Delta Wing Discussion ONLY

[deltawing]

Machin, if I am looking at your numbers correctly, you make an assumption that the DW'13 cabrio and also the DW'13 coupe are the identical 556 Kg of weight that comes from the DW'12 numbers for DF you are using....

If the DW'13 weights really 550 kg, then everything you wrote would be correct and that will puzzle us even more on why the current DW does not perform as expected. But where I think things start falling is that perhaps the current DW (coupe or cabrio) are much heavier than the original DW'12. What we also don't know is how much of the "8-9% lost in DF due to the closed cockpit" is really true. Because if that is actually more like 12-14%, then things slowly but surely start to change and somehow everything starts making more sense.

[Machin]

(1190/2100 = 0.567, or 567kg, but I'll let you off!!!)

The Deltawing website (http://www.deltawingracing.com/tech-specs/ ) has always claimed that the open top version is 590kg with fuel and driver. The fuel capacity is 40 litres. I've taken off 23kg for qualifying trim to account for a "low fuel" condition to arrive at 567kg.

The November 2013 issue of Racecar Engineering claims the exact same 590kg with fuel and driver for the Panoz Deltawing Coupe. Again, I've taken off 23kg for low fuel.

The reason? Supposedly the original deltawing's tub was over-engineered (having been "donated" from the Aston Martin LMP1), The new coupe has a completely re-desgined tub with less torsional rigidity (the Deltawing layout doesn't need high torsional rigidity we're told), so despite the roof, it (they claim) weighs the same.

[deltawing]

Originally Posted by Machin

(1190/2100 = 0.567, or 567kg, but I'll let you off!!!) .....

Thank you for letting me go this time! I wanted to "downplay" the numbers, ha!

Anyway, my point is that we do the right calculations, but maybe with the wrong numbers. I completely agree on the logic that the cabrio tub was heavier! Where I doubt is that the new engine is as light as the old one and also looking at some of the pictures, it looks like a lot more cooling stuff was added, so perhaps things have gone a lot more north of 567 (cough) kilograms

But who really knows..... I guess we just wait and see. years from now truth will come out!

[canamman]

From a non-technical fan, I enjoy seeing the Delta Wing on the track.
It is the ultimate davy vs. goliath. I hope they keep pushing forward.

I would look to the airline industry for some sponsorship. Granted the name leaves one obvious sponsor. If say Cessna comes on board,
I would think they could call it the Cessna wing. GulfStream, the Gulf
Wing and so on.

Hope its at Daytona!

[bjohnsonsmith]

I'd like to see both the Nissan/Michelin version and the Coupé version race each other but that's probably out of the question.

[joeb]

At road Atlanta I loved seeing the DW on track, it looked to be up to the task. I felt bad it was so slow but liked seeing it none the less.

[Danathar]

Originally Posted by joeb

At road Atlanta I loved seeing the DW on track, it looked to be up to the task. I felt bad it was so slow but liked seeing it none the less.

Yea, what I really fear is that until it wins or is at least competitive on a regular basis, hardly anybody will buy one.

That could kill it outright in a couple of years.

[Machin]

Originally Posted by deltawing

Anyway, my point is that we do the right calculations, but maybe with the wrong numbers.

That's an interesting comment... bearing in mind that all the deltawing numbers I have quoted come directly from the two teams that designed and ran the car, so are you suggesting that they have lied about the specification/aerodynamic performance of the car and they are in fact not achieving the figures they are claiming, be that the mass, power or aerodynamic numbers? This would be very disappointing since most of the excitement surrounding this car was based on the numbers that the designer/team were claiming they were going to achieve.

(My personal view is that the mass/power/aero numbers are right and the car is underperforming due to the "innovative" wheel layout.)

[HJJ]

Originally Posted by Machin

(My personal view is that the mass/power/aero numbers are right and the car is underperforming due to the "innovative" wheel layout.)

Not wheels but tires. The car was much faster on the Conti's during Monday's test. The time it turned would have put it in with the P2's on the grid after only three laps.

[Maelochs]

Thing is, the new DW isn't even reaching the performance level of the open car, let alone other P1 cars.

I think the original DW showed that while the triangle layout might have drawbacks, the package as a whole had the performance to compete at least as a P2, and maybe more with more power. Also, one big advantage for endurance racign was supposed to be fewer pit stops.

The new DW seems to corner even worse, and the new tires don't seem to last, while the new engine doesn't seem to offer improved power or mileage.

To me, the DW concept has yet to be fully tested, because the coupe/Bridgestone/Elan Mazda combo has never worked---possibly losing all the downforce/drag advantage, and all the economy benefits, and gaining nothing.

The original DW managed fifth at Petit---not a shabby result. Who knows where it could have gone, had it continued to receive first-rate funding and attention?

[MoMedic9019]

Does anyone else think this thing has fallen afoul of the Abruzzi level of embarrassment yet?

[Koenigsegg]

Originally Posted by MoMedic9019

Does anyone else think this thing has fallen afoul of the Abruzzi level of embarrassment yet?

The Abruzzi GT2 was no embarrassment. The qualifyinh for the 2011 Sebring 12H wasn't bad for it's first ever qualifying session. They retired early on in the race due to mechanical issues. Almost all new race cars have mechanical issues in the beginning.

Abruzzi qualified 10th in GT class (it did run Unclassified) at Mosport, beating 6 other GT cars. It finished as the 9th GT car in the race.

The only embarrassing thing about the Abruzzi is that the road version was not legal and thus the race car was not legal.

I still have a little hope that the Abruzzi will make a come back eventually.

[Machin]

Originally Posted by HJJ

Not wheels but tires. The car was much faster on the Conti's during Monday's test. The time it turned would have put it in with the P2's on the grid after only three laps.

Do you have a link to the results of this test? I can't find any on the web... Cheers!

Originally Posted by maelochs

the package as a whole had the performance to compete at least as a P2, and maybe more with more power.

You can see it now: "half the weight of P2, half the drag, but the same power and the same performance"

Doesn't quite have the ring of the original "half the weight of P1, half the drag and half the power with the same performance" claim.

I see that P2 will run at 960kg next year, assuming they don't penalise the Deltawing in the same way, that'll help it a bit.

[HJJ]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

The original DW managed fifth at Petit---not a shabby result. Who knows where it could have gone, had it continued to receive first-rate funding and attention?

And the current car finished 5th at Road America. Your point?

[HJJ]

Originally Posted by Machin

Do you have a link to the results of this test? I can't find any on the web... Cheers!

Not on the web, I was there.

[Machin]

Originally Posted by HJJ

Not on the web, I was there.

Which other cars were running, and how did their performances compare to the times they were doing during the race weekend?

[Maelochs]

Sure, the current DW finished fifth ... please, let's try to Understand facts as well as just citing them.

The current DW couldn't beat the original ... please explain how being slower than the original is progress?

[Koenigsegg]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

The current DW couldn't beat the original ... please explain how being slower than the original is progress?

I'm no fan of the DW, but you can't really compare the Original DW with the new DW.

New DW has a different engine, different tub, different design, different tires, different gearbox. Basicly everything is different. Yes they look the same, but that's it.

[Machin]

I see this as a good thing: the interesting thing about this car is the wheel layout. We now have two different cars which feature this exact same "innovative" layout. That means we have two sets of data to play with.

What we can conclude is that neither car is able to compete with cars having equal power:mass (by quite some margin), despite what the original designer claimed. Yes, the first version was better, but it still wasn't competitive. In terms of overall lap time the Delta layout is proving to be really quite inefficient.

[Maelochs]

I am kind of a fan of the DW, in that I want to see it at least get a fair shot at proving its concept.

I think we have seen that it might lack some cornering capacity, but with new and perhaps less developed tires, new bodywork which apparently costs it nine percent downforce, and as far as I know still no torque-distributing electronic differential, the car really can't prove the concept.

The original ran for a few days then at Le Mans, and its last stint there it seemed to bew running better. At Le Mans it was limited to P2-ish performance---possibly it could have done better given a little more boost, possibly not.

At Petit (its next race, I believe,) the car ran well, lasted all night long, didn't hold up traffic, and started to show its true potential (imo.)

Even if the car lacks a little on slow corners, if it could keep up over he course of a lap, and also need fewer pit stops, that would prove the conceopt (while probably not meeting the 1/2, 1/2, 1/2 hype, but so what? That is hype.) Still the idea was a more efficient car, using fewer resources, giving the same overall performance---Something it ha never really had a chance to do.

[optica]

I think the concept is now well proven. If it wasn't Nissan wouldn't be adopting it for the Zeod which is a vehicle that will require every aero advantage it can find. Like any car it is difficult to make a judgement based on the one example that is actually racing such as the current Panoz rendering of the car. You wouldn't judge the whole LMP1 class based on the failed Aston project which ironically donated its tub to the original Deltawing in which it performed somewhat better. There was nothing very unconventional about the Aston as it conformed to the class specs at the time. I still think there is a lot of potential in the DW concept, it just needs more people running & developing similar cars to get the best from it as occurs with any successful class of racing.

[HJJ]

Originally Posted by Machin

Which other cars were running, and how did their performances compare to the times they were doing during the race weekend?

The cars at Conti's Monday test after Petit are documented elsewhere. I'm not going to give out times because trusts would be broken. As I said they were in the mix with the P2's times.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Machin

What we can conclude is that neither car is able to compete with cars having equal power:mass (by quite some margin), despite what the original designer claimed. Yes, the first version was better, but it still wasn't competitive. In terms of overall lap time the Delta layout is proving to be really quite inefficient.

The idea was never to beat the power:mass of other cars. It was to get a driver around the course at a speed between P1 & P2 using half the fuel. We know the Nissan version of it had a lot less power than a GT but was turning P2 competitive lap times. It would be nice if they had given us fuel consumption figures, but given it makes less power than a GT, we can reasonably assume it was using less fuel than a GT. In other words, it was doing P2 lap times using a lit less fuel than a P2.

The Panoz effort doesn't seem to have the car figured out, and it may be the reason they seem to be going backward is that the car is very different to set up than what they are used to and they are having trouble figuring out what it wants. A team with Bowlby on it can get at what it wants a lot better.

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Still the idea was a more efficient car, using fewer resources, giving the same overall performance---Something it ha never really had a chance to do.

Right, although I would say it got a half decent chance at Le Mans and was showing well until it got punted off.

[Canada ALMS fan]

Originally Posted by HJJ

The cars at Conti's Monday test after Petit are documented elsewhere. I'm not going to give out times because trusts would be broken. As I said they were in the mix with the P2's times.

How many will actually race next year? I assume Dr. Panoz will run the current one with Dave Price. Will anyone else? We haven't heard of any potential sales.

[Eric Falce]

Its my little nephew Tim's birthday, happy birthday Tim.