Delta Wing Discussion ONLY

[miatanut]

It has completely trounced every other car on the track running an open differential. An open differential! I couldn't believe it. Ya think that might have a little impact on its ability to navigate slow corners?

It's a 1920's racing engine.

We don't yet know anything about what this concept can or can't do.

At least we've moved away from 'It will fall over in the first corner.'

[MkEagle]

Le Mans 8.469 miles (13.629 km)

Assume 5 liters of fuel left at the end of a race stint. A stint consists of one Out lap, complete racing laps and one In lap.
1 liter = 0.264 US gallon


2012 Nissan DeltaWing

Fastest Race Lap – 3:45.737

11 laps per stint

Fuel Consumption = (8.469 x 11) miles / (35 x 0.264) gallons = 10 mpg


2014 LMP2 Alpine/Oreca-Nissan

Fastest Race Lap – 3:37.787

11 laps per stint

Fuel Consumption = (8.469 x 11) miles / (70 x 0.264) gallons = 5 mpg


http://fiawec.alkamelsystems.com/

Select season and event > Race > Hour 24 > Analysis Race


Nissan DeltaWing: 300 HP , 475 kg (without driver) , 40 liters fuel tank

LMP2: 460 HP , 900 kg (without driver) , 75 liters fuel tank

http://www.highcroftracing.com/deltawing/

http://www.oreca.fr/en/technology-2/...oreca-03-lmp2/

http://www.24h-lemans.com/en/race/ca..._2_2_1742.html


The 2012 DeltaWing uses half as much fuel as a LMP2 car, but it is 8 seconds per lap slower than the fastest 2014 LMP2 cars.

[MkEagle]

Let’s compare the DeltaWing to the fastest LMP2 and non-hybrid gasoline LMP1 cars.

Note that older LMP1 and all LMP2 cars have engine air inlet restrictors. If the restrictors are removed, these cars could go quicker.

The DeltaWing and ZEOD don’t have restrictors.


Le Mans 8.469 miles (13.629 km)


2012 Nissan DeltaWing – 3:42.612
Lap Average Speed = 8.469 miles / (222.612 / 3600) hour = 137 mph

2010 LMP2 HPD ARX-01c – 3:33.079
Lap Average Speed = 8.469 miles / (213.079 / 3600) hour = 143 mph

2008 LMP2 Porsche RS Spyder – 3:32.301
Lap Average Speed = 8.469 miles / (212.301 / 3600) hour = 144 mph

2010 LMP1 Lola-Aston Martin – 3:23.735
Lap Average Speed = 8.469 miles / (203.735 / 3600) hour = 150 mph

http://www.racingsportscars.com/resu...008-06-15.html

http://www.racingsportscars.com/resu...010-06-13.html


Power to Weight Ratio

Car weight includes driver and fuel. Assume combined weight of driver and fuel to be 90 kg during a low-fuel flat-out lap.
1 metric ton = 1000 kg

2012 Nissan DeltaWing
Power to Weight Ratio = 300 HP / (565 / 1000) ton = 531 HP/ton

2010 LMP2 HPD ARX-01c
Power to Weight Ratio = 480 HP / (915 / 1000) ton = 525 HP/ton

2008 LMP2 Porsche RS Spyder
Power to Weight Ratio = 500 HP / (915 / 1000) ton = 546 HP/ton

2010 LMP1 Lola-Aston Martin
Power to Weight Ratio = 650 HP / (990 / 1000) ton = 657 HP/ton

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/4...DeltaWing.html

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/4...D-ARX-01c.html

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/2...pyder-Evo.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_RS_Spyder

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/4...in-B09-60.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDoNRsgcTic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m56zrikBj6U


Victory in the MICHELIN GREEN X Challenge at the 2010 Le Mans 24 Hours ended up going to the HPD-ARX 01c N°42 run by Michelin’s partner Strakka Racing with exceptional energy-efficient performance.

The prize follows on from the team’s success in the same competition in April’s 8 Heures du Castellet (LMS round), and winning the MICHELIN GREEN X Challenge a second time was one of the British squad’s avowed objectives at Le Mans.

As was the case at Le Castellet in the south of France, drivers Nick Leventis, Danny Watts and Jonny Kane clinched the honours not only in the MICHELIN GREEN X Challenge but also in the LMP2 class, proving that energy efficiency is compatible with performance on the race track. Their feat is in fact a repeat of the double whammy secured by the Team Essex Porsche RS Spyder in the 2009 Le Mans 24 Hours.

Strakka Racing won the challenge with an Energy Efficiency Index of 5.75 (calculation based on average speed and average fuel consumption over the full race distance).

http://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/wp-c...ge_booklet.pdf

[optica]

As I have mentioned before you might consider how many LMP2 cars are in existence and being raced continually against how many (reliable) Deltawings have and are being raced before any realistic conclusions can be drawn from relative performance figures. LMP2 figures can be cherry-picked whereas the Deltawing can be afforded no such luxury. Try comparing the DW with some of the slower P2 cars and the arguments might be seen as more comparative. When the Deltawing raced at Le Mans in 2012 it was requested by the ACO to lap at around 3.45 whereas everyone would soon be moaning if such a restriction was placed on the P2 cars. Michael Krumm was confident the DW could have got into the 3.30s had its qualifying not been cut short by a loose battery. After Petit Le Mans 2012 it was obvious the Deltawing had considerable potential for further development and if Bowlby & RML had remained with the original car without decamping to Nissan and the Zeod we might be having a very different argument now. It is disappointing for anyone with an interest in innovative engineering to see how further development of the DW concept has disintegrated with the Panoz effort though I remain optimistic that they might eventually overcome the reliability issues and can move forward with getting the best out of it.

[MkEagle]

Le Mans 8.469 miles (13.629 km)

Assume 4.3 liters of fuel left at the end of a race stint. A stint consists of one Out lap, complete racing laps and one In lap.
1 liter = 0.264 US gallon


2012 Nissan DeltaWing

Fastest Race Lap – 3:45.737

11 laps per stint

Fuel Consumption = (8.469 x 11) miles / (35.7 x 0.264) gallons = 9.9 mpg


2014 LMP1-L Rebellion-Toyota

Fastest Race Lap – 3:28.466

11 laps per stint

Fuel Consumption = (8.469 x 11) miles / (64 x 0.264) gallons = 5.5 mpg


2014 LMP1-H Toyota TS040 Hybrid

Fastest Race Lap – 3:23.112

13 laps per stint

Fuel Consumption = (8.469 x 13) miles / (64 x 0.264) gallons = 6.5 mpg


2014 LMP1-H Audi R18 e-tron quattro Hybrid Diesel

Fastest Race Lap – 3:22.567

13 laps per stint

Fuel Consumption = (8.469 x 13) miles / (50 x 0.264) gallons = 8.3 mpg


http://www.racingsportscars.com/resu...014-06-15.html

http://fiawec.alkamelsystems.com/
Select season and event > Race > Hour 24 > Analysis Race


Nissan DeltaWing: 300 HP , 475 kg (without driver) , 40 liters fuel tank

LMP1-L Rebellion: 500 HP , 810 kg (without driver) , 68.3 liters fuel tank

LMP1-H Toyota: 500-1000 HP , 870 kg (without driver) , 68.3 liters fuel tank

LMP1-H Audi: 500-850 HP , 870 kg (without driver) , 54.3 liters fuel tank

http://www.highcroftracing.com/deltawing/

http://www.rebellion-racing.com/

http://www.toyotahybridracing.com/

http://www.joest-racing.de/en/index.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMhGBX_qPYo

[miatanut]

So now we're comparing fastest laps of multiple diesels and hybrids that had over 300 laps a piece, with a non-hybrid petrol car that maybe did 100 laps between test, qualifying, & practice combined.

Sorry, but as of yet, the data on DW type cars is just to thin to be of any value. If a team could figure out how to run one without burning it up, breaking its gearbox, running it with a normal LSD, getting enough laps to be of any value without getting punted off the track in race or qualifying, then at that point maybe we can make some sort of useful comparison.

[Machin]

Actually, we have pretty much two seasons worth of data, with the same type of car run by multiple teams on multiple tyre compounds, with multiple engines, which all pretty much says the same thing (it can only be vaguely competitive if it has a huge power:weight BOP advantage), but some people refuse to use that data because it doesn't fit want they WANT to see. if this were a proper experiment, and you were seen to be picking and choosing which data to use (or just throwing it ALL out as appears now to be the case) you would be laughed out of the scientific community.

[miatanut]

We don't have squat.

The DW 1.0 finished Petit LeMans. I don't think it or any of the others have finished any other races, at least not without extended time in the garage. The Panoz DW coupe is an embarrassment, designed by somebody who didn't really understand the concept, and how finicky it is about balance, and they got some stuff a little wrong, which on that platform ends up being really wrong.

If you compare total laps run in the last three years by the all the P2's and P1's against total laps run by various versions of DW, the DW's have less than 5% as many laps.

Throw an open diff on a P2 and run it with tires as hard as what the DW's run then the only differences would be between a highly developed car and a car in its infancy, and the comparison would start to have more meaning.

Never the less, saying the DW's suck by looking at various ratios is kind of missing the point. It's still getting its driver around the track at racing speed using a good deal less fuel. Saying the other cars could achieve the same thing, if only they weighed what a DW weighs, doesn't mean much. They don't and it would not be possible to get them down to that weight. The one super Radical, or whatever it is, makes a decent case, but if it has a motorcycle engine in it, I have my doubts about whether it would keep running for 24 hours.

As an exercise, these comparisons' primary value are that they point up the need for a class with a very open rule book and very strict fuel consumption limits, to allow a proper battle of ideas. I don't think the ultimate winner would be a rectangular car. I don't think it would be a DW shaped car either. I think it would be a front engine, front wheel drive car shaped kind of like a VW XL1, but more extreme. With a heavy front weight bias and electric hybrid drive on the rears, it could get out the slow corners half way decent and it would go like stink down the straights.

In any case, it would be fun to see what would prevail.

[Machin]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Saying the other cars could achieve the same thing, if only they weighed what a DW weighs, doesn't mean much. They don't and it would not be possible to get them down to that weight.

Again, it seems that you are ignoring a hole heap of data, and in fact, the rectangular car doesn't even need to weigh as little as the Deltawing, and they simply are as quick, using less power/fuel, and you have to remember that these "rectangular" cars are not allowed to use some features, such as moveable aerodynamics, that the Deltawings all use.

Laguna Seca 2.238 miles

2013 DeltaWing – 1:22.078

2014 DeltaWing Coupe – 1:20.327 (350 HP , 1080 lb without driver)

2009 Formula Atlantic Swift-Mazda – 1:15.444 (300 HP , 1275 lb without driver)

2013 IMSA Lite - 1:22.242 (230bhp, 1260 lb without driver)

i.e, Despite being 180lb heavier, and having 2/3 rds of the power (hence roughly 2/3rds of the fuel consumption), the IMSA Lite is basically as fast as the Deltawing.

I hate to say it, but this is almost becoming a religious debate: if the evidence doesn't match the original premise, then the Pro-Deltawing lobby would have us believe that it must be the evidence that is suspect and not the original premise:-

The Panoz DW coupe is an embarrassment, designed by somebody who didn't really understand the concept, and how finicky it is about balance, and they got some stuff a little wrong, which on that platform ends up being really wrong.

Is it fair to say they don't understand the concept? What evidence is this statement based on? Remember there isn't anything particularly special about the Deltawing concept: it has a rearward weight bias (Porsche have been doing that for years), and a narrow front track. That doesn't really change the fundamentals of setting the car up, it just means that the target numbers are slightly different; i.e. the aero balance, brake bias, etc needs to be further back to compensate the wheel layout. The same maths applies.

If you compare total laps run in the last three years by the all the P2's and P1's against total laps run by various versions of DW, the DW's have less than 5% as many laps.

OK, so let's say they sort out the reliability issue... what then? We still have a car that can only be vaguely competitive if it has a huge power:weight BOP advantage handed to it, and is allowed to run with technologies expressly outlawed on the "rectangular" cars.

Hardly seems fair does it?

[miatanut]

The criticism of Nissan was that they were getting low budget publicity, which is true. The DW's have been designed and built on a relative shoestring compared to a typical P2. The most compelling argument is the IMSA Lite. The DW's have been built a bit more robust, to finish a 24 hour race, (a feat none of them has managed to date), and the IMSA Lite is designed for sprints, so it's not a completely accurate comparison. I would like to see the actual fuel consumption figures for both rather than just having the assumption 2/3 the power = 2/3 the fuel consumption.

I don't accept your contention that the DW times we have to date are the best the plan form can achieve. I think they are far from it. A 1 2/3 second drop in one year at Laguna. How many of the other cars did that?

I think that is a good indication of something that is far from sorted.

[optica]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I don't accept your contention that the DW times we have to date are the best the plan form can achieve. I think they are far from it. A 1 2/3 second drop in one year at Laguna. How many of the other cars did that?

I think that is a good indication of something that is far from sorted.

The only real comparison with the original DW are its lap times at Petit Le Mans 2012 which was 1.12.850 in qualifying.
Although the Panoz car tests at Road Atlanta I haven't see any times for it so it would be interesting to know if they are near to that lap time. At least we would have some idea how well the Panoz version is doing relative to Mark 2 (Mark 1 being the Le Mans set-up)
I don't think they can get near to sorting it properly while they are chasing reliability all the time.
Imsa Lites are very well sorted (there are enough of them!)

[MkEagle]

Le Mans 8.469 miles (13.629 km)

1 liter = 0.264 US gallon


2012 Nissan DeltaWing

Fastest Race Lap – 3:45.737

Assume 4 liters of fuel left at the end of a race stint.

11 laps per stint

Fuel Consumption = (8.469 x 11) miles / (36 x 0.264) gallons = 9.8 mpg


2014 LMP1-L Rebellion-Toyota

Fastest Race Lap – 3:28.466

Fuel Flow Rate = 102.9 liters per hour = 27.17 gallons per hour

17 laps per hour

Fuel Consumption = 8.469 miles per lap / (27.17 / 17) gallons per lap = 5.3 mpg


2014 LMP1-H Toyota TS040 Hybrid

Fastest Race Lap – 3:23.112

Fuel Flow Rate = 4.79 liters per lap for 6MJ Gasoline

Fuel Consumption = 8.469 miles per lap / (4.79 x 0.264) gallons per lap = 6.7 mpg


2014 LMP1-H Audi R18 e-tron quattro Hybrid Diesel

Fastest Race Lap – 3:22.567

Fuel Flow Rate = 3.95 liters per lap for 2MJ Diesel

Fuel Consumption = 8.469 miles per lap / (3.95 x 0.264) gallons per lap = 8.1 mpg

http://www.racingsportscars.com/resu...014-06-15.html

http://www.dailysportscar.com/?p=32467

http://www.dailysportscar.com/?p=31437

http://fiawec.alkamelsystems.com/
Select season and event > Race > Hour 24 > Analysis Race


Nissan DeltaWing: 300 HP , 475 kg (without driver) , 40 liters fuel tank

LMP1-L Rebellion: 500 HP , 810 kg (without driver) , 68.3 liters fuel tank

LMP1-H Toyota: 500-1000 HP , 870 kg (without driver) , 68.3 liters fuel tank

LMP1-H Audi: 500-850 HP , 870 kg (without driver) , 54.3 liters fuel tank

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/4...DeltaWing.html

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/5...ne-Toyota.html

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/5...40-Hybrid.html

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/5...n-quattro.html

[miatanut]

[optica]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Hang in there miatanut!

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by optica

Hang in there miatanut!

It's a discussion worth having if somebody can get one of them consistently to the end of the races and there are a couple hot drivers driving them.

Until then, it's a waste of time.

[optica]

Originally Posted by miatanut

It's a discussion worth having if somebody can get one of them consistently to the end of the races and there are a couple hot drivers driving them.

Until then, it's a waste of time.

I agree....Until the Panoz effort can finish a race they've got nothing that can be sensibly assessed. 2012 Petit LM gave us a good hint of what was there but what has happened since has lost the plot. In all fairness to the Panoz crew it must be very frustrating to have so many problems with it. It's not as though they are inexperienced people so perhaps it reveals just how difficult it is to develop anything that requires "outside the box" engineering. The Zeod couldn't get it right despite the facilities and money available at Nissan so perhaps the original Deltawing can be seen as a remarkable success. It gave a pretty good account of itself at Petit LM (for which it wasn't designed) and might well have finished Le Mans or got considerably further than it did.
For the few of us who remain interested in seeing the concept taken to its full potential the Panoz effort is all there is, so until they ditch it once and for all, I'm still prepared to believe that one day they might at least get everyone arguing about how to BoP it. At the moment they don't need to bother.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by optica

In all fairness to the Panoz crew it must be very frustrating to have so many problems with it. It's not as though they are inexperienced people so perhaps it reveals just how difficult it is to develop anything that requires "outside the box" engineering.

I think they are struggling from a lack of resources. Money spent on a lawsuit that probably isn't going to go anywhere could instead be spent on developing it, to much greater effect.

Originally Posted by optica

The Zeod couldn't get it right despite the facilities and money available at Nissan so perhaps the original Deltawing can be seen as a remarkable success.

I'm still scratching my head on that one. Certainly taking a car based on the concept of "half the weight" and loading it up with a bunch of batteries was going to make using the DW plan form kind of pointless, but one "free" lap per stint should have helped it accomplish some impressive fuel mileage. It does show what an amazing thing AAR accomplished on DW 1.0.

Originally Posted by optica

For the few of us who remain interested in seeing the concept taken to its full potential the Panoz effort is all there is, so until they ditch it once and for all, I'm still prepared to believe that one day they might at least get everyone arguing about how to BoP it. At the moment they don't need to bother.

Agreed!

[MkEagle]

Originally Posted by optica

At least we would have some idea how well the Panoz version is doing relative to Mark 2 (Mark 1 being the Le Mans set-up)

What are the differences between the Mark1 and Mark2 versions of the 2012 DeltaWing?

[optica]

Originally Posted by MkEagle

What are the differences between the Mark1 and Mark2 versions of the 2012 DeltaWing?

Not a lot. The car was originally designed only to run at Le Mans but when it got punted off prematurely they managed to give it a second chance at Petit Le Mans. For Road Atlanta they had to make some changes to the aero and suspension that hadn't originally been part of the plan.

[HJJ]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I think they are struggling from a lack of resources. Money spent on a lawsuit that probably isn't going to go anywhere could instead be spent on developing it, to much greater effect.

Not true. Dr. P spends his money wisely. The lawsuit is another matter and not related to the race team and is not taking any resources away from it. The team just moved into a newly built race shop this week.

[optica]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I'm still scratching my head on that one. Certainly taking a car based on the concept of "half the weight" and loading it up with a bunch of batteries was going to make using the DW plan form kind of pointless, but one "free" lap per stint should have helped it accomplish some impressive fuel mileage. It does show what an amazing thing AAR accomplished on DW 1.0.

Given that Bowlby was at the helm I think the Zeod was potentially quite a big step forward regarding the DW concept despite the extra weight. Technically it was a pretty ambitious project to get sorted in just a few months but you don't learn anything if you don't try so kudos to Nissan for taking the chance. It didn't tell us much new about the DW layout apart from being a much better looking car than the first version or its derivatives. I just hope it doesn't retire to a museum somewhere without getting another chance to run and establish that it would have worked given more development.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by optica

Given that Bowlby was at the helm I think the Zeod was potentially quite a big step forward regarding the DW concept despite the extra weight. Technically it was a pretty ambitious project to get sorted in just a few months but you don't learn anything if you don't try so kudos to Nissan for taking the chance. It didn't tell us much new about the DW layout apart from being a much better looking car than the first version or its derivatives. I just hope it doesn't retire to a museum somewhere without getting another chance to run and establish that it would have worked given more development.

I didn't see any shots of Bowlby in the garage at race, qualifying, or testing. Was he there? If he wasn't, that might explain part of the mystery.

[joeb]

Here is some more fuel to the fire (so to speak)

http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/10585...r-2015-updates

[optica]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I didn't see any shots of Bowlby in the garage at race, qualifying, or testing. Was he there? If he wasn't, that might explain part of the mystery.

Given how up front he was on the original Deltawing it did seem curious that he was nowhere to be seen around the Zeod. Makes you wonder if Panoz was having an influence somewhere!

[optica]

Originally Posted by joeb

Here is some more fuel to the fire (so to speak)

http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/10585...r-2015-updates

Interesting that since Keene has taken over we seem to be getting more development info. which is very welcome to those of us who spend a lot of time guessing. I'm pleased to see they are far from giving up on it so perhaps things are changing for the better.