RE: Nissan DeltaWing: the full story
Discussion
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...
An impressive number of things completely incorrect there. Well done. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, which means you must be deadly.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...
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
I feel old! Back in the 80's Ken Hanson used to have a bomb site on the front of his CCM motocross bike! 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
Numeric said:
It is intersting to think that it is the rules that keep cars looking a particular way.
I've often wondered if you let formula 1 off the leash what would happen in aero terms?!
I often think that it'd be more interesting if race series just set a nominal box that the car must fit inside, crash regulations, some rules to make sure they don't cook/freeze/maim the driver when being driven, and a fixed fuel flow rate or some other energy equalisation (joules per second?). Then let the designers get on with the rest of it.I've often wondered if you let formula 1 off the leash what would happen in aero terms?!
None of this "wings must be here", and no radius greater than x, or no active aero. Do what you want. Fit whatever engine design you fancy and don't kill the driver.
i thgiought this was an interesting statement
"But more importantly, it'll be affected less by turbulent air in traffic - a massive factor with 56 cars on track, even if the Le Mans lap is eight and a half miles round."
maybe F1 should have a think about generating downforce in ways that don't compromise the driver behind , or the driver behind isn't affected to such a great extent by turbulence potentially leading to more overtaking ?
"But more importantly, it'll be affected less by turbulent air in traffic - a massive factor with 56 cars on track, even if the Le Mans lap is eight and a half miles round."
maybe F1 should have a think about generating downforce in ways that don't compromise the driver behind , or the driver behind isn't affected to such a great extent by turbulence potentially leading to more overtaking ?
I really like this project and was initially disappointed that it didnt appear as the next generation indy car.
As many others i'm intrigued to see how this will perform at Le Mans. Credit to Nissan for having the balls to back something so radical, to the ACO for giving the delta wing an opportunity to show its merits and to highcroft for sticking with a concept that has bamboozled a lot of seasoned observers!!
One question that i dont think has been asked yet (and is asked in all innocence tbh!!) is:
How will the heavy reliance on under floor aero combined with the narrow front track be influenced by the part race track, part public road nature of Le Mans.
In short i would have thought the mulsanne would be crowned to aid drainage and most likely suffer from tramlining (however minor)from its more mundane daily use?
For the delta wing (compared to the more traditional LMP cars) would these undulations and inconsistencies have a greater influence on:
a. The effectiveness of the underbody air??
b. The level of input needed to keep the car on a straight trajectory / overtaking given its varying track front to rear??
Or are the inconsistencies / undulations in the road that minor as to make no difference??
Thanks.
As many others i'm intrigued to see how this will perform at Le Mans. Credit to Nissan for having the balls to back something so radical, to the ACO for giving the delta wing an opportunity to show its merits and to highcroft for sticking with a concept that has bamboozled a lot of seasoned observers!!
One question that i dont think has been asked yet (and is asked in all innocence tbh!!) is:
How will the heavy reliance on under floor aero combined with the narrow front track be influenced by the part race track, part public road nature of Le Mans.
In short i would have thought the mulsanne would be crowned to aid drainage and most likely suffer from tramlining (however minor)from its more mundane daily use?
For the delta wing (compared to the more traditional LMP cars) would these undulations and inconsistencies have a greater influence on:
a. The effectiveness of the underbody air??
b. The level of input needed to keep the car on a straight trajectory / overtaking given its varying track front to rear??
Or are the inconsistencies / undulations in the road that minor as to make no difference??
Thanks.
tuffer said:
If making the front narrow is such an advantage then why not go with a single front wheel using a wider tire? 10 inch tire, single sided swing arm type affair.
I would assume that the wheels turn at slightly different angles much like a London Taxi to gain a tighter turning circle, and thus able to create the turn with such a narrow front. binnerboy said:
i thgiought this was an interesting statement
"But more importantly, it'll be affected less by turbulent air in traffic - a massive factor with 56 cars on track, even if the Le Mans lap is eight and a half miles round."
maybe F1 should have a think about generating downforce in ways that don't compromise the driver behind , or the driver behind isn't affected to such a great extent by turbulence potentially leading to more overtaking ?
F1 have been thinking about this for a few years. The rules brought in for the 2009 season - with wider higher front wings and taller narrow rear wings - were intended to do exactly that."But more importantly, it'll be affected less by turbulent air in traffic - a massive factor with 56 cars on track, even if the Le Mans lap is eight and a half miles round."
maybe F1 should have a think about generating downforce in ways that don't compromise the driver behind , or the driver behind isn't affected to such a great extent by turbulence potentially leading to more overtaking ?
Sadly (for the regulations) the Brawn car (and others) found the 'double decker diffuser' loophole which won Jenson his F1 title and sabotaged the whole idea
They have changed the nose with a dip between the front wheels and some adjustments at the sidepods - from the back it does look very unfinished
I am not keen on this particular design.
Why would they make a rather crude front tubular frame for the front suspension? Tubular frames are not exactly high tech
have they not got different underbody designs rather than put a panel at the front of the sidepod to regulate downforce. A few things look like a 'botch' job to me
I am not keen on this particular design.
Why would they make a rather crude front tubular frame for the front suspension? Tubular frames are not exactly high tech
have they not got different underbody designs rather than put a panel at the front of the sidepod to regulate downforce. A few things look like a 'botch' job to me
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?
24 hours at full chat seems quite a feat to me. Then again I could be easily impressed and it's not that difficult to achieve.
Just wondering really.
HowMuchLonger said:
Munter said:
Shirly 80s F1 cars were producing at least a reliable 300bhp from a 1.5 turbo.
Reliable? You are somewhat pushing the definition of the word as they could barely last a race let alone an entire weekend.I'm sure they could have driven around all week at a mere 300bhp.
groomi said:
They were also pushing out four times that, and up to five times that in qualifying.
I'm sure they could have driven around all week at a mere 300bhp.
That's what I was thinking. If it can do 2 laps at 1000bhp. Or 2 hours at 800. By the time it's down to 300 you'd think it should be pretty reliable.I'm sure they could have driven around all week at a mere 300bhp.
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
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff