Delta Wing Discussion ONLY

[arakis]

Originally Posted by davehenrie

I think I can esplain it to you. There are more litres in a tank than gallons. So the tax crazed governments can charge more in taxes per tank. I think it was back in the days of President Carter, they tried to mandate metric here in the States. Heck, for all I know, the law may still be on the books. We Yanks just ignored it after a few months of trying to learn it.

dh

taxes are done through percentiles, so it makes absolutely no difference if it's calculated by gallons or litters....

unrelated: while yanks and brits measure their consumption as miles per gallon, we (the rest of the world) do it by litters per 100km..Yanks instantly know how many miles they can go on the gas they bought, while we instantly know how many liters we need to fill to go as far a s we want...

235/MPG~=(l/100km)
or 235/(L/100km)~=MPG

or even better google is your friend
google: X liters per 100 km to miles per gallon
google: X miles per gallon to liters per 100 km....where X is the amount you want to convert

[gwyllion]

Another article by Gordon Kirby on the DeltaWing: http://gordonkirby.com/categories/co..._is_no341.html

The car was running with an open diff for reliability reasons.

Franchitti believes that the car was capable of doing a 3:33 lap time.

We've only scratched the surface of the performance. If we had been able to go for it in qualifying, even without the diff, we still could have been in the mid to low 33s. That shows the performance that's untapped in the car.

The visibility in the car is much better than in a open LMP car. Remember that according to http://www.racecar-engineering.com/a...nical-preview/ the mandatory LMP2 rear mirrors increased the drag with 8%.

It has a better field of vision than any LMP car I've driven for a while because there are no wheel arches getting in the way. There's nothing but positives in that way. The mirrors on the car at Le Mans were so massive. They made us put on these P2 side mirrors and they were just too big for a car this size. But that's their Le Mans regulations.

[the.cosmic.pope]

Can someone explain exactly how the car was held back by the ACO? I keep reading about how they restricted it so it wouldn't be too fast and it could achieve such and such a time - but the engine wasn't fitted with a restricter was it? So what measures did the ACO actually use?

[gwyllion]

They were asked to tune the engine down because they went too fast during the test day.

We demonstrated we could run consistently between 3.46 and 3.50mins with half the weight, half the horsepower and half the fuel. In the test days we did 3.42mins but the ACO wanted us to be at 3.45 so we took off rpm and reduced the performance level.

We were running less than 300bhp and had cut back 500 rpm. So could we do 3.39s with the LMP2 configuration? Yes, I think we were on that lap when Krumm jumped the curb and the fire extinguisher went off and ruined the lap.

source: http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/ra...-wings-future/

[Machin]

I assume when he says "testing" he meant qualifying (the car did a 3:46 in testing, and a 3:42 in qualifying)... and that the power was reduced for the race only...?

I wonder how how much they reduced the power? We can estimate it in a number of ways:-

1, They say that they reduced the RPM by 500rpm... assuming that the torque curve is flat then this means peak power would be: (6500/7000)*300 = 278bhp.

2, The LMP2's have 75 litre tanks and 450bhp, the Oak Morgan #24 was doing 12 lap stints, so had a specific fuel consumption of about 14 cc's per lap per BHP. Applying the same "specific fuel consumption", and knowing the Deltawing did 11 lap stints on 40 litres of fuel we can estimate that the Deltawing had:- ((40litres*1000)/11laps)/14 = 260bhp.

If however the engine was a little more efficient than a typical LMP2 engine (lets say 13.2 cc's per lap per BHP) the power would be ((40*1000)/11/13.2 = 275bhp.

This would seem to make the Deltawing's performance on a BHP/Ton basis a bit more promising... however in the race (when I assume the power was reduced) its best lap was a 3:45.7:-



I really hope that they let the car run again, to see whether it could be competitive given some more development time....

[chewymonster]

Theoretically almost every single car that races at Le Mans is restricted to a certain degree and I bet Audi could go and claim that they can run under 3 minutes a lap purely by removing ballast and the restrictor but that is a pointless argument.

Overall I guess they were fairly close to LMP2 pace with a little more than half the weight, quite a bit more than half the power, and not exactly half the fuel consumption.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Machin

2, The LMP2's have 75 litre tanks and 450bhp, the Oak Morgan #24 was doing 12 lap stints, so had a specific fuel consumption of about 14 cc's per lap per BHP.

According to the Oak Racing website the Judd engine in the #24 produces 475 bhp (@ 9000 rpm).

Originally Posted by Machin

Applying the same "specific fuel consumption", and knowing the Deltawing did 11 lap stints on 40 litres of fuel we can estimate that the Deltawing had:- ((40litres*1000)/11laps)/14 = 260bhp.

You are assuming that the Deltawing needed 40 liters of fuel to do 11 laps. We do not know how far they were from doing a 12th lap. Perhaps they could do 11.5 laps, but not 12...

[Alfaholic]

Quick question about a point that seems to have been lost in all the talk about power, fuel & lap times, One of the ways the Delta Wing was going to gain time was by multiple stinting the tyres from the start due to low wear rates - has anybody any information about how long they made the sets of tyres last?

p.s. Any chance that they will be invited to Silverstone in August - even if only for demonstration runs?

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Alfaholic

Quick question about a point that seems to have been lost in all the talk about power, fuel & lap times, One of the ways the Delta Wing was going to gain time was by multiple stinting the tyres from the start due to low wear rates - has anybody any information about how long they made the sets of tyres last?

p.s. Any chance that they will be invited to Silverstone in August - even if only for demonstration runs?

I don't think they changed tires at all during the race.

[Machin]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

According to the Oak Racing website the Judd engine in the #24 produces 475 bhp (@ 9000 rpm).

The LMP2 Judd V8 was given a smaller restrictor prior to Le Mans. see Autosport, June 7th.

You are assuming that the Deltawing needed 40 liters of fuel to do 11 laps. We do not know how far they were from doing a 12th lap. Perhaps they could do 11.5 laps, but not 12...

The same could be said of the LMP2's though... perhaps they could do 12.9 laps...?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Machin

The same could be said of the LMP2's though... perhaps they could do 12.9 laps...?

That explains why the class winning Starworks HPD was doing 11 lap stints. And so were the #30 and #31 Lola Judds, the #43 Norma Judd, the #25 and #48 Oreca Nissan, ...

[the.cosmic.pope]

He means 11.9. Either way he has a valid point. If you say the DW could maybe do 11.5, then you could also say that the LMPs could maybe do that. Either way it's pointless, as neither class could get an entire extra lap out of it.

[davehenrie]

CP! Long time!!!!

[canam]

We do not really know the fuel economy for DW.

LMP cars actually racing will take stint lengths to a safe maximum. Given the length of a lap at LM, teams will err on the side of safety while also trying to stretch the stint length--so it is likely that 11 laps per stint is probably a true reflection that they could not do any more safely.

DW, on the other hand, may have sought to err even more on the side of 'safe'. Running out of fuel would have been hugely embarrassing--given that they were not fighting for position and they had numerous other objectives that would have been best served by running the full distance.

After several stints--where fuel consumption could be accurately measured with greater confidence--there may have been an opportunity to revise stint length. That was not to be--sadly.

[gwyllion]

As always Murphy is spreading non positive rumors. I fear that he might be right.

Originally Posted by @Murphythebear

Will lack of funding end the DeltaWing project? That's the rumor. The "track record" (think Abruzzi) isn't good, is it?

source: http://twitter.com/Murphythebear/sta...30445326000130

[canam]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

As always Murphy is spreading non positive rumors. I fear that he might be right.
source: http://twitter.com/Murphythebear/sta...30445326000130

Always has his nose in the grubby stuff.
He must like dirt.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

As always Murphy is spreading non positive rumors. I fear that he might be right.
source: http://twitter.com/Murphythebear/sta...30445326000130

That is a story indeed that is making it's way around. Peter Delorenzo has suggested a similar thing at Autoextremist.com, which was posted several pages ago.

Isn't a bit odd that a car that follows no rules, somehow was required to have P2 mirrors?

[Simmi]

It's hardly any kind of surprise. Nissan were always going to dump this project the moment they left La Sarthe and PR had been maximised. As soon as it races a second time it's no longer "new".

Difficult to find someone willing to take up the gauntlet after that, even if it is a car that fans supposedly want to see.

[miatanut]

Don Panoz wants to sell a bunch of them to run in ALMS. I wouldn't bet against him.

[Maelochs]

Question is, does AAR/Highcroft/Panoz think they can sell a lot more tickets at some upcoming races and keep the buzz going to make the car more easily salable to other sponsor (people Love to see this car---imagine if your firm's name was on the side of it!)

The Abbruzzi was a Don-only money-loser. The DWing has got backing form Nissan and Michelin. I don't see Michelin in particular being willing to toss all that dev money after one unsatisfying outing.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Question is, does AAR/Highcroft/Panoz think they can sell a lot more tickets at some upcoming races and keep the buzz going to make the car more easily salable to other sponsor (people Love to see this car---imagine if your firm's name was on the side of it!)

The Abbruzzi was a Don-only money-loser. The DWing has got backing form Nissan and Michelin. I don't see Michelin in particular being willing to toss all that dev money after one unsatisfying outing.

Obviously AAR and Highcroft could care less about selling tickets at races.

Panoz does to some degree, particularly at PLM.

The only real reason to keep it going at this point, beyond maybe one final one-off at PLM, is if they decide to make a category for it in the ALMS.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Obviously AAR and Highcroft could care less about selling tickets at races.

Panoz does to some degree, particularly at PLM.

The only real reason to keep it going at this point, beyond maybe one final one-off at PLM, is if they decide to make a category for it in the ALMS.

That's already in the works:
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/ra...-wings-future/
Don wants to make some money off this.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by miatanut

That's already in the works:
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/ra...-wings-future/
Don wants to make some money off this.

Seen that, but then things change with the slightest whim with Panoz.... and whether he really thinks he can sell any.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Seen that, but then things change with the slightest whim with Panoz.... and whether he really thinks he can sell any.

The Abruzzi wasn't going to provide nearly the ROI. This is an attention grabber.

[wnut]

How original is the Delta?



http://www.vigillante.com/vigillante1.htm