The only thing that I can think of that would be a problem (and it might be far less of a problem with a torque vectoring diff) is that corner exit on hairpins (ie from really slow speeds) might have extreme understeer. I keep imagining that the front end would lift off the ground when it launches.
With the downforce and being in a higher gear, though, I don't think it'd have an issue at higher speeds.
alfadriver wrote:93EXCivic wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Cause it looks stupid.Gee, that's a great reason...
Well racing is about entrainment and Le Mans is one of my favorite events and I don't want to see a bunch of those things running around. Also I like being proved right. Hey at least I am being honest.
what would be really cool is if they added a jet at the rear, canards at the front, and could change the airfoil shape of the body/wing at the back:
A FLYING CAR!
nocones wrote: Winning by having the rules changed to allow you to win is not winning, it's not showing your better, it's nothing.
Say what?!? Did you even read the GRM article on this car? The rules changes are friggin AGAINST it! It has to run with HALF the fuel of the P1 cars! How the heck is that an advantage?
Javelin wrote:nocones wrote: Winning by having the rules changed to allow you to win is not winning, it's not showing your better, it's nothing.Say what?!? Did you even read the GRM article on this car? The rules changes are friggin AGAINST it! It has to run with HALF the fuel of the P1 cars! How the heck is that an advantage?
^^^That's what I was saying (admittedly, not well) earlier. By halving the fuel load, allegedly to keep it "on sequence" with the other P1 cars, they've essentially removed the strategic advantage of the car, intentionally. They must expect this car to be able to turn comparable lap times with the other P1's, otherwise the claimed justification of keeping in "on sequence" with other P1's makes no sense at all. (If the idea of keeping cars "on sequence" can ever make sense in a 24 hours endurance race) Its kind of interesting that it seems like their primary concern is that this thing will be merrily turning laps while the rest of the field is in for tire/fuel stops. I guess that's kind of a boring way to win, but removing that advantage seems like a great way to kill a potentially innovative concept while saying "We gave them a chance, they just couldn't keep up."
GRM wrote: Nissan Europe had already proved itself in 2011 by winning the FIA's GT Championship with driver Michael Krumm, so the board had great confidence in this branch of the company. They gave the project a nod of approval - and requested Krumm as a driver.
I guaran-fricken-teeya they requested Krumm's presence as an early warning device just in case the project was headed for a fall. Since Krumm is on Nissan's payroll, I do not think he'd be shy about blowing the whistle on the Deltawing if it smacked of any impropriety whatsoever. Since we're all looking forward to Le Mans this year with a Deltawing in it, I'm sure the concept is legit.
However, that doesn't mean development is finished. The car can fall by the wayside for any number of reasons; mechanical failure, driver error, or just plain can't-get-the-handle-on-the-setup.
Racing progress has been incremental as of late. It's been a long time since the rear engine car and aero downforce changed the racing landscape so completely. I'm looking forward to seeing whether this concept has any potential in real racing conditions and what it might mean for future passenger car design.
You'll need to log in to post.
