|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
6 Oct 2014, 19:09 (Ref:3461422) | #2826 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 318
|
Quote:
|
||
|
6 Oct 2014, 19:35 (Ref:3461442) | #2827 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,299
|
Quote:
http://lemansprototypes.over-blog.it...anta-2014.html |
|||
|
6 Oct 2014, 23:14 (Ref:3461520) | #2828 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
Unfortunately the constant lengthy FCYs in TUSC never allow the advantages of economy to show its true worth. |
|||
|
7 Oct 2014, 12:12 (Ref:3461704) | #2829 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
Quote:
Don't forget the governing body mandated a small fuel tank so it has to stop within a few laps of the DP's anyway. This has forced the team to find more aero performance as it can't use it fuel economy to gain an advantage. I don't think people realize it's hadicapped by this. IMSA also mandate a boost and rev limit. Last edited by brandscooper; 7 Oct 2014 at 12:18. |
||
|
7 Oct 2014, 12:16 (Ref:3461706) | #2830 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
Actually you are completely wrong! The coupe version lost a significant amount of downforce when the roof was added (along with a drag loss). The open top had more downforce. The aero additions seen at RA proved that adding downforce made the car faster. It still has less downforce than the open top version.
|
|
|
7 Oct 2014, 14:25 (Ref:3461757) | #2831 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
7 Oct 2014, 16:48 (Ref:3461815) | #2832 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
That's correct, but don't forget the coupe started off with less drag than the open top so by adding downforce to the coupe the resulting drag increase still results in a lower drag/downforce than the open top. With the latest aero tweeks the coupe is now close to the downforce produced by the open top car. I have figures but that is proprietary information.
|
|
|
7 Oct 2014, 17:03 (Ref:3461822) | #2833 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
7 Oct 2014, 17:49 (Ref:3461838) | #2834 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
It was fun watching a car with a lot less power be competitive and also achieve longer stints! Congratulations on a great showing! |
|||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
7 Oct 2014, 21:57 (Ref:3461948) | #2835 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
Yes, the tank itself is 45L. A little over half the capacity of the DP cars.
|
|
|
7 Oct 2014, 22:02 (Ref:3461950) | #2836 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
Maybe the good old days are coming back to sportscar racing. |
|||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
8 Oct 2014, 00:32 (Ref:3461982) | #2837 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,491
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
8 Oct 2014, 01:33 (Ref:3461993) | #2838 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
On the other hand, the fastest PC is shown at 9 stops (and five laps down). Maybe PC's have the same fuel capacity as a P2, but less power, so less fuel consumption. |
|||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
8 Oct 2014, 02:41 (Ref:3461999) | #2839 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4
|
I don't think the small fuel tank is new, is it? And I don't see how IMSA could decide the size of the fuel cell, that would be a function of the car, right? I have old roadster specs, which list a 10.5 gallon fuel tank - that's only 40L. So it would appear this tank is actually bigger.
That said, IMSA hit DW with a smaller fuel restrictor at the beginning of the season - which doesn't appear to have improved: http://www.imsa.com/sites/default/fi...0%2314-125.pdf So anyone who says the DW doesn't operate under any "rules" would appear to be wrong... |
|
|
8 Oct 2014, 08:52 (Ref:3462086) | #2840 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
8 Oct 2014, 23:53 (Ref:3462352) | #2841 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
9 Oct 2014, 10:18 (Ref:3462482) | #2842 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 128
|
Apart from developing a new car I'm not sure whether there is anything "off the shelf" that could easily be allowable in TUSC. I still think the DW is a very effective car and coming up with something that might challenge it economy wise could be an expensive exercise. It is very fast in a straight line and that might be hard to match aero-wise with a conventional lay-out. As always much depends on the circuit. With the DW the challenge has been making it fast enough in the corners whereas the challenge with a conventional car might be making it fast enough down the straights. Until someone does it the old argument will continue.
|
||
|
9 Oct 2014, 22:12 (Ref:3462721) | #2843 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
I'm still skeptical such a car could beat a DW in a long race, but I would love to see that battle of alternative approaches. It would be very nice if the old argument could be resolved on the track! As you say, the DW would likely prevail on fast circuits, and the conventional car may well prevail on twisties. |
|||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
10 Oct 2014, 09:10 (Ref:3462878) | #2844 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
http://www.radicalsportscars.com/uk/...al-sr8-rx.aspx This year's P2s were around 2.10s with a 2.8 in qualifying. Against a well-sorted DW I doubt the Radical would find it an easy challenge. Quite how it would rate on relative economy would be interesting. |
|||
|
10 Oct 2014, 12:50 (Ref:3462950) | #2845 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,711
|
Quote:
Regarding the tires, the Conti's are much better than the Bridgestone's but not as good as the Michelin's. |
|||
__________________
It's great to be here! |
10 Oct 2014, 13:40 (Ref:3462962) | #2846 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,958
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
10 Oct 2014, 14:58 (Ref:3462989) | #2847 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
I wouldn't call +1,5mm restrictor increase "hit" & "restriction"
http://www.imsa.com/sites/default/fi...0%2314-130.pdf |
|
|
10 Oct 2014, 17:11 (Ref:3463034) | #2848 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
|||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
12 Oct 2014, 08:53 (Ref:3463879) | #2849 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 46
|
Quote:
Thanks for the info. The 2014 DeltaWing Coupe is slower than the 2012 & 2013 open-cockpit DeltaWing at every track except Laguna Seca. The ideal DeltaWing is a single-seat open-cockpit design like Ben Bowlby’s IndyCar prototype. Dr. Panoz could start his own DeltaWing racing series and forget about TUSCC. http://www.gordonkirby.com/categorie..._is_no235.html http://www.autoracing1.com/irl.asp?a...=032010-032010 http://www.infoxicated.com/2011/06/2...cle-in-racing/ |
||
|
19 Oct 2014, 11:17 (Ref:3466419) | #2850 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 46
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wide Front Wing / Narrow rear wing | browney | Formula One | 30 | 21 Nov 2011 12:13 |
Delta S4's that were in Rallycross | M.Lowe | Rallying & Rallycross | 23 | 30 Aug 2007 11:47 |
Delta wing , inverted delta wing | effuno | Racing Technology | 3 | 8 Apr 2007 13:45 |