Death of the DeltaWing: What went wrong? | #TBT

I agree with Alfa, I liked the Deltawing from the beginning, but I also like "outside the box" thinking. Other driver's inattention does not make a failed concept.

Narrow at one end always has handling issues.

Anyone who ride a sidecar or trike knows that... or will learn the hard way.

In reply to Mark_42 :

But it didn't have handling issues.  Went around the track really quickly.  Proved the concept quite effectively.

Again, it was an LMP1 car, struggling to run LMPC times in it’s original form.  By the time they finally gave up on it, it had substantially more hp, running against DP’s and LMP2.

alfadriver said:

In reply to Mark_42 :

But it didn't have handling issues.  Went around the track really quickly.  Proved the concept quite effectively.

Yep. It mostly had getting hit by cars issues, which, admittedly, are a common problem with trikes. 

racerfink said:

Again, it was an LMP1 car, struggling to run LMPC times in it’s original form.  By the time they finally gave up on it, it had substantially more hp, running against DP’s and LMP2.

 

 

No, it was not originally an LMP1 car, it was a car without a class that was trying to prove a concept (Garage 0).  Which it did- run fast times at Le Mans with considerably less power and less fuel usage.  And even when it had substantially more power, it was substantially less than the rest of the DP and LMP2 field that it ended up being in.

There were no handling problem with the set up, as many try to point out.  It ran with a pretty experimental engine that Nissan sponsored- which had it's own problems.  And it was small enough that other cars didn't feel the need to give it space.  Which is a shame- such a radical, but working, idea was never really given a full shot.

alfadriver said:  Which is a shame- such a radical, but working, idea was never really given a full shot.

I feel the same way about the GTR-LM that they tried after they were done with the Deltawing. Nissan loves some funky, outside of the box designs but they rarely have the patience to fully develop them.

alfadriver said:

RLF said:

Finally, everyone gave up on this misconceived concept. Can't recall any race car design that was such a complete failure, over so many yrs of dogmatic "development". At least it added a bit of variety to the grid, though it failed to complete most of the races it entered. 

Why was it a misconceived concept?  

How does it getting run off the road or having engine failures make the concept bad?  It was fast, with less power.  Worked great until everyone decided that they wanted to keep cars looking like they do.

I just don't get calling it a failure when it showed a lot of speed and many of the "failures" were caused by other drivers.

Yeah, I never really liked the Deltawing, but I totally agree with Alfa here.

I've loved the deltawing concept and I wished it hasn't been so unlucky and hated by everyone else. I mean how can you hate a car that throws out the rulebook and redefines what a "car" is by using innovative, out of the box thinking?

Mark_42 said:

Narrow at one end always has handling issues.

Only when executed by people clueless to the physics involved, which applies similarly to wide at both ends...It just happens that there is a much larger body of knowledge regarding the latter.

Tom Suddard said:

alfadriver said:

In reply to Mark_42 :

But it didn't have handling issues.  Went around the track really quickly.  Proved the concept quite effectively.

Yep. It mostly had getting hit by cars issues, which, admittedly, are a common problem with trikes. 

yes, you catch a glimpse of it's nose next to you and forget that it is a LOT wider behind.

The thing I always wondered about the DeltaWing was whether the improved fuel economy and similar performance with half the power was because of the revolutionary shape of the vehicle, like DeltaWing claimed, or was it simply because it weighed so much less than the other cars on the track?

The DeltaWing weighed about 1100lb at LeMans in 2012 while the Audi's weighed about 2000lb, so to achieve similar cornering speeds the DW needed a lot less friction so it could get by with a lot less downforce which yielded a lot less drag which gave higher top speed and better fuel economy, and needed a lot less power for similar acceleration.  If there was no minimum weight for LMP1, would the DW still be able to compete with 1100lb, conventionally shaped sports cars with an engine similar to the DW's, assuming the sports car designers would also cut the downforce so they'd have less drag, better economy, etc.  Or would the DWs shape give it an edge?  Or is it the DW's shape that allows it to get to such a low weight?

The deltawing is very much a minimal amount of car you need to be a car. So less weight, less drag, less friction, means less power needed. What flat surfaces it had, were designed for down force, what little it needed, where as a regularly shaped car is pretty much a lifting body, so it needs wings to both break up the lift AND add down force

So, 20 seconds a lap slower than the LMP1 cars is fast?  It out ran the LM GTE class at Le Mans by 12 seconds.

And btw, I said in it’s original form.  When they brought it to IMSA, it ran in LMP1 class AS IT WAS BUILT for Le Mans.

In reply to racerfink :

Where was it ever said that the Deltawing was expected by anyone involved to run lap times directly comparable to LMP1 in its original configuration?  In my opinion there is a subtle but distinct difference between running with a given class, for a lack of more appropriate alternatives, and being a part of that class.  Deltawing may have ran with LMP1 then, but an "LMP1 car" it was not.  Being uncompetitive with non-competitors isn't particularly relevant when examining the relative success of a proof of concept.

freetors said:

I've loved the deltawing concept and I wished it hasn't been so unlucky and hated by everyone else. I mean how can you hate a car that throws out the rulebook and redefines what a "car" is by using innovative, out of the box thinking?

Holy Algorithms Batman! 

I have to figure out why some old things like this pop up and others don't.

Regarding the quote above, it would be  interesting to find out if some of the people who hated this "outside the box" car with its design and engineering, would simultaneously profess their love for the old Can Am series that was famous for cars that were "outside the box" in their designs engineering.  
 

I have a hunch Douglas Adams was on to something when he wrote:

"I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."

My guess is that a lot of the people that hated the Deltawing now hate EVs. Why? Because they are different, and change is scary.

In reply to Devilsolsi :

Ok here is the real story on the Delta Wing Daytona demise. I happened to to be sitting in the upper deck Grandstand turn one after 6:00pm. The Delta was a unicorn and very fast for the field. If i remember correctly it was starting at the back of the pack and was flying thru the field. The first pic was around 6:30pm as it entered turn 1, typically hot. It got jammed up among other cars up as another car, that was later struck by the Delta, came to a full stop mid corner, mid track. The delta took evasive action, way off line to make the turn and stay safe, as viewed in the first pic. The very next lap, the Delta entered Turn 1 again typically hot again, and oblivious to the still stalled car sitting mid corner rear ending it and that was that as seen in second pic.

At the next? Sebring 12hr race the damaged Delta arrow nose was up for sale for $300 as a collector item. I was not sharp enough to acquire it.

I got to see the DeltaWing compete at Petit Le Mans at Road Atlanta. Really cool to watch at night!

I saw it compete at COTA about ten years ago.

One thing I remembered about watching these was that they were slower in the corners than the other prototypes because they had so much less downforce (to eliminate drag) so it would get in the way a lot.

In reply to RacerBoy75 :

I've found that most racers hate bad racecars.

There was a video on drivetribe recently about the motor that was in the car. A fascinating bit of engineering. 

I guess I missed this article the first time around.  That story was much more interesting than I had any idea about.  I didn't realize there were a few different iterations of the same concept.

I noticed that they used one of a kind of tires developed by Michelin just for that car. Just like the Tyrrell P34 6 wheel car and it's 10" front wheels and tires, it probably suffered from lack of tire development.

They should have slapped 8 tires on that thing.