RE: Nissan DeltaWing: the full story
Discussion
Quote: "...relying solely on downforce created by ground effect..."
Does anybody else remember the mercedes cars a few years back which ended up in the trees? That wasn't ground effects, it was front bumper winglets, but the same crest may be this machines undoing.
The problem with ground effect is that it's ok, so long as you have ground close to the floor of the vehicle, get a bit airbourne and it's all gone...
Does anybody else remember the mercedes cars a few years back which ended up in the trees? That wasn't ground effects, it was front bumper winglets, but the same crest may be this machines undoing.
The problem with ground effect is that it's ok, so long as you have ground close to the floor of the vehicle, get a bit airbourne and it's all gone...
sanctum said:
Quote: "...relying solely on downforce created by ground effect..."
Does anybody else remember the mercedes cars a few years back which ended up in the trees? That wasn't ground effects, it was front bumper winglets, but the same crest may be this machines undoing.
The problem with ground effect is that it's ok, so long as you have ground close to the floor of the vehicle, get a bit airbourne and it's all gone...
True but what a lot are forgetting is that:-Does anybody else remember the mercedes cars a few years back which ended up in the trees? That wasn't ground effects, it was front bumper winglets, but the same crest may be this machines undoing.
The problem with ground effect is that it's ok, so long as you have ground close to the floor of the vehicle, get a bit airbourne and it's all gone...
1. Those humps have been altered in so far as that they have been levelled off a bit since 1999; and
2. This car was intended to go Indy racings at first. A large part of the brief for that was to increase safety and I would have said that this should be an improvement over what has gone before. As another poster has said the design appears to lend itself to the front being pushed back into the ground if it starts to rise.
johnhenry said:
the most interesting point that stands out to me is;
they're using a 1.6 turbo - which is going to be what is going to be used in f1 in 2013, so in theory, they could get a year of data and improvements, making a rather nice platform for nissan to either sell engines to f1 entry teams or enter themselves.
from the looks of it as well it doesnt take much for the thing to become an f1 car, im not up on the regs too much but im sure this is all being considered.
watching this space avidly
They are only similar in size as the nissan is an inline 4 whereas the f1 regs state the engines have to be a v6.they're using a 1.6 turbo - which is going to be what is going to be used in f1 in 2013, so in theory, they could get a year of data and improvements, making a rather nice platform for nissan to either sell engines to f1 entry teams or enter themselves.
from the looks of it as well it doesnt take much for the thing to become an f1 car, im not up on the regs too much but im sure this is all being considered.
watching this space avidly
And PH when you say loosely based did you really mean totally dependant on as the delta wing peeps bought one of the sparsly used AMR ONE chassis and built the delta wing around it.
See
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newssept11.html
ZeeTacoe said:
And PH when you say loosely based did you really mean totally dependant on as the delta wing peeps bought one of the sparsly used AMR ONE chassis and built the delta wing around it.
As I understand it:-The concept was about long before the AMR ONE was realised to be a turkey as a car. The concept was originally intended to go Indy racing (the contract was won by the DW12) and if that had come off the chassis would have been bespoke. Once that project died the owners of the concept looked at what else they could do and LM was chosen/chose them. Without the economies of scale to develop a bespoke chassis and pass all the regulations the team started to look for an existing chassis that they could incorperate into the design.
They mention about positioning the car for apexes (based on the back wheel width). This must be very unnatural and potentially prone to error?
My solution ('cause I know soooo much about racing and car design
) would be to have a laser attached to the car that would draw a virtual line where the optimum width would be. That would make it much easier to position.
And if you get cross with people then you can turn up the power and burst their tyres
Made the last bit up btw
My solution ('cause I know soooo much about racing and car design
) would be to have a laser attached to the car that would draw a virtual line where the optimum width would be. That would make it much easier to position.And if you get cross with people then you can turn up the power and burst their tyres
Made the last bit up btw
MagicalTrevor said:
They mention about positioning the car for apexes (based on the back wheel width). This must be very unnatural and potentially prone to error?
My solution ('cause I know soooo much about racing and car design ) would be to have a laser attached to the car that would draw a virtual line where the optimum width would be. That would make it much easier to position.
And if you get cross with people then you can turn up the power and burst their tyres
Made the last bit up btw
Not a bad idea, except that at racing speed/vibration it'd be invisible.My solution ('cause I know soooo much about racing and car design
) would be to have a laser attached to the car that would draw a virtual line where the optimum width would be. That would make it much easier to position.And if you get cross with people then you can turn up the power and burst their tyres
Made the last bit up btw
sanctum said:
Does anybody else remember the mercedes cars a few years back which ended up in the trees? That wasn't ground effects, it was front bumper winglets, but the same crest may be this machines undoing.
There was a full article (suspect it's still there) on Mulsanne's Corner website, and the Mercs were running a suspension set up with allowed the rear of the car to compress at high speed, thus reducting the angle on the wing and reducing drag. A consequence was that it also reduced the angle of rake on the car and opened up the gap between the road and the front splitter, thus allowing more air underneath. Think they were also flat-floored cars which meant when air got underneath it was more likely to cause a flip.The front winglets were a late addition to try and keep the front end on the ground, which didn't work.
Gizmo! said:
MagicalTrevor said:
They mention about positioning the car for apexes (based on the back wheel width). This must be very unnatural and potentially prone to error?
My solution ('cause I know soooo much about racing and car design ) would be to have a laser attached to the car that would draw a virtual line where the optimum width would be. That would make it much easier to position.
And if you get cross with people then you can turn up the power and burst their tyres
Made the last bit up btw
Not a bad idea, except that at racing speed/vibration it'd be invisible.My solution ('cause I know soooo much about racing and car design
) would be to have a laser attached to the car that would draw a virtual line where the optimum width would be. That would make it much easier to position.And if you get cross with people then you can turn up the power and burst their tyres
Made the last bit up btw
The driver would wear red goggles which would make him look really cool and enhance the laser (which would be really big by the way)
Here is my artists impression of how it would work
paul_k said:
Kind of looks right...Best of luck with this.
Great that Nissan are backing this concept with a Juke engine.
Slightly surprised that the Cd is .24
GTR is .268.
Don't forget that Cd is only part of the drag, the frontal area makes just as big a difference as Cd. i.e. a 1:2 scale GTR would have 1/4 drag than a real one at the same speed Great that Nissan are backing this concept with a Juke engine.
Slightly surprised that the Cd is .24
GTR is .268.
Having said that, the frontal area doesn't look that small as the rear is as wide as a normal LMP...anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing how it gets on!
tim-b said:
Don't forget that Cd is only part of the drag, the frontal area makes just as big a difference as Cd. i.e. a 1:2 scale GTR would have 1/4 drag than a real one at the same speed
Yes, Cd.A is more useful for comparing different cars, but I would be more interested in what their L/D figure is - this is the measure of aerodynamic efficiency, and arguably more relevant than just Cd. Anything less than 6 would be poor, IMO, as that can be achieved by current prototypes.RenesisEvo said:
tim-b said:
Don't forget that Cd is only part of the drag, the frontal area makes just as big a difference as Cd. i.e. a 1:2 scale GTR would have 1/4 drag than a real one at the same speed
Yes, Cd.A is more useful for comparing different cars, but I would be more interested in what their L/D figure is - this is the measure of aerodynamic efficiency, and arguably more relevant than just Cd. Anything less than 6 would be poor, IMO, as that can be achieved by current prototypes.I guess the ground effects would keep the front tyres sucked to the ground through high speed corners, but what baffles me is that the car doesn't understeer in the slower corners.
Especially considering they're running practically 0 degrees of camber on the front wheels and quite a bit on the rears..
It's a brilliant piece of engineering which keeps me scratching my head the more I think about it.
Especially considering they're running practically 0 degrees of camber on the front wheels and quite a bit on the rears..
It's a brilliant piece of engineering which keeps me scratching my head the more I think about it.
Turbo Harry said:
I can't understand how the front isn't suffering terminal understeer with that little rubber on the ground, almost no downforce and next to no weight on it. I'd like to see this vehicle do a wet weather test.
I wonder if it's because there is no (little) weight there and the center of gravity is near the back. So it's like a great big lever, and you don't need much force to make it turn.I find the concept bizarre and will keep my thoughts to myself about it, but things i noticed straight away:
No mirrors and no obvious placing for any future fitment.
The driver's head sits quite proud and has little protection. The side growths are a ramp for things to be launched at your head.
If another car was to be T-boned by it, what sort of damage could it cause?
If it suffered a puncture at either the front or back, would there be enough grip to keep it under control?
Have they tested it over big kerbs in order to see how it reacts when the groundforce is lost, especially when clipping the apex at high speed?
No mirrors and no obvious placing for any future fitment.
The driver's head sits quite proud and has little protection. The side growths are a ramp for things to be launched at your head.
If another car was to be T-boned by it, what sort of damage could it cause?
If it suffered a puncture at either the front or back, would there be enough grip to keep it under control?
Have they tested it over big kerbs in order to see how it reacts when the groundforce is lost, especially when clipping the apex at high speed?
Edited by drakart on Wednesday 14th March 12:47
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff