scardeal wrote: I'd like to see the Deltawing succeed. I like it when innovative thinking challenges the status quo. Then we can leverage a new paradigm and create heretofore unknown synergies of epic proportions! It's what makes time travel possible.
+1 QFT
I'm fighting my conditioned-by-years-of-"normal"-cars gut feeling that the thing is just ugly.
I'm curious to see how it goes.
I am a little puzzled by the notion that it's missing much frontal area, and I wasn't under the impression that there was all that much to be gained just by taking longer to go from point-of-the-dart to full-cross-section, but I have a very weak grasp of the jumble of aero concerns.
when you look at it, it doesn't look very aerodynamic. Lots pf bumps and blisters.
anyone notice how the new Indy cars resemble it.? Seems like they had a problem turning due to weight distribution and they have a normal front end and tires. So, yes, if it works out it will upset a lot of intrenched thinking including mine.
A pretty detailed article in Racecar Engineering magazine a few months ago said that one of the keys was a torque-vectoring differential.
Jim Pettengill wrote: A pretty detailed article in Racecar Engineering magazine a few months ago said that one of the keys was a torque-vectoring differential.
As I said earlier.
Now put that into a regular car and see how much it improves.
Part of the concept was sorta green. Could they run with the big boys with less HP using less gas. They have never said this was the ultimate Ahh Haaa moment, only that with these advances we can make this as fast as a select section of race cars.
It's supposed to be another way to do the same thing.
I for one am hoping it works well. Most of the racing series don't allow gadgetry and gimmicks, but if they can prove that with these gadgets can work well, captures the public imagination and they can appear to be saving the world at the same time then it's a win/win.
I would love to see this car work hang with the big boys. It will be novel to see if it can hold its own with P1's.
I want to see this thing go through the Corkscrew at Laguna Seca. 
Since this car has had an article in every mag I get (I think 2 in GRM) I feel the need to comment. First, I don't care how it's rationalized it's obvious someone is living out their dark knight fantasies. Fine. I can understand that. I have my own, but my fantasy is turbine-powered.
Now I have little doubt this car will corner well as I'm fairly certain it has grapple hooks that shoot out the sides for just such occasions. Of course this means most race courses will require the odd object to be located at the apex of most tight corners such as a light pole, oil derrick, scaled-down Eiffel tower, or whatever.
To spite all the attention this design is getting it's my opinion that the best they could hope for is a spec series. The car is just too polarizing to have the universal appeal required for a large fan base. No way it takes over open-wheel. Lastly, it's touted as being a cheap alternative to conventional open-wheel cars. OK sure, I understand the advantage of that concept, but I pose the question... when has cheaper ever equaled better in the world of motorsports? It's almost always a step backwards in both technology and competition.
Few fundamentally new race car concepts have been implemented in the last 25-30 years. The formulas used to build race cars have become so binding that they've stagnated the designs. The technology isn't fundamentally new in the delta wing, but it's an example of what can be done without stubbornly protecting 30 year old ideas.
Snrub wrote: Few fundamentally new race car concepts have been implemented in the last 25-30 years. The formulas used to build race cars have become so binding that they've stagnated the designs. The technology isn't fundamentally new in the delta wing, but it's an example of what can be done without stubbornly protecting 30 year old ideas.
People keep saying this but until it bests an identical weight and power traditional car it has proven nothing but having backers with deep pockets and an impressive marketing program.
I hope it is amazing and evolutionary but I remain skeptical of its advantages until it proves it by being outright faster when built to every rule save those requied to be broken by its shape of an existing class.
I think it looks terrible and seems to be a silly concept, but I am rooting for it to work well. I like it only because it is different. I haven't read all the different articles out there on this car, but I bet the fuel cell has been limited to make sure it doesn't win outright. If it could carry as much fuel as a P1 car, but get significantly better mileage, they would get an advantage of longer stints and maybe would have a chance overall. I think a 24 hour race is perfect for this idea. We'll see how it goes.
Read the GRM article last night. The interesting thing to me is that the car is being required to pit on a schedule similar to the other P1 cars. That's just stupid, stupid, stupid. The whole idea is that you have a car here that is more efficient. Better economy and longer tire life should equal roughly half the pit stops, only "someone" decided that advantage would be taken away. The million dollar question is whether that efficiency can make up for a lack of power and (at least perceived) lack of handling. Sadly, that question will go unanswered.
In reply to kazoospec:
It's supposed to be an experiment, not challenge for the win nor get in the way of the rest of the racers. If it uses 2/3 of the gas, it will still spend less time in the pits, and will still use less fuel for the entire race.
This isn't a car to win. Yet, at least. If it works, then I suspect you'll see rules written around it for a class that may interest people. Which is important when you see the very thin fields in the P categories. The wanted lap times are not even the top of the P1 class, so even with the shorter stops, it's not supposed to win.
As for "will it turn"- the front wheels don't need to do much- it's like taking hammer by the head, and turning it- the front wheels provide more direction than grip. Same goes for stopping, although I do wonder what it feels like to have so much braking on the rear tires.
I hope to pay close attention to the race, and see what this thing can do- the Racecar Engineering articles are quite interesting- there's a few more of them in the June 2012 issue.
We have to remember- this car isn't there to race, it's there to experiment. IMHO, better than having cars just there to be camera cars. And those made a pretty asweme movie.
I just don't understand how it isn't going to understeer like a mother.
93EXCivic wrote: I just don't understand how it isn't going to understeer like a mother.
Mothers usually don't go fast enough to understeer or oversteer. It's part and parcel of the whole driving a womb on wheels, aka a minivan.
93EXCivic wrote: I just don't understand how it isn't going to understeer like a mother.
Reading comprehension fails so many of you.
Vectoring differential + tiny lightweight front end = turning.
Alfa's description of turning a hammer by the handle is pretty apt.
turboswede wrote:93EXCivic wrote: I just don't understand how it isn't going to understeer like a mother.Reading comprehension fails so many of you. Vectoring differential + tiny lightweight front end = turning. Alfa's description of turning a hammer by the handle is pretty apt.
I don't think anyone doubts that it will be able to initiate a turn. It won't take much force to get it to change direction. The stretch is saying in steady state cornering that it will have as much grip as a more traditional car. This isn't a reading comprehension issue It's a fundamental physics issue. The rear tires will have to carry a majority of the actual force required to push the car around a corner. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that this car could suffer from understeer. The vectoring differential may help but it's dificult to imaging that it won't have to operate at least some with a higher slip angle at the front than at the rear in order to corner. It's reasonable to expect that at some point those small front tires with their light loading and high load transfer will be unable to supply enough lateral force to continue on a constant radius. The only way (without doing extensive maths) that I can see it not understeering is if due to the heavier loading on the rear tires the lateral force developed by the rear would be insufficient to exceed that of the front. Tires coefficient of friction decreases with increase in load and relative to a more traditional car the deltawing has a higher vertical load on it's rear tires. This will absolutely result in a decrease in cornering ability.
More simply this is the same reason we want cars with low CG. The low CG results in less lateral load transfer during cornering which allows for higher overall lateral grip. If I take a car with a 15" CG and one with a 12" CG and have them weigh exactly the same and put the same tires on them the one with the lower CG will have higher cornering force because it will transfer less weight to the outside wheels in corners.
That said this is why I am so addamant that it should only be compared to cars with identical power/weight. If you compare it to a heavier more powerful car of course it will have and advantage on fuel and appear more efficient. This will be percieved as and advantage in the way the car is designed but infact is just the difference between the cars. Run it against a 300hp CSR/DSR car set up for low downforce high speed tracks and see how much better it is (similar weight/frontal area/power to the Deltawing)
In reply to nocones:
Exactly plus if you compare the concept to a normal setup that did have a torque vectoring differential would it be any better.
93EXCivic wrote: In reply to nocones: Exactly plus if you compare the concept to a normal setup that did have a torque vectoring differential would it be any better.
Except the point is to have a low drag, low downforce car that can do this. Why compare it to a normal car? It's already being "compared" on the track. And it's not as if torque vectoring is something that new- it's been around for a few decades, and IIRC, many rally cars have it.
As for the steady state corning, again, since most of the weight is in the back, most of the cornering force will be there- that's the entire design intention.
So far, the speeds that it's shown demonstrate that it works, even with all of the doubt. Thankfully, the car doesn't have to pass muster to the doubters before it hits LeMans, it's already gotten mostly approved by the ACO- who are the only ones who realy matter....
I also fail to understand why anyone would wish the car to fail. That boggles my mind.
In reply to alfadriver:
Cause it looks stupid.
I don't wish it to fail. I do wish it to actually succeed by beating traditional cars built to the same specs. Winning by having the rules changed to allow you to win is not winning, it's not showing your better, it's nothing. It's showing that you've convinced an organizing body that your concept is worth allowing to have inherent competitive advantages over the other cars enabling you to "win". It can have all the racing success in the world but until it meets every rule (again except the ones it literally can't, track and wheelbase) of the P1 cars it will be "beating" it's not proven a real advantage over more traditional cars. The question is is it somehow BETTER than what we have now? To show that it must show that it's BETTER wihin the existing class structure than what we have now. If the rules are changed to give it gross competitive advantages (weight primarily) enabling it to not REQUIRE as much power and therefore be more fuel efficient I don't see how it's showing a better way forward.
As to the steady state cornering, again it will have LESS grip due to the higher rear weight. This is a FACT. The tires in the rear will have more vertical load compared to those on a traditional ~60% rear weight bias car with the same weight. This tire will produce less overall cornering force than that on a traditional car.
93EXCivic wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Cause it looks stupid.
NO! It looks really cool!
It looks like a lot of the cars you used to doodle as a kid.
nocones wrote: I don't wish it to fail. I do wish it to actually succeed by beating traditional cars built to the same specs. Winning by having the rules changed to allow you to win is not winning, it's not showing your better, it's nothing. I
You've got it backwards, they've stacked the deck against it by requiring it to have the same number of pit stops as regular cars when it was built so that it would have a distinct advantage in that area.
In reply to nocones:
That was an excellent technical analysis, and completely jives with my initial impression. As I stated earlier, I would love to see it lap a track with something simple like a Formula Mazda (similar power to weight ratio) and see what turns a faster lap.
nocones wrote: I don't wish it to fail. I do wish it to actually succeed by beating traditional cars built to the same specs. Winning by having the rules changed to allow you to win is not winning, it's not showing your better, it's nothing. It's showing that you've convinced an organizing body that your concept is worth allowing to have inherent competitive advantages over the other cars enabling you to "win". It can have all the racing success in the world but until it meets every rule (again except the ones it literally can't, track and wheelbase) of the P1 cars it will be "beating" it's not proven a real advantage over more traditional cars. The question is is it somehow BETTER than what we have now? To show that it must show that it's BETTER wihin the existing class structure than what we have now. If the rules are changed to give it gross competitive advantages (weight primarily) enabling it to not REQUIRE as much power and therefore be more fuel efficient I don't see how it's showing a better way forward. As to the steady state cornering, again it will have LESS grip due to the higher rear weight. This is a FACT. The tires in the rear will have more vertical load compared to those on a traditional ~60% rear weight bias car with the same weight. This tire will produce less overall cornering force than that on a traditional car.
Tell the diesel guys that. They were handed a rather nice advantatge over the gas teams for a few years now. The car specs are ALWAYS designed so that a specific version of a car will win. Even back to the 30's. The cars you think of as "tradition" fit into a very small definition of a Sports Prototype that fits the current iteration of the rules. Why does the ACO have to come up with an alternative that fits the current rule set? That's not exaclty expirimental, is it? The intention is to make a car that uses less to go fast. This is a set of rules that might make that car so that it uses less fuel, and less tires, yet still be fast enough to be interesting.
As for the assumptions flying around, we will see on the track, wont we?
Yes, there's a higher percentage of weight on the back, but 1) it's less weight, and 2) it's also accompanied by 90% of the downforece- which is baked in the design- there IS a lot of downforce. Even with that, you say that the car will understeer and have no rear traction- which is it? It seems as if that situation can end up being rather ballanced, couldn't it?
And so what if the cornering force is less? It weighs less, too. Somehere near half a P1 car. So it can have half the cornering force, and still corner at the same speed.
When I first saw the car, I, too, had my doubts. But reading the intention of the designer, it makes a lot more sense. And so far, it does appear to work.
93EXCivic wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Cause it looks stupid.
Gee, that's a great reason... 
You'll need to log in to post.
