RE: Nissan powers DeltaWing Le Mans bid
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
It's a perfectly feasible car, just completely pointless!
It only exists as it "negates" some of the critical regulator requirements, and is being allowed to race as a prototype only. It has less drag than a conventional prototype, because it is allowed ride height and underfloor features banned for the existing cars, hence they need seperate exterior wings, and that means drag, whereas it produces downforce via underfloor aero, which is largely drag free. The shape itself is poor from a pure aerodynamic car (you want a wide front and a narrow back, the typical teardrop shape) rather than viseversa to enable decent pressure recovery in the vehicles wake.
In terms of tyre width, broadly speaking you need the tyre section in proportion to the axle mass, as F = MA, for the same A (lateral G) less M means less F and hence only needing narrow tyres. One thing the narrow track gives you is the requirement to run massive ARB rates to counteract the roll couple (but this can be tuned to some degree with the CofG and roll centres at the front). This could make the chassis difficult to tune to any given circuit.
Le Mans is still a high speed track (even with the chicanes) so it makes sense to run it here, where you effectively trade ulimate lateral G capability for reduced drag.
But you could do much better with an "Unregulated" conventional 4 wheeler with a much more even track.
Also, it's relevance to "road cars"??? Hey? What relevance, it has no relevance what so ever. The major OEM's have been running DI engines for years, making high specific outputs, they have optimised drag co-efficients within the required package envelope! That car would be impossible to homologate/type approve and hence even if it was the most aero dynamic car in the world, also completely pointless............
I wish the team the best of luck, they certianly will get some attention, but it's all smoke and mirrors (typical motorsport) and the end of the day ;-(
this!It only exists as it "negates" some of the critical regulator requirements, and is being allowed to race as a prototype only. It has less drag than a conventional prototype, because it is allowed ride height and underfloor features banned for the existing cars, hence they need seperate exterior wings, and that means drag, whereas it produces downforce via underfloor aero, which is largely drag free. The shape itself is poor from a pure aerodynamic car (you want a wide front and a narrow back, the typical teardrop shape) rather than viseversa to enable decent pressure recovery in the vehicles wake.
In terms of tyre width, broadly speaking you need the tyre section in proportion to the axle mass, as F = MA, for the same A (lateral G) less M means less F and hence only needing narrow tyres. One thing the narrow track gives you is the requirement to run massive ARB rates to counteract the roll couple (but this can be tuned to some degree with the CofG and roll centres at the front). This could make the chassis difficult to tune to any given circuit.
Le Mans is still a high speed track (even with the chicanes) so it makes sense to run it here, where you effectively trade ulimate lateral G capability for reduced drag.
But you could do much better with an "Unregulated" conventional 4 wheeler with a much more even track.
Also, it's relevance to "road cars"??? Hey? What relevance, it has no relevance what so ever. The major OEM's have been running DI engines for years, making high specific outputs, they have optimised drag co-efficients within the required package envelope! That car would be impossible to homologate/type approve and hence even if it was the most aero dynamic car in the world, also completely pointless............
I wish the team the best of luck, they certianly will get some attention, but it's all smoke and mirrors (typical motorsport) and the end of the day ;-(
Balmoral said:
PascalBuyens said:
Balmoral said:
How does it not understeer like a pig? unless that is one single wheel at the front, 1200mm wide?
Think it has two wheels up front....
With that narrow track, and LWB, how does it not go anywhere else other than straight on, in the wet? I've never seen a top fuel dragster on a GP circuit.
There must be an equation to show how having such a narrow track at the front, coupled to, x amount of horsepower at the rear, leads to only one outcome.......massive understeer.
It's a joke, and possibly a dangerous one at that, and will hopefully not get past the test day qualifiying criteria.
I don't normally watch Le Mans, and I still won't. But I will keep an eye on the results this year with interest.
Lol @ the haters. Yes, the car is 'pointless' from a motorsport and commercial POV, but it's the whole adventure of the thing that I find inspiring. Motorsport, in whatever their forms nowadays, I find too dull with their rules. Surely racing is about going as fast as possible and winning, and not penalising innovation (yes, especially you, Formula '1'!)
I wish the whole venture great success.
Lol @ the haters. Yes, the car is 'pointless' from a motorsport and commercial POV, but it's the whole adventure of the thing that I find inspiring. Motorsport, in whatever their forms nowadays, I find too dull with their rules. Surely racing is about going as fast as possible and winning, and not penalising innovation (yes, especially you, Formula '1'!)
I wish the whole venture great success.
arkenphel said:
I don't normally watch Le Mans, and I still won't. But I will keep an eye on the results this year with interest.
Lol @ the haters. Yes, the car is 'pointless' from a motorsport and commercial POV, but it's the whole adventure of the thing that I find inspiring. Motorsport, in whatever their forms nowadays, I find too dull with their rules. Surely racing is about going as fast as possible and winning, and not penalising innovation (yes, especially you, Formula '1'!)
I wish the whole venture great success.
+1 I've been saying for years that we need less regulation in F1, and although I am not a completely avid watcher of LeMans, (I love highlights, the imagery, etc, but can't get excited about teams, etc), I think we need stuff like this in Motorsport. It was interesting when diesel came into the fray, and that shook things up for a while. Maybe this creation will spark something. If only these sorts of things could carry over to F1, rather than have such limited regulations. It is a good thing for LeMans, and interesting stuff from Nissan. I'll certainly be keeping an eye on these guys.Lol @ the haters. Yes, the car is 'pointless' from a motorsport and commercial POV, but it's the whole adventure of the thing that I find inspiring. Motorsport, in whatever their forms nowadays, I find too dull with their rules. Surely racing is about going as fast as possible and winning, and not penalising innovation (yes, especially you, Formula '1'!)
I wish the whole venture great success.
Edited by TheHeretic on Tuesday 13th March 23:11
Chris1973 said:
It's got the WTF? factor that you see very rarely now. Reminds me of the first time I saw a Tryell 6 wheeler when I was a kid. The dinky model went straight to the top of the Christmas list that year. My 9 year old is equally excited about this one. Mind you I hope it works a bit better and goes a bit faster than the Tyrell..........
The 6 wheel Tyrrell was a great car, it scored one GP win, 13 podiums and took Tyrrell to 3rd in the constructors championship. On it's return to historic racing it won the Thoroughbred Grand Prix Championship twice. Had the front tyres seen development it would have been a regular race winner.Love it – even if much of the design makes little sense to me. Like everyone else – surely that thing understeers and why is the rear so wide? Is it rear wheel steer?!?! In that video the front wheels don’t appear to move much if at all.
Whether it’s truly innovating or just a cynical marketing ploy I’m not bothered. Either are good enough reasons for me. It’s an interesting car and different from the norm.
And it’s no bad thing people questioning commonly held beliefs. At worst this will be a failure and prove convention wisdom is correct but it might just ask questions. Whether it has the answers though is something else.
Still I’m glad it’s asking them.
Whether it’s truly innovating or just a cynical marketing ploy I’m not bothered. Either are good enough reasons for me. It’s an interesting car and different from the norm.
And it’s no bad thing people questioning commonly held beliefs. At worst this will be a failure and prove convention wisdom is correct but it might just ask questions. Whether it has the answers though is something else.
Still I’m glad it’s asking them.
RenesisEvo said:
CBR JGWRR said:
A quick couple of lap demo with other cars and a laptimer to show it's on pace would be good.
Agreed, but given that it's running a very different weight, engine and tyres, it would be very hard to draw a comparison. Looking forward to Le Mans to see how it gets on.The predicted lap time is on pace, which should mean it's good.
Agent Orange said:
robmlufc said:
I dont think they banned Rotarys?
They did. After the Mazda 787B won with Johnny Herbert at the wheel they were banned. Cannot recall why but they were.Still the only Japanese manufacturer to win Le Mans outright.
arkenphel said:
I don't normally watch Le Mans, and I still won't. But I will keep an eye on the results this year with interest.
Lol @ the haters. Yes, the car is 'pointless' from a motorsport and commercial POV, but it's the whole adventure of the thing that I find inspiring. Motorsport, in whatever their forms nowadays, I find too dull with their rules. Surely racing is about going as fast as possible and winning, and not penalising innovation (yes, especially you, Formula '1'!)
I wish the whole venture great success.
I think that the car is anything but pointless. It's a very relevant venture in this day and age, and much more inovative that Porsche's or Audi's hybrid cars that have or will contest the event.Lol @ the haters. Yes, the car is 'pointless' from a motorsport and commercial POV, but it's the whole adventure of the thing that I find inspiring. Motorsport, in whatever their forms nowadays, I find too dull with their rules. Surely racing is about going as fast as possible and winning, and not penalising innovation (yes, especially you, Formula '1'!)
I wish the whole venture great success.
It's essential for "us" that it is possible to engineer fast and fun cars in the future even as the barrel price continues to rise nearly as fast as the draconian levies and taxes that politicians burden us with.
This car may note spawn a paper dart shaped road version, however in shines a light down a Chapman path of "Simplicate, then add lightness". The McLaren MP12-4C-QXZ83 already uses brake steer to control the car through bends, and a torque-vectoring solution that this car may use will only become more common on road machinery in the future.
Embrace change! It's not always all bad!
BarnatosGhost said:
CBR JGWRR said:
BarnatosGhost said:
Interesting post. I can see the 'point' in a shape like concorde, for displaying as much of the frontal area in wing format as possible, but I don't get how that translates to a car, for whom the wheels are a 'bad thing', rather than a 'good thing' like a wing.
I'm not doubting the truth of your post, I just don't quite 'get it'. Also, pushing all the weight backwards and reducing tyre size up front commensurately seems to run counter to the received wisdom of mass centralisation and 50/50 distribution.
Though the idea of fast, close racing without the mucky air of wings and downforce sounds great. Which begs the question: Why hasn't it always been done like this?
Because nobody has tried anything like it before.I'm not doubting the truth of your post, I just don't quite 'get it'. Also, pushing all the weight backwards and reducing tyre size up front commensurately seems to run counter to the received wisdom of mass centralisation and 50/50 distribution.
Though the idea of fast, close racing without the mucky air of wings and downforce sounds great. Which begs the question: Why hasn't it always been done like this?
Do you think Adrian Newey is sitting at his breakfast table with a copy of autosport with his head in his hands - "how can I have been so stupid?"
Coincidentally, referring to some of the other comments above, I don't entirely understand the dynamics (other than the fundamental tendency for a rearward weight bias to induce oversteer) but I'm told the aim in this project was always to provide a default characteristic of gentle understeer. Again, I can't guarantee it'll turn out that way, but I'm confident the people who predicted that knew more than the vast majority of people here. Decades of experience in top-level motorsport and hundreds of hours of computer simulation are pretty hard to argue with.
mat205125 said:
arkenphel said:
I don't normally watch Le Mans, and I still won't. But I will keep an eye on the results this year with interest.
Lol @ the haters. Yes, the car is 'pointless' from a motorsport and commercial POV, but it's the whole adventure of the thing that I find inspiring. Motorsport, in whatever their forms nowadays, I find too dull with their rules. Surely racing is about going as fast as possible and winning, and not penalising innovation (yes, especially you, Formula '1'!)
I wish the whole venture great success.
I think that the car is anything but pointless. It's a very relevant venture in this day and age, and much more inovative that Porsche's or Audi's hybrid cars that have or will contest the event.Lol @ the haters. Yes, the car is 'pointless' from a motorsport and commercial POV, but it's the whole adventure of the thing that I find inspiring. Motorsport, in whatever their forms nowadays, I find too dull with their rules. Surely racing is about going as fast as possible and winning, and not penalising innovation (yes, especially you, Formula '1'!)
I wish the whole venture great success.
It's essential for "us" that it is possible to engineer fast and fun cars in the future even as the barrel price continues to rise nearly as fast as the draconian levies and taxes that politicians burden us with.
This car may note spawn a paper dart shaped road version, however in shines a light down a Chapman path of "Simplicate, then add lightness". The McLaren MP12-4C-QXZ83 already uses brake steer to control the car through bends, and a torque-vectoring solution that this car may use will only become more common on road machinery in the future.
Embrace change! It's not always all bad!
A VW Polo uses brake steer to control the car through bends, what is your point? Torque vectoring is used on road cars more often than motorsport vehicles, so which one is more common at present?
CBR JGWRR said:
They weren't "banned". What happened was the regulations changed to make rotary powered cars not viable to run. An effective ban.
Still the only Japanese manufacturer to win Le Mans outright.
It was underhanded how the governing body went about it. Real shame really as if they had continued racing I'm sure they would of won a hell of a lot more.Still the only Japanese manufacturer to win Le Mans outright.
Hey ho I'm content in owning my rx7
doogz said:
CBR JGWRR said:
Agent Orange said:
robmlufc said:
I dont think they banned Rotarys?
They did. After the Mazda 787B won with Johnny Herbert at the wheel they were banned. Cannot recall why but they were.Still the only Japanese manufacturer to win Le Mans outright.
From Wikipedia, so very possibly wrong, but that doesn't say they changed the regs to make rotarys a non-viable solution. It says they were banned.
Aside from the source issues...
Writing they were banned is easier.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff