. I'm actually an advocate of this move as I believe it will aid in racing and overtaking.

#103 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 17,972 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 05 June 2012 - 19:26

And when exactly did we go from "it will never turn/it will roll over/they know nothing about vehicle dynamics" to "nothing new there"?


Did any race engineer believe it would roll over ?

#104 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 05 June 2012 - 19:28

Did any race engineer believe it would roll over ?

Are there any race engineers in this thread?

#105 gm914

gm914
  • Member

  • 6,046 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 05 June 2012 - 19:28

That WR Hydrogen car has 2400Nm of torque at the wheels. Thats 1770lb-ft.

Holy hell.
Posted Image

Edited by gm914, 05 June 2012 - 19:31.


#106 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 05 June 2012 - 19:33

Well, duh. That's like saying next year's entry is not innovative because both electric motors and fuel cell technology have been there for ages.

Anyway, was this narrow front/wide rear track configuration with this peculiar weight distribution used in racing before? I mean on actual circuits, not drag racing.

And when exactly did we go from "it will never turn/it will roll over/they know nothing about vehicle dynamics" to "nothing new there"?


The moment they loaded it with a ton of software to control it. Mercedes A Class style.

#107 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 17,972 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 05 June 2012 - 19:37

The moment they loaded it with a ton of software to control it. Mercedes A Class style.


I doubt there's much software can do when the centre of gravity starts to go towards a corner where there is no wheel. All to do with weight distribution I'd suspect.

#108 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 05 June 2012 - 19:40

I doubt there's much software can do when the centre of gravity starts to go towards a corner where there is no wheel. All to do with weight distribution I'd suspect.


Nope, lots of active differential control and I guess some selective automatic braking also. It was on the report of the first track test.

#109 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 June 2012 - 19:50

Nope, lots of active differential control and I guess some selective automatic braking also. It was on the report of the first track test.


Actually the report was that the car worked fine without that trickery being fully functional.

They first ran with a fully open diff and I don't remember anything special about the brakes except that the car was extremely stable.

Edited by Slowinfastout, 05 June 2012 - 19:52.


#110 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 05 June 2012 - 19:54

Actually the report was that the car worked fine without that trickery being fully functional.

They first ran with a fully open diff and I don't remember anything special about the brakes except that the car was extremely stable.



Yeah, you're right. Arrow straight.

#111 King Six

King Six
  • Member

  • 3,230 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 05 June 2012 - 20:04

You want innovation?

Look at the WR hydrogen entry for next year?

http://www.greengt.c...-data-sheet.pdf

This delta wing concept is nothing new, and it does not display any of the reasons I thought the was the point of the special le mans entry.

Am I the only highly unimpressed with this car? In fact the one thing I am impressed by is Michelin and the tyres they have developed, other than that what part of this car is relevant to the future, what part is even new ?

The very point that the car was born out of a failure to get into Indycar says enough.

Move along people, there REALLY is nothing to see.

I gotta admit, from the late 80's through to most of the Zero's (2000's) I'd say Motorsports hit a sort of dark age in terms of technology and efficiency. Turbo's were banned in favour of high revving thirsty naturally aspirated engines, Ground Effects were banned in favour of extremely high drag massive barn doors, Electronics were banned. There was an emphasis on curbing development under the guise of costs. It's only recently that the governing bodies have started to look at Hybrid cars (honestly they've been around for ages but Motorsports has only looked at it very recently), now we're pulling out of the dark ages (somewhat) and going back to where we left off with Turbos and Ground effects as the future. It's the motorsport renaissance, and you have to start somewhere.

Unfortunately most of the pioneers from the 70's and 80's are now dead or retired and now we have a generation of spoiled brats who simply want loud noises and cheap cars with little thought to them, so that's a generation lost, now it's upto the next/new generation (hopefully the likes of me) to continue where the previous left us.


#112 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,424 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 05 June 2012 - 20:09

Compared to what?



The cars that were 25 seconds faster...

#113 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 2,935 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 05 June 2012 - 20:14

I gotta admit, from the late 80's through to most of the Zero's (2000's) I'd say Motorsports hit a sort of dark age in terms of technology and efficiency. Turbo's were banned in favour of high revving thirsty naturally aspirated engines, Ground Effects were banned in favour of extremely high drag massive barn doors, Electronics were banned. There was an emphasis on curbing development under the guise of costs. It's only recently that the governing bodies have started to look at Hybrid cars (honestly they've been around for ages but Motorsports has only looked at it very recently), now we're pulling out of the dark ages (somewhat) and going back to where we left off with Turbos and Ground effects as the future. It's the motorsport renaissance, and you have to start somewhere.

Unfortunately most of the pioneers from the 70's and 80's are now dead or retired and now we have a generation of spoiled brats who simply want loud noises and cheap cars with little thought to them, so that's a generation lost, now it's upto the next/new generation (hopefully the likes of me) to continue where the previous left us.

well said :D


#114 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 June 2012 - 20:18

The cars that were 25 seconds faster...


I don't get the point.. being in its own class with its own set of rules they could easily have bolted a 800hp+ engines, wider tyres, etc.. and easily outrun an lmp1 with their concept.

The thing is ACO wouldn't have let them anywhere near Le Mans and outshadow the whole grid..

They came up with something that is relatively simple, cheap and fast.. and it looks different. Their goals are achieved. It may not be the best thing since sliced bread but it's quite fresh. I don't like the batmobile look myself but I don't understand the outright hostility towards this project.

#115 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,381 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 05 June 2012 - 20:41

They came up with something that is relatively simple, cheap and fast.. and it looks different. Their goals are achieved. It may not be the best thing since sliced bread but it's quite fresh. I don't like the batmobile look myself but I don't understand the outright hostility towards this project.

Simple, cheap and fast? I'd prefer a Radical SR8 in that case, which is, I am certain, a lot cheaper than this thing, easily as simple and for certain a great deal faster. And it would be about as close to fitting into any of the existing Le Mans classes as the Deltawing.

This is a bastardised product, an unholy mixture of Reliant Robin, Aston Martin AMR1, Eagle Indycar and Nissan WTCC all wrapped up in a rejected Indycar concept that simply looks wrong. We shall see of course, but I expect that Le Mans will be its one and only outing once its failings are exposed in the hard light of competition.
.

#116 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 5,202 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 05 June 2012 - 21:22

Yeah, you're right. Arrow straight.

Camber is a beautiful thing.
I have an '87 930 that is arrow straight at warp speed, then again the Pirelli P-Zeros wear out in about 1/4 of the time for the rears do...that thing eats front tyres like they are going out of style, and only on the inside of the tread.

#117 6string

6string
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 05 June 2012 - 22:16

It's frustrating to see so much attention given to something that is essentially a gimmick. There is absolutely no reason to have such a narrow front track other than to attention seek at the cost of performance. If you had the freedom to modify this car to increase performance, the FIRST thing you would do is increase the front track.

#118 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 June 2012 - 22:26

It's frustrating to see so much attention given to something that is essentially a gimmick. There is absolutely no reason to have such a narrow front track other than to attention seek at the cost of performance. If you had the freedom to modify this car to increase performance, the FIRST thing you would do is increase the front track.


Not sure, they claim the reduced frontal area is enough of an aero benefit to offset the narrower front track, also the weight distribution being what it is means that the front doesn't have to work very hard to turn this thing around.

If it's a gimmick it'll have to be for other reasons I'm afraid.

edit: If I remember correctly one of the testers even said that the front end was almost too responsive, they might have to fit a slower steering rack or something..

Edited by Slowinfastout, 05 June 2012 - 22:29.


#119 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 June 2012 - 22:32

BTW.. for the record I tend to agree that the car might be trying to answer a question that nobody asked.. but let's not get carried away and needlessly be afraid of what they're trying there.

Advertisement

#120 Paolo

Paolo
  • Member

  • 1,673 posts
  • Joined: May 00

Posted 05 June 2012 - 22:36

. There is absolutely no reason to have such a narrow front track other than to attention seek at the cost of performance.


Clean air to the Venturis.

#121 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 17,972 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 05 June 2012 - 22:38

Clean air to the Venturis.


You are reducing the effectiveness of the venturi's by making them shorter. Significantly I'd imagine.

Ideally you'd have two huge full body venturis which would create absolutely massive amounts of downforce. Way more than that is creating.

#122 6string

6string
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 05 June 2012 - 22:39

Not sure, they claim the reduced frontal area is enough of an aero benefit to offset the narrower front track, also the weight distribution being what it is means that the front doesn't have to work very hard to turn this thing around.

If it's a gimmick it'll have to be for other reasons I'm afraid.

edit: If I remember correctly one of the testers even said that the front end was almost too responsive, they might have to fit a slower steering rack or something..

The claim you mention admits that a wider front track would be beneficial. I simply don't believe them when they say the aero benefit offsets the narrow front track, especially with the freedom to cover the wheels. Also don't get confused with the testers comments. Responsiveness is an entirely different thing to cornering grip.



#123 Rob G

Rob G
  • Member

  • 10,877 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 06 June 2012 - 01:03

* And I was so tempted to call it the DildoWang © Rob G but decided to stay (semi-) classy.;)

Yeah, but I used the term "apices" correctly, so it sorta all balances out.

#124 MattPete

MattPete
  • Member

  • 1,416 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 06 June 2012 - 01:11

It's frustrating to see so much attention given to something that is essentially a gimmick. There is absolutely no reason to have such a narrow front track other than to attention seek at the cost of performance.


Actually, there is a reason, and that reason was to reduce drag at Indy.

#125 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 06 June 2012 - 01:17

With such small tyres, I cannot imagine itll corner that good? Looks fantastic though.

#126 marchi-91

marchi-91
  • Member

  • 440 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 06 June 2012 - 02:15

They should put a closed cockpit on it, slip on the mid 90's batmobile shark fin and get sponsorship for the upcoming Batman movie. Would look awesome!

#127 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 1,944 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 06 June 2012 - 02:45

based on several things I studied at university when dealing with racing cars.


How many race vehicles have you built?
Have you seen the engineering data of the Deltawing? Tunnel data? With the complexity of a machine like that you can't possibly make an informed opinion on the vehicle simply by looking at pictures on the Internet.

Personally, I like that Bowlby went so far out of the box. I would have liked to see it instead of the DW12 for the ICS. Though I do like the DW12 as well. I'm glad they found a place to run.


#128 Docc

Docc
  • Member

  • 178 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 06 June 2012 - 03:20

There was a time..I remember when innovation and unique thought made motorsport interesting. I guess many here are enamored of the diesel Audi parade..and cars you that are all so similar. The concept of a cheap..efficient unusual design can open the doors to other unique concepts..
What's the fear..exciting racing again ?

What other unusual things can be made to challenge and make auto sport interesting.? Why the conformity ?

I think it fantastic.. I do not care about the look..give me something that shakes up this sport..the way the rear engined revolution did..

I remember the stories of disaster looming when the change came when I was young.. Old guys hated the rear engined Little Cars..

Give me more innovation not less.. I am tired of diesels lapping a field of also rans..
If the Delta does well..what new concepts will it encourage to challenge it. Cheaper..means smaller "garage" teams..

Bring it on..

#129 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 June 2012 - 03:33

With such small tyres, I cannot imagine itll corner that good? Looks fantastic though.


You have to consider the downforce and weight balance is almost all at the rear, meaning that the front tyres are not under as much stress as the rears and can be smaller for balance, aerodynamics and of course the car's 'unusual' shape. The car is actually quite oversteery because of this weight balance, but this is all to make the car better handling overall.

#130 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,591 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 June 2012 - 03:36

With such small tyres, I cannot imagine itll corner that good? Looks fantastic though.


half (roughly) the weight, and about half the contact patch of the audi r18's tyres.

also a conventional car, lmp style, has been pretty much the same layout for how long ?

I guess you could take the ballest out, fit a smaller engine, smaller radiators, and reduce wing and tyre size to a lola chassis, and see what that gets you

might be able to do that in rfactor or gtr2

#131 6string

6string
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 06 June 2012 - 03:49

Why are the critics being labelled as afraid of progress and innovation? What gets up my nose about this project is the misleading claim that it's innovative when infact it purposefully inhibits performance for dramatic effect and drawing attention. And it's working. The fact that there is even a debate proves this.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of less weight, less power, less consumption etc. That premise is perfectly valid, but to make out that the narrow front track aids overall performance is a blatant lie.

Widen the front track with F1 style suspension arms coupled with aero-slippery wheel covers and it would DESTROY the original concept on a circuit. Ask yourself, how much attention would this be getting if it had a normal front track. Little to none.

#132 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,591 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 June 2012 - 03:55

its had that concept from the begining of the indycar project, which was if anything a negative feature for it to be needle nose. so its obivously like that for a reason, apart from being different


#133 Docc

Docc
  • Member

  • 178 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 06 June 2012 - 03:56

Why are the critics being labelled as afraid of progress and innovation? What gets up my nose about this project is the misleading claim that it's innovative when infact it purposefully inhibits performance for dramatic effect and drawing attention. And it's working. The fact that there is even a debate proves this.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of less weight, less power, less consumption etc. That premise is perfectly valid, but to make out that the narrow front track aids overall performance is a blatant lie.

Widen the front track with F1 style suspension arms coupled with aero-slippery wheel covers and it would DESTROY the original concept on a circuit. Ask yourself, how much attention would this be getting if it had a normal front track. Little to none.


So then..
Not only flawed engineering..blatant lies and a fraud ..

There you are then..


#134 6string

6string
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 06 June 2012 - 03:58

So then..
Not only flawed engineering..blatant lies and a fraud ..

There you are then..

That is my belief, yes. Care to contibute something such as a counter-argument?

#135 Docc

Docc
  • Member

  • 178 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 06 June 2012 - 04:13

What argument ?

You mean that the Delta is a fraud perpetrated by Bowlby..Gurney..Nissan et al ?

With drivers risking their lives in this fraud at over 300kph..so One Garage 56 car would run ?

I see no argument..I see your opinion..

You make the charge of a fraud..and call these respected racers charlatans..and call that argument ?

#136 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 June 2012 - 04:19

There is nothing wrong with the concept of less weight, less power, less consumption etc. That premise is perfectly valid, but to make out that the narrow front track aids overall performance is a blatant lie.


This is just your armchair expertise though... so far the concept delivered everything they promised.

With a wider front track the car wouldn't need to be as long and as wide at the rear, for instance.. the weight distribution would also be affected.. slowly but surely you would go on the same beaten path as any other 'regular' car and going away from the Deltawing concept.

You seem to describe a car that suffers from chronic understeer, one that fundamentally needs a wider track to address a balance issue.. I bet the future will tell us if you're wrong or not, my bet is that you are wrong.

Edited by Slowinfastout, 06 June 2012 - 04:24.


#137 6string

6string
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 06 June 2012 - 04:25

My argument is that a wide front track is more beneficial than a narrow one. The entire history of four wheel motorsport backs this up. What is it you are arguing?

#138 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 June 2012 - 04:28

My argument is that a wide front track is more beneficial than a narrow one. The entire history of four wheel motorsport backs this up. What is it you are arguing?

The narrow front track is not the only unique feature of the car, it's a feature that works in conjunction with other unique features.

It's not just a regular car with a narrow front track.

#139 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 993 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 06 June 2012 - 04:38

The narrow front track is as innovative as using square wheels. Being different for the sake of it does not equall innovation.

Anyway, I'm more curious in how the drivers find controlling this thing. It must be weird having to miss every apex by half a meter at the front to ensure that the rear wheels are still on the road. Same with every entry and exit to each corner. It must be like driving wet weather lines all day. (rain being another matter of interest in how this thing goes. I imagine the wierd track, aero, and weight distribution would cause some problems in standing water)

Edited by Jazza, 06 June 2012 - 04:41.


Advertisement

#140 Docc

Docc
  • Member

  • 178 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 06 June 2012 - 04:46

Perhaps Racecar Engineering June 2012 might shed more DATA than opinion..
A good read with quite interesting engineering datum..

http://gb.zinio.com/...=0961-1096&p=11

#141 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 June 2012 - 04:53

The narrow front track is as innovative as using square wheels. Being different for the sake of it does not equall innovation.

Anyway, I'm more curious in how the drivers find controlling this thing. It must be weird having to miss every apex by half a meter at the front to ensure that the rear wheels are still on the road. Same with every entry and exit to each corner. It must be like driving wet weather lines all day. (rain being another matter of interest in how this thing goes. I imagine the wierd track, aero, and weight distribution would cause some problems in standing water)


The DeltaWing is not being different for difference' sake. It is another option in the new paradigm of technology in motorsport, which to be as efficient as possible (Audi's method involves pioneering engine technologies and diesel fuel, Toyota are hoping to break ground with capacitor-based hybrid technology, and the DeltaWing team are tackling the aerodynamics AND vehicle dynamics of traditional racing cars). The narrow track was merely a consequence of wanting to reduce the frontal area of the car for lowering the drag. Ben Bowlby then went and did his maths and found that you could build a car with what would be considered a very narrow front track, and a 'normal' width rear, that would only need half the horsepower, fuel and tyres (in lifespan terms, or tread width at the front) to compete with other prototype racecars. The fact it's able to run at Le Mans in the same laptime range as other production-engine based LMP2 cars (which still have around 150bhp more) is a testament to the gains in drag reduction, ground effect downforce, and unusual vehicle dynamics that Bowlby and his team discovered in their research, build and testing of this car.

If it's not an innovative design, show me all the other similarly shaped cars that can do what this one does. In fact, build another car with a 300bhp 1.6 engine and get those laptimes out of it.

Edited by DanardiF1, 06 June 2012 - 04:54.


#142 Docc

Docc
  • Member

  • 178 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 06 June 2012 - 04:57

Posted Image

Also a nice article at Racer Magazine
http://www.racermaga.../201205ALMS#pg1

Change sometimes works..sometimes is difficult to make work..

"A horse dosen't push a cart with it's nose"
"Aerodynamics are for those who do not know how to build motors"
Guess will see soon enough..

Edited by Docc, 06 June 2012 - 05:01.


#143 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,016 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 06 June 2012 - 05:04

You do realise an F1 car weighs a small bit more than a Deltawing. In fact, take out the ballast and the F1 car would be lighter.


Maybe, but if you applies the same materials, technology and development, it could be a lot lighter.

#144 packapoo

packapoo
  • Member

  • 731 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 06 June 2012 - 05:06

Keeping in mind the thread title.......I sure as hell hope not!

#145 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,016 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 06 June 2012 - 05:07

You want innovation?

Look at the WR hydrogen entry for next year?

http://www.greengt.c...-data-sheet.pdf

This delta wing concept is nothing new, and it does not display any of the reasons I thought the was the point of the special le mans entry.

Am I the only highly unimpressed with this car? In fact the one thing I am impressed by is Michelin and the tyres they have developed, other than that what part of this car is relevant to the future, what part is even new ?

The very point that the car was born out of a failure to get into Indycar says enough.

Move along people, there REALLY is nothing to see.


The point that they didn't expect the American public to take to a radical idea in no ways indicates anything about the technical capabilities of the car.

#146 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 06 June 2012 - 05:15

The DeltaWing is not being different for difference' sake. It is another option in the new paradigm of technology in motorsport, which to be as efficient as possible (Audi's method involves pioneering engine technologies and diesel fuel, Toyota are hoping to break ground with capacitor-based hybrid technology, and the DeltaWing team are tackling the aerodynamics AND vehicle dynamics of traditional racing cars). The narrow track was merely a consequence of wanting to reduce the frontal area of the car for lowering the drag. Ben Bowlby then went and did his maths and found that you could build a car with what would be considered a very narrow front track, and a 'normal' width rear, that would only need half the horsepower, fuel and tyres (in lifespan terms, or tread width at the front) to compete with other prototype racecars. The fact it's able to run at Le Mans in the same laptime range as other production-engine based LMP2 cars (which still have around 150bhp more) is a testament to the gains in drag reduction, ground effect downforce, and unusual vehicle dynamics that Bowlby and his team discovered in their research, build and testing of this car.

If it's not an innovative design, show me all the other similarly shaped cars that can do what this one does. In fact, build another car with a 300bhp 1.6 engine and get those laptimes out of it.


It doesn't have half the horsepower, and it's using ground effects, which everyone knows is by far the best way to improve the handling of a car.

#147 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 993 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 06 June 2012 - 05:22

The DeltaWing is not being different for difference' sake. It is another option in the new paradigm of technology in motorsport, which to be as efficient as possible (Audi's method involves pioneering engine technologies and diesel fuel, Toyota are hoping to break ground with capacitor-based hybrid technology, and the DeltaWing team are tackling the aerodynamics AND vehicle dynamics of traditional racing cars). The narrow track was merely a consequence of wanting to reduce the frontal area of the car for lowering the drag. Ben Bowlby then went and did his maths and found that you could build a car with what would be considered a very narrow front track, and a 'normal' width rear, that would only need half the horsepower, fuel and tyres (in lifespan terms, or tread width at the front) to compete with other prototype racecars. The fact it's able to run at Le Mans in the same laptime range as other production-engine based LMP2 cars (which still have around 150bhp more) is a testament to the gains in drag reduction, ground effect downforce, and unusual vehicle dynamics that Bowlby and his team discovered in their research, build and testing of this car.

If it's not an innovative design, show me all the other similarly shaped cars that can do what this one does. In fact, build another car with a 300bhp 1.6 engine and get those laptimes out of it.


A simpler test would be to get a Deltawing and widen the front track to the same as the rear, then compare lap times. There is no way that the small increase in drag of a couple of covered in front wheels is worse than the skinny front track that it has now. It goes against a century of race car development.

I do believe that speed can be found through compromise. Less power can equal more speed if it means less weight, better distribution, better packaging, less pit stops, etc. For example, a car with 400kw beating a 500kw one because its sacrifice in power has given it advantages elsewhere. That has been proven many times. (Just like F1 cars today carrying less fuel because of the weight advantage, even if it means a power loss.)

However, what we are supposed to believe with the Deltawing is that they have made a massive sacrifice in chassis dynamics (ridiculously skinny tack), but have made up for it with slightly reduced drag. They could have kept everything else the same (engine, weight, under body aero), they just needed to put the front wheels on some long suspension arms like a open wheeler car (yet they could still put covers over the wheels to reduce drag), but they decided not to. How is that not a gimmick?

#148 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 June 2012 - 05:27

A simpler test would be to get a Deltawing and widen the front track to the same as the rear, then compare lap times. There is no way that the small increase in drag of a couple of covered in front wheels is worse than the skinny front track that it has now. It goes against a century of race car development.

I do believe that speed can be found through compromise. Less power can equal more speed if it means less weight, better distribution, better packaging, less pit stops, etc. For example, a car with 400kw beating a 500kw one because its sacrifice in power has given it advantages elsewhere. That has been proven many times. (Just like F1 cars today carrying less fuel because of the weight advantage, even if it means a power loss.)

However, what we are supposed to believe with the Deltawing is that they have made a massive sacrifice in chassis dynamics (ridiculously skinny tack), but have made up for it with slightly reduced drag. They could have kept everything else the same (engine, weight, under body aero), they just needed to put the front wheels on some long suspension arms like a open wheeler car (yet they could still put covers over the wheels to reduce drag), but they decided not to. How is that not a gimmick?


That wouldn't work as the rest of the car is designed around every other part. Like an F1 car, each part interacts with the air in a way that then influences the parts behind it. This car would not work with a wider track.

This is not me saying that this particular method of car design is THE way forward. I am saying that this design is as finely tuned and well-thought out as the R18 and TS030 at the front of the Le Mans grid. It is merely another way of building a car.

Edited by DanardiF1, 06 June 2012 - 05:28.


#149 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 June 2012 - 05:31

There is no way that the small increase in drag of a couple of covered in front wheels is worse than the skinny front track that it has now.


This is just armchair expertise again.

A nearly identical design can underperform compared to the next thing beside it, just look at the HRT F1 car..

I think you guys are vastly underestimate the merits of the Deltawing design... I was a skeptic too but I was forced to realize it just works, I just find it a bit ugly.

#150 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,456 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 June 2012 - 05:35

It doesn't have half the horsepower, and it's using ground effects, which everyone knows is by far the best way to improve the handling of a car.


It has half the horsepower of an LMP1 car, and about a third less than an LMP2. If by qualifying it can get itself ahead of the LMP2 group (which is their target, to be an intermediary presence between the two prototype classes), then the comparison with the LMP1's is just.

I'd like to see how fast it could be with the same amount of horsepower... and of course they're using ground-effects, but why shouldn't they? It's an efficient method of producing downforce, and they are making the car to show people that these ideas are ones that need to be picked up again. Also, consider how large the surface area of an LMP floor is, and compare it to the rear part of the DeltaWing... big difference isn't there.