I just don't understand why in the world building a car like that is a good idea. There is a reason cars have a wider rear track width then front. Plus if that does succeed and we get fields of those running around I won't watch it.
I just don't understand why in the world building a car like that is a good idea. There is a reason cars have a wider rear track width then front. Plus if that does succeed and we get fields of those running around I won't watch it.
It would be weird (to me at least) to know if I have cleared a car that i just passed or coming up to an apex, knowing that your back end is 5 times wider than the front. I'm sure pro drivers wont have this problem, but I would
Easy problem to solve.
I just love the fact that someone's taking a different look at how to build a car for a specific purpose. There's a reason LSR cars are narrow!
I'm more curious about front grip. There is a reason why you use a large track. My initial instinct is that the rear will overpower the front and it will go into severe understeer. I understand about the low drag and fuel consumption usage, but straight line speed is not everything to a lap time. I simply can't imagine it would work very well against a conventional car. If all the cars were like that it's one thing, against real competition, they will need to prove it is better as far as I'm concerned. It just goes against everything I've learned through the years about race car design and setup.
To me it looks like something you would see on the salt flats where a small frontal area is a must.
racerdave600 wrote: I'm more curious about front grip. There is a reason why you use a large track. My initial instinct is that the rear will overpower the front and it will go into severe understeer. I understand about the low drag and fuel consumption usage, but straight line speed is not everything to a lap time. I simply can't imagine it would work very well against a conventional car. If all the cars were like that it's one thing, against real competition, they will need to prove it is better as far as I'm concerned. It just goes against everything I've learned through the years about race car design and setup. To me it looks like something you would see on the salt flats where a small frontal area is a must.
From what I've read is has massively rear biased weight distribution.
Looks like the junk's in the trunk!
Driving impressions video (wish they had subtitles):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs_wnHNbVCA
My first impression is that I don't understand it
I wasted 10 seconds looking at this thread that was posted without pics of the actual car. I want my 10 seconds back
racerdave600 wrote: I'm more curious about front grip. There is a reason why you use a large track. My initial instinct is that the rear will overpower the front and it will go into severe understeer. I understand about the low drag and fuel consumption usage, but straight line speed is not everything to a lap time. I simply can't imagine it would work very well against a conventional car. If all the cars were like that it's one thing, against real competition, they will need to prove it is better as far as I'm concerned. It just goes against everything I've learned through the years about race car design and setup. To me it looks like something you would see on the salt flats where a small frontal area is a must.
Ah, but it's a Le Mans car. That's not your typical race track. Trading off lap times for fuel economy can pay off well - fuel stops are slow. And those long straights...
I have no idea if it will work. But I applaud both the Le Mans organizers and the designers for trying.
Even with the pointy nose, with that wide rear track it still has a sizeable frontal area. So will it have less drag ? I'm skeptic. I just don't see it cornering that well. Maybe some one a Sebring can get lap times.
iceracer wrote: Even with the pointy nose, with that wide rear track it still has a sizeable frontal area. So will it have less drag ? I'm skeptic. I just don't see it cornering that well. Maybe some one a Sebring can get lap times.
Existing Open wheelers have a Cd of between 0.65 to 0.80 depending on wing configuration. So yes, even if the frontal area is the same for the Deltawing, having a Cd of 0.24 greatly reduces the car's CdA. I think Deltawing was discussing a 60% reduction. That's huge at 200mph.
Designed by Taylor-Dunn?
iceracer wrote: Even with the pointy nose, with that wide rear track it still has a sizeable frontal area. So will it have less drag ? I'm skeptic. I just don't see it cornering that well. Maybe some one a Sebring can get lap times.
If it's just a demo run, they probably won't push it that hard. Unless, of course..they've got a driver that wants to prove something. 
I keep thinking there's something we're all missing about the car set up. My head says that the car can't corner well due to the front end being so narrow, but that might just be my preconceived notions and never seeing anything like this before
BUT . . .
I'm wondering if there's not some secret combination of events that make this feasible. After all a lot of smart people have put money into and worked long hard hours on it.
The weight is one biggie. All the fun cars we seem to like on this forum are the light ones. Weight makes up for so much, it takes a pedestrian vehicle and turns it into a fun car and overcomes engineering in another car. The little Datsun B110 was a fun car and it had nothing going for it (including looks) except weight
So I'm thinking that smart people may have found a way to make a car with most of it's weight over the rear simply use the fronts to stabilize it and rotate the car around the rear.
Hopefully with Nissan involved, the DeltaWing is getting lots of press in Japan, and at least one of the Japanese plastic model kit manufacturers will consider a DeltaWing kit.
For those who have never attended a plastic model contest, at least in the U.S., car categories are dominated by replicas of '30's-60's American cars. This sort of thing on the table would really get some of those guys going .
Okay, that was probably a little premature. I'll wait for it to actually show up in France this summer before getting too excited...
Could variable rear wheel speeds assist in rotation? Is it possible for a differential to be computer controlled, so that it can modulate throttle percentages between wheels on the fly?
It doesn't make sense to my eyes, but neither do helicopters, and those seem to work fine for the most part. The stopwatch will be the final arbiter of whether the thing works or not.
Personally, I like the fact that some smart guys started with a clean sheet and came up with something that wasn't simply what we have now with some extra scoops and stripes.
jg
Does it use differential drive/braking on the rear wheels to turn? If so, with a rearward bias, that could work.
The concept is in a way old news, it was a design proposal for the new Indycar spec. It's awesome that it's come to fruition.
Keep in mind that most of the concepts of modern race cars are rather old. F1 cars the "most advanced" are an optimization of a spec and design from the 70s. The delta wing concept seems to be more efficient. Ben Bowlbey basically did the design as a side project. I'm sure other designers could come up with other innovative designs that would be more effective than traditional designs as well.
SnowMongoose wrote: na-na na-na na-na na-na na-na na-na na-na na-na Deltawing! Pow! Wham! +1 to the hotwheels reference, what I thought right after Batmobile.
+1
There would be no problem with steering at higher speeds, and you can see they picked a track to show the in-car with long constant radius sweepers. I'll be VERY interested to see if it can make the hairpin at Sebring without having to make it a 3 point turn.
You'll need to log in to post.
