A different Delta Wing article

It was written prior to their very quick LeMans preview (what else could you call it?) but gave some interesting viewpoints.

From using some technology that's been banned from racing for 30 years to"

The rear-engine revolution was followed in quick order by the arrival of low profile tires, wings, ground-effect and turbocharging. By the seventies F1 and Indy cars had changed out of all recognition from what they had been in the fifties but since the arrival of ground-effect the cars have largely become frozen in time. More's the reason to hope that the Delta Wing is successful. "

They talk about the "Plague of the spec car" holding things in one place and if you think about it they are right.

More Delta Wing

I don't know that I'm enamored with the Delta Wing, but I am enamored with the idea of people doing something different and I haven't been a fan of banning something because it works since the turbine car hit Indy.

Quote from ESPN:

"Toyota had its only remaining car damaged when the race resumed. Kazuki Nakajima's Toyota No. 7 attempted a risky pass and collided with the Nissan DeltaWing in the seventh hour. Nakajima damaged the rear of his car and his crew wasted a lot of time attempting to repair it before finally throwing in the towel in the 11th hour."

Still trying to find out if the collision put the DeltaWing out as well.

Man, I just don't know if the Delta wing is really the new frontier of motorsports. I see what they are saying but I don't know that people are going to embrace it. Nakajima sure doesn't like it.

Looks like the DeltaWing retired after 39 laps, about 6 hours into the event. The results don't specify why, but I suspect collision damage had something to do with it.

Looks like their lap times were about midway between the LMP1 and LmGTE cars, and only a few seconds off of the LMP2 cars. Pretty good first race, I'd say.

Anti-stance wrote: Man, I just don't know if the Delta wing is really the new frontier of motorsports. I see what they are saying but I don't know that people are going to embrace it. Nakajima sure doesn't like it.

ESPN calls it "a risky pass", so it looks like it was his own fault.

jstein77 wrote: Still trying to find out if the collision put the DeltaWing out as well.

Yeah, the collision did it in. Some sort of drivetrain damage such that it couldn't make it to the pits under it's own power.

I'm going to parrot myself but I still want to see it be beter than the same spec normal car. Have it run against a same weight same power normal wheeled car and see if it wins. If it has the advantages that people think it does it will win. If it doesn't it will lose.

jstein77 wrote: Quote from ESPN: "Toyota had its only remaining car damaged when the race resumed. Kazuki Nakajima's Toyota No. 7 attempted a risky pass and collided with the Nissan DeltaWing in the seventh hour. Nakajima damaged the rear of his car and his crew wasted a lot of time attempting to repair it before finally throwing in the towel in the 11th hour." Still trying to find out if the collision put the DeltaWing out as well.

wrecked it, least enough to take it out the race, and it wasn't a risky pass, it was a downright irresponsible pass in which he full on sideswiped the delta off the track and into the wall...

nocones wrote: I'm going to parrot myself but I still want to see it be beter than the same spec normal car. Have it run against a same weight same power normal wheeled car and see if it wins. If it has the advantages that people think it does it will win. If it doesn't it will lose.

I wish it had been allowed to run the same size fuel tank as everyone else, proove it could run much farther on the same amount of gas while using less tires. Not to mention get it a bit more power, the announcers were saying top speed was somewhere north of 190MPH, while the LMP2s were around 200MPH and LMP1s were 208MPH...

Interestingly enough, Kazumi Nakajima walked over to the DeltaWing garage and apologized in person!

nocones wrote: I'm going to parrot myself but I still want to see it be beter than the same spec normal car. Have it run against a same weight same power normal wheeled car and see if it wins. If it has the advantages that people think it does it will win. If it doesn't it will lose.

I'm not sure you can build a comparable "normal-wheeled" car. It's not just the shape that is the advantage, but the weight, size, weight distribution, aero, etc.. How would you build a comparable car without adding weight, that would then make it not comparable?

Got video...

You really think they can't build a 1050lb normal car with the smaller gas tank (Deltawing was 475kg with driver)? Other cars on the field are built to meet their minimum weight. All of the components are designed to meet those sepcs. For the other LMP classes it's 900kg + minimum weight. Per Wiki, F1 cars weigh as little as 440kg and are ballasted up to the minimum weight. I don't think it would be any problem to build a 300hp 475kg LMP type car to compete heads up agains the deltawing.

Some where else I read that Nakajima saw the gap and went for it, but forgot about the extra width at the rear of the Delta Wing. Apparently the narrow nose width fooled him into thinking there was enough gap.

nocones wrote: You really think they can't build a 1050lb normal car with the smaller gas tank (Deltawing was 475kg with driver)? Other cars on the field are built to meet their minimum weight. All of the components are designed to meet those sepcs. For the other LMP classes it's 900kg + minimum weight. Per Wiki, F1 cars weigh as little as 440kg and are ballasted up to the minimum weight. I don't think it would be any problem to build a 300hp 475kg LMP type car to compete heads up agains the deltawing.

What would the point of that be? Another "same" car? Why do we need another one of those?

This one isn't just a weight thing, it's a drag/ overall performance experiement.

The point of this experiment is to be different. It ran well while it ran. Although, I suspect that it would not have finished had it not been crashed out- the trans/diff issues were not the first time they had surfaced, and without the massive testing that other teams got, well.

Audi did a 30 hour run before LeMans. Had Highcroft been able to even do a 24 hour test, that would have helped immesely.

And don't get me wrong I'm not down on the deltawing. I for one welcome our new male genetailia shaped overlords if it is infact the faster better way. I just refuse to buy into the hype and over look the fundemental advantages it is being given and want to see it prove itself against same spec equipment.

nocones wrote: And don't get me wrong I'm not down on the deltawing. I for one welcome our new male genetailia shaped overlords if it is infact the faster better way. I just refuse to buy into the hype and over look the fundemental advantages it is being given and want to see it prove itself against same spec equipment.

What does that mean, though?

The point here was to be in the P2 speed range with less power, and use less fuel. So how would one spec a "normal" car to be the same? I suppose you can say- here's a 300hp engine, and your are limited of the total fuel you can use by X- now build a car? I suppose that would be fair... Not sure what the car would look like, though.

In reply to nocones:

I agree, with all of the innovations in aerodynamics alone that have been banned over the years the cars could be in a new league. Why allow one new wacky car to change the standards and not anything else?

alfadriver wrote: What would the point of that be? Another "same" car? Why do we need another one of those? This one isn't just a weight thing, it's a drag/ overall performance experiement.

The point would be to prove that it's better than an Identical "normal car". Right now It's shown that a HALF weight car with Half the horsepower can run OK laptimes. Limit it's advantages to Drag and Aero caused by it's fundemental shape and see how it does. That's fundamentally what's different about it so test if it's fundamentally better. This is basic Design of Experiements stuff. If you want to identify a result you change 1 thing at a time.

alfadriver wrote: What does that mean, though?

300 HP 500kg weight with driver 40L fuel tank. Must have full front fenders and non full faired rear wheels. GO.

If the Deltawing can beat all other cars built to this spec I will bow down to it's greatness and start building one of my own.

nocones wrote:

alfadriver wrote: What would the point of that be? Another "same" car? Why do we need another one of those? This one isn't just a weight thing, it's a drag/ overall performance experiement.

The point would be to prove that it's better than an Identical "normal car". Right now It's shown that a HALF weight car with Half the horsepower can run OK laptimes. Limit it's advantages to Drag and Aero caused by it's fundemental shape and see how it does. That's fundamentally what's different about it so test if it's fundamentally better. This is basic Design of Experiements stuff. If you want to identify a result you change 1 thing at a time.

What would the point of that be? I don't understand the "why" part. The point is to reduce the drag- so why would you want to increase it?

Fundamentally- the point I saw was to be less- particularly in terms of weight and drag- so that one could run a smaller engine, and use less fuel to go the entire race. If you increase drag, the answer is pretty obvious what you would end up with- all the rest of the cars out there were examples of that.

Why limit the fundamental advantage that it is intended to get? That's not DOE, that's just not liking the idea.

alfadriver wrote:

nocones wrote:

alfadriver wrote: What would the point of that be? Another "same" car? Why do we need another one of those? This one isn't just a weight thing, it's a drag/ overall performance experiement.

The point would be to prove that it's better than an Identical "normal car". Right now It's shown that a HALF weight car with Half the horsepower can run OK laptimes. Limit it's advantages to Drag and Aero caused by it's fundemental shape and see how it does. That's fundamentally what's different about it so test if it's fundamentally better. This is basic Design of Experiements stuff. If you want to identify a result you change 1 thing at a time.

What would the point of that be? I don't understand the "why" part. The point is to reduce the drag- so why would you want to increase it?

To me the point would be to see if it could handle with the normal cars and the reduction in drag should give better gas mileage to make up for a handling disadvantage if it exist.

alfadriver wrote: What would the point of that be? I don't understand the "why" part. The point is to reduce the drag- so why would you want to increase it? Fundamentally- the point I saw was to be less- particularly in terms of weight and drag- so that one could run a smaller engine, and use less fuel to go the entire race. If you increase drag, the answer is pretty obvious what you would end up with- all the rest of the cars out there were examples of that. Why limit the fundamental advantage that it is intended to get? That's not DOE, that's just not liking the idea.

He doesn't want to increase drag on the Deltawing, he wants someone to create a second car, with the same weight, power, and fuel tank as the Deltawing, but with a more conventional layout, and test those two cars against each other.

The concept behind the Deltawing is that you can drastically narrow the front track of a car to get better aerodynamics. Conventional wisdom says that this is going to give you less stability and less grip, which would equate to slower laptimes. The Deltawing designers are either suggesting that conventional wisdom is wrong, or that the aero improvements more than make up for it.

Testing their hypothesis using cars that weigh twice as much and have twice the power is pointless.

Sucks that it ended that way, but I look forward to seeing it run again. I've been a fan since it was denied for Indy.

I believe the problem was within the differential, damaged due to the shunt.

The only issue I have is that the Deltawing is susceptible to similar "accidents" due to it's advanced concept...mainly weight. Nissan will probably paint it like a soccer ball.

Steronz and 93ExCivic are saying what I want to say better.

nocones wrote: Steronz and 93ExCivic are saying what I want to say better.

So then what I gather is that you believe conventional wisdom based on set rules and known boundary conditions, i.e. a large history of knowledge which works under a large set of operating conditions is your baseline of 'performance' racing. You thus welcome the challenge of new knowledge which should be sampled under controlled conditions and that data should be measured and compared against a nominal subset of similar data from the historical database of performance racing to determine its statistical importance, i.e. scientific method.

Or, more simply...

You want proof the gods of aerodynamics exist.