Delta Wing Discussion ONLY

[Danathar]

Originally Posted by optica

Agreed....they certainly deserve an additional award for perseverance!

I think they were pretty sure of the potential but finding it has been more of a struggle than even the most optimistic of us thought it would be. Even Bowlby must be having a quiet smile now they seem to know where they are going with it.

Still not the most beautiful thing to grace a racing circuit but it seems to have accumulated a good many fans despite being the ugly duckling.

Yea, I kinda liked the open cockpit version, but man the closed version is just ugly. I've TRIED to warm up to it but especially from the front it's horrid.

[Canada ALMS fan]

Originally Posted by optica

Agreed....they certainly deserve an additional award for perseverance!

I think they were pretty sure of the potential but finding it has been more of a struggle than even the most optimistic of us thought it would be. Even Bowlby must be having a quiet smile now they seem to know where they are going with it.

Except they have gone away from the original concept and are now using conventional wings for downforce.
http://lemansprototypes.over-blog.it...anta-2014.html

[optica]

Originally Posted by Canada ALMS fan

Except they have gone away from the original concept and are now using conventional wings for downforce.
http://lemansprototypes.over-blog.it...anta-2014.html

The small inboard wings either side at the rear look to be an alternative to the Gurney flaps that were used originally. I don't see much that can be to compared to the wings on other cars. No doubt they could "wing it up" much more but the main advantage of the car is its straight line speed and economy from minimizing the drag.
Unfortunately the constant lengthy FCYs in TUSC never allow the advantages of economy to show its true worth.

[brandscooper]

Originally Posted by Canada ALMS fan

Except they have gone away from the original concept and are now using conventional wings for downforce.
http://lemansprototypes.over-blog.it...anta-2014.html

Actually these little winglets are more efficient that the full height gurney they replace so it's entirely in keeping with the low drag concept. These winglets have been on the car all year.

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.

[brandscooper]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I think drag from the coupe might have something to do with that.

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.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by brandscooper

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.

When a race car produces more downforce the downside is an increase in drag. Have you got any figures that compare both DWs?

[brandscooper]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

When a race car produces more downforce the downside is an increase in drag. Have you got any figures that compare both DWs?

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.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by brandscooper

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.

Shame you can't share them.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by brandscooper

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.

Can you reveal whether the fuel cell is still 45L?

It was fun watching a car with a lot less power be competitive and also achieve longer stints!

Congratulations on a great showing!

[brandscooper]

Yes, the tank itself is 45L. A little over half the capacity of the DP cars.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by brandscooper

Yes, the tank itself is 45L. A little over half the capacity of the DP cars.

Cool! So with the ability to do a slightly longer stint, it's right on the "half the fuel" goal when the concept was first proposed.

Maybe the good old days are coming back to sportscar racing.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by brandscooper

Yes, the tank itself is 45L. A little over half the capacity of the DP cars.

Originally Posted by miatanut

Cool! So with the ability to do a slightly longer stint, it's right on the "half the fuel" goal when the concept was first proposed.

Maybe the good old days are coming back to sportscar racing.

If I remember correctly, the DW had a smaller tank handed to them this year. So their mega fuel economy advantage was taken away.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by joeb

If I remember correctly, the DW had a smaller tank handed to them this year. So their mega fuel economy advantage was taken away.

They did a longer first stint than the leading DP's. It ended under caution, so we don't really know exactly how much longer they could go, but according to the IMSA final results, they did 11 pit stops (but five laps down where full distance likely would have meant another stop) while the winner is shown at 13 stops and second place car is shown at 12.

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.

[EDR1998]

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...

[optica]

Originally Posted by EDR1998

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...

If the fueling restrictor & tank size weren't limited the car would have a large advantage now it can match the speed of the other cars. It would also use far less fuel in the process. This is what the DW set out to prove in the first place so in most respects job done. No doubt the old argument whether a conventional lay-out car could do better will continue but the car has never fallen over as predicted by many (without help from other cars!). No-one seems to have refused to drive it and it adds interest to the grid. If it encourages other engineers or entrants to get away from the same old then prototype sportscar racing would get a lot more interesting.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by optica

If the fueling restrictor & tank size weren't limited the car would have a large advantage now it can match the speed of the other cars. It would also use far less fuel in the process. This is what the DW set out to prove in the first place so in most respects job done. No doubt the old argument whether a conventional lay-out car could do better will continue but the car has never fallen over as predicted by many (without help from other cars!). No-one seems to have refused to drive it and it adds interest to the grid. If it encourages other engineers or entrants to get away from the same old then prototype sportscar racing would get a lot more interesting.

It sounds like this new reduced power, reduced weight alternate spec in Tudor could allow some other folks to show up with possibly more conventional light weight cars, and it could provide some very enjoyable competition.

[optica]

Originally Posted by miatanut

It sounds like this new reduced power, reduced weight alternate spec in Tudor could allow some other folks to show up with possibly more conventional light weight cars, and it could provide some very enjoyable competition.

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.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by optica

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.

Some here have said that there was a Radical, or something similar, that weighs less and would blow the pants of the DW. I think it has a motorcycle-based engine and I thought a motorcycle-based engine wouldn't last 24 hours, which of course produced the retort that no DW variant has lasted 24 hours either.

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.

[optica]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Some here have said that there was a Radical, or something similar, that weighs less and would blow the pants of the DW. I think it has a motorcycle-based engine and I thought a motorcycle-based engine wouldn't last 24 hours, which of course produced the retort that no DW variant has lasted 24 hours either.

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.

A quick look at the Radical blurb shows the quickest version as having 430bhp and lapping Spa in 2.16
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.

[HJJ]

Originally Posted by EDR1998

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

They were hit with an additional 1mm restriction for Petit.

Regarding the tires, the Conti's are much better than the Bridgestone's but not as good as the Michelin's.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Some here have said that there was a Radical, or something similar, that weighs less and would blow the pants of the DW. I think it has a motorcycle-based engine and I thought a motorcycle-based engine wouldn't last 24 hours, which of course produced the retort that no DW variant has lasted 24 hours either.

Perhaps they are referring to Scott Tucker's D Sports Racing West, which allegedly was turning 1:57/1:58's in testing with a pro driver, and 1:59.991 with Scott himself driving?

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by HJJ

They were hit with an additional 1mm restriction for Petit.

I wouldn't call +1,5mm restrictor increase "hit" & "restriction"
http://www.imsa.com/sites/default/fi...0%2314-130.pdf

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Perhaps they are referring to Scott Tucker's D Sports Racing West, which allegedly was turning 1:57/1:58's in testing with a pro driver, and 1:59.991 with Scott himself driving?

That's the one!

Thanks!

[MkEagle]

Originally Posted by brandscooper

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.

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/

[MkEagle]

Originally Posted by brandscooper

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.

The Nissan ZEOD has the same problem.