RE: Nissan DeltaWing: the full story
Discussion
Racecar Engineering did a really fantastic article all about deltawing which explains many things which they are now giving away for free
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/le-man...
shoestring7 said:
Munter said:
J B L said:
How do you get a reliable 300bhp out of a 1.6L engine? Even with a turbo?
Can someone explain what wizzardery's involved in such a feat?
Shirly 80s F1 cars were producing at least a reliable 300bhp from a 1.5 turbo. Can someone explain what wizzardery's involved in such a feat?
SS7
Inlet & Restrictor
;-)
Ahonen said:
J B L said:
How do you get a reliable 300bhp out of a 1.6L engine? Even with a turbo?
Can someone explain what wizzardery's involved in such a feat?
Christ, it's Karl Benz himself, back from the dead. Karl, things have moved on a bit since 1900...Can someone explain what wizzardery's involved in such a feat?
Well put. Next year we're due to have a fairly mainstream production car with 300-odd bhp from a 1.6-litre turbo, I believe. Plus I suspect the specific output of the RML engine in the DeltaWing is still comfortably lower than that of the small turbo engines (Mazda AER etc.) which have been in LMP2 for ages.
eps said:
!!!
"Powered by a 300 horsepower 1.6 liter Nissan DIG-T turbocharged engine, the Nissan DeltaWing also features specially developed Michelin tires which are four inches wide at the front."
Did it run in the wet conditions at all?
Can't remember if it did at the weekend, but the Snetterton test a few weeks back was biblically wet and last thing I heard the tyre guys were actually worried about not accruing enough dry weather testing."Powered by a 300 horsepower 1.6 liter Nissan DIG-T turbocharged engine, the Nissan DeltaWing also features specially developed Michelin tires which are four inches wide at the front."
Did it run in the wet conditions at all?
The (lack of) width of the tyres works the same way in the wet as it does in the dry; you have a very lightly loaded front end which requires very little tyre thrust to turn it and a long lever arm to rotate the rest of the car. If anything it should work better in the wet as the narrow tyres will show less tendency to aquaplane.
Lap times were towards the lower end of P2 from what I remember (3:47 ish?) Hopefully it should be good for the stated aim of putting in a 3:45 lap during the race.
Coincidentally, did anyone catch the Radio Le Mans interview with Darren Cox? The guy is a proper petrolhead - used to take time off to go and scrub the wheels at Le Mans apparently. He's now responsible for Nissan's backing of the DeltaWing and presumably things like the Juke-R. We could do with a few more people like him in the upper echelons of the motor industry.
So retired quite early, through no fault of its own, after being opunted off by Nakajaima
However, what was the point?
It ran at the very bottom end of the LMP2 field, quicker only than GT cars.
It doesnt comply with any existing Sportscar regulations, and bar the odd wheelbase/axle configurstion there isnt any particular;ly innovative technolgy involved
However, what was the point?
It ran at the very bottom end of the LMP2 field, quicker only than GT cars.
It doesnt comply with any existing Sportscar regulations, and bar the odd wheelbase/axle configurstion there isnt any particular;ly innovative technolgy involved
freedman said:
So retired quite early, through no fault of its own, after being opunted off by Nakajaima
However, what was the point?
It ran at the very bottom end of the LMP2 field, quicker only than GT cars.
It doesnt comply with any existing Sportscar regulations, and bar the odd wheelbase/axle configurstion there isnt any particular;ly innovative technolgy involved
It was an experiment. To find out if you could do LeMans competitively with significantly less fuel and tyre use.However, what was the point?
It ran at the very bottom end of the LMP2 field, quicker only than GT cars.
It doesnt comply with any existing Sportscar regulations, and bar the odd wheelbase/axle configurstion there isnt any particular;ly innovative technolgy involved
If it had done better we may have seen a change in the regulations.
I think the problem that took it out means it'll never catch on. If you lose a corner on a standard car it still has 3 points of contact to allow you to limp home. The deltawing lost a rear corner and it had nothing to stop the whole side of the car dragging on the floor. 2 points of contact are not enough. That just makes it too fragile for LeMans.
Munter said:
It was an experiment. To find out if you could do LeMans competitively with significantly less fuel and tyre use.
If it had done better we may have seen a change in the regulations.
I think the problem that took it out means it'll never catch on. If you lose a corner on a standard car it still has 3 points of contact to allow you to limp home. The deltawing lost a rear corner and it had nothing to stop the whole side of the car dragging on the floor. 2 points of contact are not enough. That just makes it too fragile for LeMans.
agreed, great bit of fun and marketing, but just about totally pointless....If it had done better we may have seen a change in the regulations.
I think the problem that took it out means it'll never catch on. If you lose a corner on a standard car it still has 3 points of contact to allow you to limp home. The deltawing lost a rear corner and it had nothing to stop the whole side of the car dragging on the floor. 2 points of contact are not enough. That just makes it too fragile for LeMans.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff