http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...-24-hour-race/
Printable View
I guess I'm an old naysayer, but I think the thing is silly.
The extremely narrow front track is dumb, especially considering that the "fenders" over the rear wheels still present frontal area that the front track could have used. And since when does a chassis not have to be so stiff?
It seems the "greenies" have taken over the sport there.
Driven by Ace and Gary?
https://webfiles.uci.edu/redwards/pu...0duo%20car.jpg
Cool. I am very interested is seeing how the car does on a road course. It looks like a Bonnevile straight line racer, but the designers say it will corner well.
I wish them good luck. It should be interesting. I just can't wrap my mind around that car taking a corner. Like Russ said, it looks like a Bonnevile straight line racer.
Personally, I'm glad that ACO and Eagle-Highcroft have made/found a place for the car, and don't quite get the Delta-hate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beartrax
As to how it turns, IIRC from during its Indy days they said it used modern automotive stability augmentation technology to get around its raw mechanical disadvantages. Think computer controlled fiddle-brakes.
Think computer controlled differential. All well and good untill it fails on the approach to a high speed corner.
by the time it actually races it will look like a very different car.
From a purely mechanical perspective, it might work. I think they might be using a CG location that is much farther rearward than a conventional car, so that they can get away with a BIG percentage of the total load transfer happening at the rear. This is a requirement imposed by the narrow front track width. Of course, this also means that the car will be sensitive to differential characteristics, which is why they are using torque vectoring (Pretty standard in many high-end production cars, and indeed the path of least resistance if you ignore the cost)Quote:
Originally Posted by RobLav
The designer's comment that the torsional rigidity requirement is lower also makes sense: because you don't have much roll stiffness in the front, the frame has less torque being applied between axles. We have worked with vehicles that had zero roll stiffness at one end (no, not a Vee) and they are not as sensitive to torsional rigidity.
Besides, you guys, where is your patriotism? - :D This is the only US team with a prototype at Le Mans, isn't it?
http://www.city-data.com/forum/membe...lag-smiley.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Ananth K
I thought about this some more Ananth on the drive home. We agree concerning the bias towards rear roll stiffness. It may work (but not optimally) under acceleration, but the car is going to suck trying to trail brake.
Also though, because of the excess rear weight bias and rear roll stiffness, the car will tend to oversteer at power on corner exit. They are not going to want much power on the inside rear wheel.
The car may be fast in a straight line, but the driver will have to tiptoe his way around the corners. It is going to piss off all the other drivers.
screw patriotism, that thing is a damn embarrassment. Park it in a basement garage, loose the keys, and lets forget about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ananth K
I used to drive farm tractors with a similar rear to front width difference. Come to think of it you also steered with the rear wheels, front wheels were decoration.
I'll reserve judgment until I see it succeed or fail. I seriously doubt these people would be pouring that much money into an idea that doesn't work.
it might work, hell it might eventually turn out to be the best car ever to turn a wheel at le sarthe, but it still looks retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Valet
it's just a ripoff of an old design from the 70s not to mention a marketing tie in gone horribly out of control (did anyone actually watch that stupid hotwheels thing after the 500?)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-spg787ybEK...2BDSC03216.JPG
But if they called you and said, "Brendan we need a driver." you'd be there in a heartbeat!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by HazelNut
Why? I cant see anything wrong from a theoretical perspective. And practically speaking, karts are an example of a vehicle which works really well during trail braking with 100% of the brake torque being generated at the rear. Karts also have probably 60% or more of the total load transfer happening at the rear, even with only ~57% rear weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobLav
Like this?
http://youtu.be/BSaIv_5-Mho
john f
Rob, somehow I don't think DAN GURNEY is the kind of guy that would build a car that will have to "tip-toe" through the corners! I have been skeptical myself given that it is such a radical concept but the caliber of the racers that are behind the car and were behind it for IndyCar leads me to realize that there has to be something to it. I think we may be in for a big surprise guys !!
Seems to me there was this time at Indy where people said these certain yahoos with mid engine cars would never do anything. So anything is good till it gets blown away on the time sheets.
Unless you run a shifter kart of KF2, then you have front brakes. Rear brake only karts will very soon be a thing of the past, if they aren't already. Obviously, cadet and kids karts are a different story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ananth K
I run Rotax and at least 50% of the karts that show up don't have front brakes. Most in the fat man class aka Masters (which I have also run) do, however. Even in a kart with front brakes, a large % of the brake bias is towards the back...
The point is a vehicle with large rear brake bias need not necessarily be bad...not how many people choose to run front brakes in their karts.
Not trying to start an argument, just an observation. It started as more of a European thing but it's making its way to the states in the faster pro categories. Shifters have had them for a while. I take brake bias settings as a completely personal preference, although certain settings perform better than others.
I have raced the rear brake only karts at the Pocono kart cours and you can use that to help rotote the kart into the corner. Also to loop the kart around if you are not careful. I guess that is why 2 old careful guys (me and Steve Roux) in a two man team beat all the young hot shot 3 kid teams. We never looped the kart, hence no penalties in the pits.
Not sure I would want to try it at LeMans though.
Ed
An update. Delta Wing will be powered by Nissan at LeMans. This article has a 2 minute video that shows about 5 seconds of the car on track.
http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...ower-deltawing
Only two days until we get to laugh about its laps at Sebring.
I like basically everything they say in the video. It's also interesting that the car appears to be a tube frame. The car doesn't appear to turn very well though. I also wonder of the vertical stabilizer satisfies the ACO's rules or if it is just for looks? sigh...
Edit: On second thought it appears the front of the car is a tub. Also, those front tires are skinny!
that was at buttonwillow. Interesting that it's that light and a tube frame. Maybe if its successful, they'll invest in tooling for the tub and it will be really light!
I wouldn't be too sure about the laughing part. Nor the "doesn't appear to turn very well" part, either...see my post above for why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Livengood
It is built around last year's Aston Martin AMR-One LMP1 tub, a design shelved after one very underwhelming season and tubs sold to the Delta Wing group...an inauspicious sign for this new project?...though, IIRC, the AMR-One's main achille's heel was powertrain related...
Looks OK, it turns, but the stopwatch is the final arbiter of good/bad...time will tell and it is obviously still very early days for DW...
What class does it even compete in (understandably none)? For comparisons reason though you must have to draw some line. To be impressive it better be at least as fast as the GT cars, but having a carbon tub it should be closer to an LMP if its even worth a watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
This reminds me of the new "hans" device that everyone loves to bash. Remember, just because it's different from what you know and understand, it's not necessarily a horrible idea.
Why does this have to be faster than anything? People used to say they'd be doing drag races on the straights and parking it on the corners. Now that we've seen they can go around a corner, we're comparing it to LMP cars. If they manage to somehow be faster than those, we'll be making fun of them for being slower than an F1..
http://dlstatic.speedtv.com/imageser...kground=000000
Both fronts don't additively equal one of the rear tires.
http://dlstatic.speedtv.com/imageser...kground=000000
Asides from the blunt wheel pods it's low enough for me to forgive the cheap looking fin. I take it that it makes all of its downforce from the use of the under-body, though it looks pretty low development (expectedly I guess). I'm sure the gurney there isn't doing too much for them. Modify the fin and add a wing maybe?
http://dlstatic.speedtv.com/imageser...kground=000000
I can see through to the other side.
The side profile - any profile really - is so johnson-like it is hard to look at it and not make that comparison...for sure an interesting program/science experiment though
Perfect size for FV tires :)
A tricycle can't corner as well as a similar four-cornered vehicle, period. Maybe there would have been some merit back before the Mulsanne chicanes and it was a straight 3.7 mile banzai bomb every lap, but now? In poor weather? Forget it.
Exactly. Had this discussion a few weeks back with a couple fellow engineers and I've changed my tune somewhat. They should be able to overcome a lot of the mechanical disadvantages with torque vectoring. There are several vehicles out there in production now using electronically control diffs. Similar to a Segway, all they need to do is create a torque difference across the rear axle to control yaw stability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Michael
Consider the computerized diff. Using rear-wheel "tractoring" to turn the car. Viola! New concept unearthed. It will work!
Kinda. Because no matter how efficiently it's done, all forces are basically being handled by only two of the car's four wheels. The rears propel the car, stop the car and turn the car. As conceptually screwed up for race car use as FWD.
Still this design is a success. These guys got the dollars to build the thing; they're getting great press... they're going to the big circus at Le Mans to represent their country!
It's one of the most successful American race car designs in many years.
All so sad.