|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
4 Jun 2012, 23:03 (Ref:3085363) | #1301 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,394
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
4 Jun 2012, 23:06 (Ref:3085364) | #1302 | |
Rookie
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22
|
never seen so many crybabies. Takes away from the enjoyment of reading the board.
|
|
|
4 Jun 2012, 23:24 (Ref:3085370) | #1303 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 43,266
|
I don't need it to prove the efficiencies. I don't see it as a great example of a new way. I do see it as different to what we have. It is.
Let's hope people stop banging on about it whether it is the saviour, or not. |
||
|
4 Jun 2012, 23:30 (Ref:3085374) | #1304 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 538
|
Quote:
Why did nobody do it before? Because it's slower. The car has less weight, less drag and operates completely outside the rule book, and it's still slower than the conventional cars. It may be a concept which would work in a spec series, but when it has to race conventional cars it can't match them. It's hardly a new concept anyway. The whole idea is reduce drag and the frontal area, which exactly what happened in the 60s in F1, with the increasingly tiny chassis. The only difference was F1 teams kept the wheels outboard to give a wider track, lowering the centre of gravity, increasing stability. The DeltaWing brings them inboard. All it's doing is proving what everybody already knows - that less drag and less weight is a good thing, and utilising this will allow you better fuel efficiency and require less power. It's a fine car for what it is, but it isn't new technology, it doesn't prove anything, and given it is allowed to operate completely outside the rule book, it isn't that impressive in terms of speed either. I don't hate it, and I think it has its place in racing, I just don't think this is it. |
|||
|
5 Jun 2012, 00:23 (Ref:3085390) | #1306 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
Coming up with a triangular car that doesn't fall over in turns was something of a breakthrough. A few months ago a lot of people were arguing "It will never work." The DW team made it work. What is it slower than? Four of the P2's turned in slower best laps and they had a nearly 50% horsepower advantage. All the GT's had a power advantage. What 1960's F1 car can out-race this car? The 1966 and onward cars have a little more horsepower, so they should be able to beat it, right? I have little doubt how that race will come out. The late 1960's F1 cars are my all-time favorite racing cars, but they would come out far behind this, even on the same tires. This is probably the fastest non-winged road racing car ever developed. If the rule book forces people to design inefficient cars that don't go any faster, or go only a few seconds faster around Le Mans, why does it do that? That's the question this car was created to ask. Of course anyone can ask that question. This makes it real for people, which has a lot more impact. |
|||
|
5 Jun 2012, 01:07 (Ref:3085396) | #1307 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,394
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
5 Jun 2012, 01:26 (Ref:3085398) | #1308 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,630
|
|||
|
5 Jun 2012, 02:37 (Ref:3085406) | #1309 | ||||||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,203
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My point is that this concept not only hardly makes any sense for an unrestricted race car, but also transforms the vehicle into something that is not perceived as an automobile anymore, since the concept neither can be transferred to road cars, nor is it properly four-wheeled. And I'd much rather see another car in a battle for 8th position. Because as it stands right now we'll be missing even more actual racing because in addition to dr. Ulrich's head (with all due respect) taking too much of the air time, there'll be DW tooling around and (not) breaking down. Last edited by Pandamasque; 5 Jun 2012 at 02:45. |
||||||
|
5 Jun 2012, 02:45 (Ref:3085407) | #1310 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7,175
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
5 Jun 2012, 02:57 (Ref:3085410) | #1311 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,203
|
Sure. If you add another front wheel to a tricycle, does it automatically become a car? It does, according to ACO. But not in the real world.
|
||
|
5 Jun 2012, 03:25 (Ref:3085415) | #1312 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
Quote:
Racing could be fun again. As a thought-provoking concept to encourage debate, the DW has been very successful. Let's hope it leads to a much less restricted formula where other innovative ideas can emerge to beat it. |
||||
|
5 Jun 2012, 05:27 (Ref:3085427) | #1313 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 278
|
Q:
Take an LMP2 car - say the Lola B12/80 Coupé - strip off all of its wings, and give it groundeffect instead. How much more efficient would it get in terms of fuel, drag and tyrewear? |
||
|
5 Jun 2012, 08:10 (Ref:3085464) | #1314 | ||||
Team Crouton
20KPINAL
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 39,767
|
Quote:
Again, and? What does this mean or prove? I'm pretty sure there'd be an awful lot of noise here if the DW was posting times at the top of LMP2. Anyhow - we've all seen precious little yet. Let the darned thing race. Quote:
I guess it depends on which 'real world' you live in. Whatever that is....... |
||||
__________________
357 days...... sigh....... |
5 Jun 2012, 08:48 (Ref:3085477) | #1315 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 527
|
i just wonder why people is so afraid of the DeltaWing... It won´t collect points, nor win the race from Audi or Toyota, it will be restricted in top speed and laptimes... it is just a technological testbed... And, by the way, thanks to the DW, some spanish newspapers and TV programmes that have never cared a bit about this race have talked about Le Mans again...
|
||
|
5 Jun 2012, 09:38 (Ref:3085498) | #1316 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 9,028
|
Quote:
|
||
|
5 Jun 2012, 09:53 (Ref:3085504) | #1317 | |||
Racer
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 393
|
Quote:
I can't make my mind up about the DW, but acknowledge it's right to be there, and that Sportscars as a sport encourages such thinking. |
|||
|
5 Jun 2012, 10:05 (Ref:3085512) | #1318 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 9,028
|
Yep. The key being a healthy discussion and that has sometimes been lacking. Back in the day when teams were trying out crazy solutions you would have had exactly the same issues if there had been a place like this to vent them. Just realised we hadn't heard from AGD in a while.
|
|
|
5 Jun 2012, 10:35 (Ref:3085529) | #1319 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,270
|
Brief OT:
Don't see him on the member list any longer, so I suspect he's on "vacation". Pretty sure the 3:47s-3:48s on Sunday weren't 100% representative of the car's potential, and they never did more than 7 or 8 laps on a fuel run so far. I'm actually looking forward to the massive PDF full of stats after the race so that we can number-crunch what the car is actually capable of. |
||
__________________
When in doubt? C4. |
5 Jun 2012, 10:41 (Ref:3085532) | #1320 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,394
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
5 Jun 2012, 10:55 (Ref:3085542) | #1321 | ||
Team Crouton
20KPINAL
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 39,767
|
|||
__________________
357 days...... sigh....... |
5 Jun 2012, 11:32 (Ref:3085559) | #1322 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 538
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I believe this sort of concept does have place in motorsports, but this isn't it. My major problem with it is the massive deal that is being made out of it. So you made a thinner car with no wings and it has less drag? Yay? Nissans coverage of it is almost sickening in how terrible it is. The chap on RLM sat there and said this is what Nissan is all about, and they are always developing silly and funny things "like the Juke-R" (You put a big engine in an inappropriate car? Nobody has ever done that before.) And whats worse is Nissan had nothing to do with the development of this car, they've just come in late to the party, slapped a sticker on it, and apparently swapped out the old RML WTCC Chevy engine for one of theirs, and job done. Again, I'm not anti-DW, and I do think it's fine for what it is, but it's not proving anything we didn't already know, it isn't bringing anything to the table, and it isn't going to revolutionise motorsports. To me, the DeltaWing is like the Danica Patrick of sportscar racing. It's fine for what it is, it'll get the job done, but the media hype and fans around it make it sound like it's the greatest thing to ever grace motorsports. |
|||||
|
5 Jun 2012, 11:47 (Ref:3085564) | #1323 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 43,266
|
This is a great discussion. It is faster than an LMP2. Ah, but it is slower than another. What insight!
All the cars are constrained by the rules. Change the aero, power, tyres, whatever on GT, LMP or garage 56 and they could be faster or slower. If you have problem with garage 56 because of this, then you have a problem with all the grid. The point is that with a very different design (power, weight, aero, track) it can be there or there abouts. Interestingly. There is no danger of all LM cars looking like this, rest easy. However is does show that the current rules aren't the only way to crack an egg. I'm surprised that those who naturally whinge haven't picked this up to add weight to the view that sportscar racing could be improved in all categories. It is garage 56, it isn't meant to be the same. Equally the rationale that it isn't new technology doesn't stack up either, it is never going to be completely new technology. Even fuel cell isn't. The ACO wouldn't let it race if there wasn't some background. |
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
5 Jun 2012, 11:50 (Ref:3085566) | #1324 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 43,266
|
I see little difference in the hype you describe and the anti-hype. Both as bad as each other. Apart from i seem to hear more from the anti! It is one car, not the best or worse thing ever.
|
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
5 Jun 2012, 11:56 (Ref:3085570) | #1325 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 538
|
Quote:
As far as I know, hydrogen fuel cell hasn't been used before in professional motor racing, which makes it new enough. The closest to new technology that the DW brings is the torque vector steering, but Mitsubishi first ran that in WRC in the 90s. This is the first time it's been used in sportscars I think though. Here's an interesting question, largely based on aesthetics, that I haven't seen asked (or answered) before. Why does it have 2 roll blades? The original IndyCar concept had 1 roll blade, but when that project failed and it moved to sportscars, it suddenly had a second roll blade. I presume that is there only to make it look kinda half like an LMP, but if the point was to look like an LMP, then the second roll blade doesn't do much to undo the rest of the cars unique looks. Given the entire point of the car was to reduce drag, wouldn't it be better just to go back to 1 roll blade, since the second is purely there for aesthetics, and adding drag? I found that a very odd design choice. Of course with 1 blade they wouldn't have been able to use an existing chassis I suppose, but the choice of the extra blade was made long before it was discovered that the AMR-One was a failure. 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 |