What's the story with the Nissan Delta Wing at Le Mans?, Strange looking machine Options

[ThePaintedMan]

They had one hell of a run at LM. The car did everything it was supposed to and more, in my opinion. They were quite confident it could have made several sub- 3:30 laps, but the ACO would not allow them any more boost. Which is also the point, which the team understood. The car was supposed to prove that it could do competitive lap times with half the weight, fuel, horsepower and tires of traditional designs. Before qualifying, they had not even changed tires from the ones that they started practice on. From what I understand, that set did 54 laps, while most other cars changed either every 10-12 laps, or at most double-stinted them. Unfortunately one of the Toyota Hybrids took them out after a yellow-flag period went green.

[JmuRiz]

I liked the idea, shame it got taken out (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)
Had some good top speed for a 1.6L engine (~300hp I think)

[Elliot Cannon]

There aren't any particularly "tight areas" at Lemans, but why would one wheel make turn-in any quicker?

"One wheel"? Looked at the picture yet? 2 front fenders. BTW, it's been all over the car media for well over a year, and Dan Gurney's heavily involved. AFIK, he's not generally involved with loser ideas.

The Cap'n

What happened to that "alligator" motorcycle he was developing?

[ConeDodger]

There aren't any particularly "tight areas" at Lemans, but why would one wheel make turn-in any quicker?

Because it only has 20% of its weight up front and the two wheels in the front camber adjust to cornering...

[cwpeden]

My only question is: Where does the driver keep his Bat Utility Belt? and Does it turn into a Boat, Plane, or Submarine? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Of course people said the same thing about the Panoz a few years back...

[ThePaintedMan]

My only question is: Where does the driver keep his Bat Utility Belt? and Does it turn into a Boat, Plane, or Submarine? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Of course people said the same thing about the Panoz a few years back...

Yup! Funny thing is all the publicity the Audis/Toyotas were getting for being the first Hybrids at Le Mans. Panoz actually ran a hybrid version of the GTR-1 during test days in 1998, although it never made it to the race. Google the Panoz Q9, or "Sparky".

[DBCooper]

There aren't any particularly "tight areas" at Lemans, but why would one wheel make turn-in any quicker?

"One wheel"? Looked at the picture yet? 2 front fenders. BTW, it's been all over the car media for well over a year, and Dan Gurney's heavily involved. AFIK, he's not generally involved with loser ideas.

The Cap'n

Excuse me, should have asked "...why would the equivalent of one wheel make it turn in any quicker?" with the emphasis on "turn in". And so far no good answer.

[Richard Casto]

I am a fan of the engineering and hard work that went into the concept and in no way was I wishing them any bad luck, but I am absolutely against this being used as an example of how we should be building prototype (or other) race cars in the future.

I think that the broad goal was to be able to use smaller and more fuel efficient engines in the top levels of racing without reducing the size of the spectacle (i.e. speed). If you follow racing at all, there is much talk about "relevancy to production cars" and "green technology" such as hybrids, energy reuse, different fuels, etc. which are all important to auto manufacturers. So the concept with the Deltawing was 1/2 the power, 1/2 the weight, 1/2 the drag but all of the fun. The reduction to three wheels was the big factor on reduction of size (weight and drag). The lower drag allowed a lesser amount of power to generate lap times in the range of heavier and more powerful traditional designs.

But while I think they achieved their goals, I don't think this car is the only or best solution to that problem. Assuming that the problem even exists. The FIA/ACO just released new rules for 2014 and the includes a smaller footprint (including narrower maximum width which decreases frontal area and overall drag) plus I think a lower weight. Additionally they are working on a fuel restriction system with displacement, turbo, etc. being relatively open. In many ways, much like the Group C days of the 1980's. So the 2014 cars will be lighter, smaller and more efficient. Pretty much the same goals of Deltawing, but also being more relevant to road going cars plus keeping tradition alive.

Richard

[Richard Casto]

There aren't any particularly "tight areas" at Lemans, but why would one wheel make turn-in any quicker?

"One wheel"? Looked at the picture yet? 2 front fenders. BTW, it's been all over the car media for well over a year, and Dan Gurney's heavily involved. AFIK, he's not generally involved with loser ideas.

The Cap'n

Excuse me, should have said "...why would the equivalent of one wheel make it turn in any quicker?" with the emphasis on "turn in". And still no good answer.

There are a number of different write ups regarding "why" it works. Here is a quote that may talk to what you are looking for...

"Locking propensity of the un-laden front wheel at corner entry is greatly reduced due to virtually no lateral load transfer with the narrow front track/wide rear track layout, steered wheel “scrub drag” moment is virtually zero greatly increasing tire utilization and reducing mid turn understeer."

That quote is from here...

http://www.deltawingracing.com/the-car/

I think the main factor is that they don't try to control body roll via the front of the car. In fact, I don't think that it even has to have a need for much real roll stiffness due to the narrow front track. So as the car rolls in a turn, the front doesn't have to deal with those loads. Also the majority of braking is done at the rear. So the front can just focus on turning. Word is that front tire wear was also very low.

Regardless of if you like the car or not, it does seem to turn very well. While I don't like the car (see above post), I generally don't doubt the listed technical merits.

Richard

[dlkawashima]

The reduction to three wheels was the big factor on reduction of size (weight and drag).

One more time ..... it was a 4 wheeled car. Low drag, low weight, and small & efficient engine are all relevant for future "green" considerations.

[ThePaintedMan]

I am a fan of the engineering and hard work that went into the concept and in no way was I wishing them any bad luck, but I am absolutely against this being used as an example of how we should be building prototype (or other) race cars in the future.

I think that the broad goal was to be able to use smaller and more fuel efficient engines in the top levels of racing without reducing the size of the spectacle (i.e. speed). If you follow racing at all, there is much talk about "relevancy to production cars" and "green technology" such as hybrids, energy reuse, different fuels, etc. which are all important to auto manufacturers. So the concept with the Deltawing was 1/2 the power, 1/2 the weight, 1/2 the drag but all of the fun. The reduction to three wheels was the big factor on reduction of size (weight and drag). The lower drag allowed a lesser amount of power to generate lap times in the range of heavier and more powerful traditional designs.

But while I think they achieved their goals, I don't think this car is the only or best solution to that problem. Assuming that the problem even exists. The FIA/ACO just released new rules for 2014 and the includes a smaller footprint (including narrower maximum width which decreases frontal area and overall drag) plus I think a lower weight. Additionally they are working on a fuel restriction system with displacement, turbo, etc. being relatively open. In many ways, much like the Group C days of the 1980's. So the 2014 cars will be lighter, smaller and more efficient. Pretty much the same goals of Deltawing, but also being more relevant to road going cars plus keeping tradition alive.

Richard

Richard, I don't want this to sound like flaming but I respectfully think you missed the point completely. First of all, it DOESN'T have three wheels. Its four. Everyone got it? Good.

The shape of the car should have nothing to do with its relevance to the automotive marketplace. The whole point of the car is to stretch the imagination and truly test manufacturers to see what can be created when we think laterally as opposed to paradoxically. Why do cars look the way they do? Well, because thats whats always "worked". But motorcycles look nothing like cars, yet they aren't necessarily considered irrelevant, correct?

You're right in the sense that a car the shape of the deltawing is largely impractical for a family of four on vacation. But the concept of lowering frontal area to the extreme harkens back to many of the other things born at Le Mans and in sportscar racing which were once considered impractical or even "crazy. Disc brakes, seat belts, fiberglass and carbon fiber construction, fire protection, safer guard rails, HANS devices... the list goes on.

I don't think its the only, or even best solution either. But I don't believe it was intended to be. I think it did exactly what it was intended to do: challenge the status quo and make us think about what is possible.

[Katmanken]

The reduction to three wheels was the big factor on reduction of size (weight and drag).

One more time ..... it was a 4 wheeled car. Low drag, low weight, and small & efficient engine are all relevant for future "green" considerations.

Wasn't that an old aircooled VW Beetle?

[Richard Casto]

The reduction to three wheels was the big factor on reduction of size (weight and drag).

One more time ..... it was a 4 wheeled car. Low drag, low weight, and small & efficient engine are all relevant for future "green" considerations.

Oh my... take a breather people. Yes, I know it has four wheels. Sorry for the ongoing typo. I keep thinking "tripod" and end up typing three wheels. Wide/classic rear track, ultra narrow front track. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beer.gif)

And where did I say that low drag, low weight and small efficient engines are not green/relevant? Isn't that exactly what the 2014 FIA/ACO regulations are saying (but with a classic four wheel configuration)

I am a fan of the engineering and hard work that went into the concept and in no way was I wishing them any bad luck, but I am absolutely against this being used as an example of how we should be building prototype (or other) race cars in the future.

I think that the broad goal was to be able to use smaller and more fuel efficient engines in the top levels of racing without reducing the size of the spectacle (i.e. speed). If you follow racing at all, there is much talk about "relevancy to production cars" and "green technology" such as hybrids, energy reuse, different fuels, etc. which are all important to auto manufacturers. So the concept with the Deltawing was 1/2 the power, 1/2 the weight, 1/2 the drag but all of the fun. The reduction to three wheels was the big factor on reduction of size (weight and drag). The lower drag allowed a lesser amount of power to generate lap times in the range of heavier and more powerful traditional designs.

But while I think they achieved their goals, I don't think this car is the only or best solution to that problem. Assuming that the problem even exists. The FIA/ACO just released new rules for 2014 and the includes a smaller footprint (including narrower maximum width which decreases frontal area and overall drag) plus I think a lower weight. Additionally they are working on a fuel restriction system with displacement, turbo, etc. being relatively open. In many ways, much like the Group C days of the 1980's. So the 2014 cars will be lighter, smaller and more efficient. Pretty much the same goals of Deltawing, but also being more relevant to road going cars plus keeping tradition alive.

Richard

Richard, I don't want this to sound like flaming but I respectfully think you missed the point completely. First of all, it DOESN'T have three wheels. Its four. Everyone got it? Good.

The shape of the car should have nothing to do with its relevance to the automotive marketplace. The whole point of the car is to stretch the imagination and truly test manufacturers to see what can be created when we think laterally as opposed to paradoxically. Why do cars look the way they do? Well, because thats whats always "worked". But motorcycles look nothing like cars, yet they aren't necessarily considered irrelevant, correct?

You're right in the sense that a car the shape of the deltawing is largely impractical for a family of four on vacation. But the concept of lowering frontal area to the extreme harkens back to many of the other things born at Le Mans and in sportscar racing which were once considered impractical or even "crazy. Disc brakes, seat belts, fiberglass and carbon fiber construction, fire protection, safer guard rails, HANS devices... the list goes on.

I don't think its the only, or even best solution either. But I don't believe it was intended to be. I think it did exactly what it was intended to do: challenge the status quo and make us think about what is possible.

See my comment above about 3 vs. 4 wheels. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Actually don’t think I missed the point. I just don’t agree with how they made their point (if that makes sense). I agree that the “shape” of the car doesn’t have as much to do with relevancy. I mean you could go crazy and try to create a version of a Starship Enterprise with wheels and I would say that it wouldn’t have much relevancy, but that is not what we are talking about. It is the “configuration”. Yes, it has four wheels, but it is effectively a three wheeled “tripod” (please don’t yell at me again about using the word “three”). My point is that a configuration like that doesn’t have much relevancy to current or even likely future production cars. I am not sure where the motorcycle comment comes from? You are right, motorcycles are not cars. Some technology goes back and forth (relevant to both), but cars are cars and motorcycles are motorcycles. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Your other points about lowering frontal area, etc. is absolutely spot on and I agree with 100%. My concerns is that there are a number of people who treat Deltawing as if “it is THE answer”. What I think got tossed out the window for no reason is the traditional four wheel layout that has roughly the same track front and rear. And based upon the 2014 FIA/ACO rules, I would say that the manufactures (who care very much about relevancy and the ability to innovate/differentiate) would agree with me.

I participate in another forum that is 100% motorsports and believe me, the Deltawing has been discussed up and down for MONTHS. People either love it, or absolutely hate it with a vengeance. I feel I fall in between. I can really appreciate the engineering behind it and would even love to see it run in person, but would also hate to see this (tripod configuration) be the direction for the future (even if just for racing). I am pretty progressive on lots of things, but I don’t quite see the need to toss out the classic four wheel configuration that we have today. Yes, the Deltawing is innovative, but is just the wrong solution in my opinion.

Richard

[Katmanken]

Actually, a lot of aircraft have had the tri-wheel configuration for years. A pair of wheels in the front that are close together (aka nose gear), and spaced- apart wheels extending down from the wings. And, they never land nose wheel down first.

The question of stability is what you must ask. Which is more stable? A three legged chair or a a four legged chair? I guarantee you kids will get dumped on the floor a lot more with a three legged chair or a 4 legged chair when the front legs are close together

Think of it this way, when you brake, the load shifts to the front wheels for braking. Brake going around a corner, and the force vector moves away from the front wheel line and tries to tip the three wheel structure. Think understeer (IMG:style_emoticons/default/stirthepot.gif)

[Cap'n Krusty]

There aren't any particularly "tight areas" at Lemans, but why would one wheel make turn-in any quicker?

"One wheel"? Looked at the picture yet? 2 front fenders. BTW, it's been all over the car media for well over a year, and Dan Gurney's heavily involved. AFIK, he's not generally involved with loser ideas.

The Cap'n

What happened to that "alligator" motorcycle he was developing?

Google it. I've seen one, and they were/are in limited production (limited at 36 machines) and sell for $35K.

The Cap'n

[ThePaintedMan]

Richard,
Okay, now I think I understand where you're going here. And this might even all just be semantics. What I was suggesting with the awful motorcycle analogy is that a motorcyle, its technology, design, etc. is still relevant to transportation. Its just it capitalizes on specific points to achieve a different goal than a "traditional" car. What I see is that the deltawing is displaying similar thinking to this. If i don't need 4 doors to lug kids and groceries around all day, why do I also need a car that has to be shaped in a way that accomodates that? I still think I'm struggling to get my words on paper here, but hopefully you can get my point.

I certainly agree with you that there are a lot of people who think of the Deltawing as the "solution." Solution to what? I don't think there is any one piece of technology that has ever SOLVED any problems outright. However, it is an option, and more options are always a good thing. I don't think it deserves its own class; I heard a lot of people saying that over the past few weeks. Just cause you come up with a new idea doesn't all of a sudden mean that you deserve a class to your own. Hell, if anything, I think that is antithetical, much like a spec class. If the Deltawing is supposed to "prove" anything, shouldn't it have to go head to head with the other, more traditional cars?

If you don't mind me saying, I believe we're using relevant and practical interchangeably here and they're not. The technology and ideas going into the Deltawing are relevant to the current and future automotive arena. What remains to be seen is whether the package and layout they come in is practical.

Good points Richard, I appreciate a discussion like this.

Actually don’t think I missed the point. I just don’t agree with how they made their point (if that makes sense). I agree that the “shape” of the car doesn’t have as much to do with relevancy. I mean you could go crazy and try to create a version of a Starship Enterprise with wheels and I would say that it wouldn’t have much relevancy, but that is not what we are talking about. It is the “configuration”. Yes, it has four wheels, but it is effectively a three wheeled “tripod” (please don’t yell at me again about using the word “three”). My point is that a configuration like that doesn’t have much relevancy to current or even likely future production cars. I am not sure where the motorcycle comment comes from? You are right, motorcycles are not cars. Some technology goes back and forth (relevant to both), but cars are cars and motorcycles are motorcycles. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Your other points about lowering frontal area, etc. is absolutely spot on and I agree with 100%. My concerns is that there are a number of people who treat Deltawing as if “it is THE answer”. What I think got tossed out the window for no reason is the traditional four wheel layout that has roughly the same track front and rear. And based upon the 2014 FIA/ACO rules, I would say that the manufactures (who care very much about relevancy and the ability to innovate/differentiate) would agree with me.

I participate in another forum that is 100% motorsports and believe me, the Deltawing has been discussed up and down for MONTHS. People either love it, or absolutely hate it with a vengeance. I feel I fall in between. I can really appreciate the engineering behind it and would even love to see it run in person, but would also hate to see this (tripod configuration) be the direction for the future (even if just for racing). I am pretty progressive on lots of things, but I don’t quite see the need to toss out the classic four wheel configuration that we have today. Yes, the Deltawing is innovative, but is just the wrong solution in my opinion.

Richard

[dlkawashima]

And where did I say that low drag, low weight and small efficient engines are not green/relevant?

And where did I say that you said it wasn't green/relevant?

[SLITS]

If I read or hear "green" one more time I'm gonna puke!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/barf.gif)

[struckn]

The low frontal area reduces drag, true...........but it also reduces visability and what concerns me is that when running against the other cars, in a pack in the turns, a slight bumb to the side of the frontal area of the Delta appears to easily cause it to be taken out. The Delta is a very small car, very light, which has it's pros and cons.

Again I thought the original idea was to make all the Indi cars Deltas. The Delta design is actually some what similar to Indi, or F1 Cars if you could move their front wheels in tight to their narrow nose.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/idea.gif)

[Richard Casto]

And where did I say that low drag, low weight and small efficient engines are not green/relevant?

And where did I say that you said it wasn't green/relevant?

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your comment to my post above.

If I read or hear "green" one more time I'm gonna puke!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/barf.gif)

GREEN

In all seriousness, as much as I am on the side of saving the planet, green racing for me is a joke. How much fuel do they burn in jets, trucks, etc. to haul all of the teams equipment around. But I do understand why they are doing it. It's all about marketing. And just maybe... Some of this tech may actually trickle down to production cars and make financial sense!

Richard