RE: Chris Harris video: Deltawing drive
Discussion
AER said:
Kawasicki said:
.
Also, having the rear axle do all the roll control, means unbalanced vertical loads on the rear tyres in cornering. Unbalanced tyre contact patch pressures on an axle reduce the peak cornering force.
Any car will have unbalanced vertical loads on the tyres under cornering. Whether its split across two tyres or four is pretty irrelevant. One side is working harder than the other.Also, having the rear axle do all the roll control, means unbalanced vertical loads on the rear tyres in cornering. Unbalanced tyre contact patch pressures on an axle reduce the peak cornering force.
Nissan deserve big credits for supporting Ben and his ideas. How refreshing to see a design that uses aerodynamics acting on a car body without those ugly stick on wings, spoilers, barge boards etc.
A big problem with F1 is that the appendages cause turbulence behind that affect following cars, so the FIA have had to introduce DRS to help overtaking. I believe that all add on aero bits should be banned. Colin Chapman's "wing car" concept was the purest of the aero cars, the Nissan is the sucessor to that. Ben, you're a genius and a present day Colin Chapman.
On the topic of tyre loading, the lower the car's centre of gravity, the less the inequality of tyre loading in corners. In theory, if the CofG was at ground level, the tyre loading both sides would be equal even when cornering.
The article was one of the "top 10" of PH articles I've seen - simply great. Thanks Chris and the PH team.
A big problem with F1 is that the appendages cause turbulence behind that affect following cars, so the FIA have had to introduce DRS to help overtaking. I believe that all add on aero bits should be banned. Colin Chapman's "wing car" concept was the purest of the aero cars, the Nissan is the sucessor to that. Ben, you're a genius and a present day Colin Chapman.
On the topic of tyre loading, the lower the car's centre of gravity, the less the inequality of tyre loading in corners. In theory, if the CofG was at ground level, the tyre loading both sides would be equal even when cornering.
The article was one of the "top 10" of PH articles I've seen - simply great. Thanks Chris and the PH team.
Great topic and video.
This reminds me of the Colin Chapman days at Lotus when he revolutionised racing car design.
Nissan seem to have gone down a similar route with some "out of the box thinking" and got some good looking results.
A wheel at each corner and tweeking that theme seems to have gone to limits with conventional design and this car looks to have moved to a different level.
I think it's radical design and results could be frightening the establishment.
I hope it continues to do well and get some further development as the theory behind it seems great and been applied well.
The "tech speak" about the suspension was great too... not too technical but providing a brilliant insight.
This reminds me of the Colin Chapman days at Lotus when he revolutionised racing car design.
Nissan seem to have gone down a similar route with some "out of the box thinking" and got some good looking results.
A wheel at each corner and tweeking that theme seems to have gone to limits with conventional design and this car looks to have moved to a different level.
I think it's radical design and results could be frightening the establishment.
I hope it continues to do well and get some further development as the theory behind it seems great and been applied well.
The "tech speak" about the suspension was great too... not too technical but providing a brilliant insight.
Streetrod said:
I am no trained engineer, but have built my own cars, but was amazed that I actually understood how the whole thing worked. Previously I thought it would just under steer into the nearest bush.
As to why it does not have a single front wheel, a couple of things occurred to me. First as a three wheeler I suspect it would be regarded as a bike not a car. A secondly even through the track is so narrow the car will still experience a degree of lean across the front axle in a fast corner. It the car only had a single wheel then the car would end up running on one side of the tyre whilst unloading the other leading to a loss of grip.
By having two narrow tyres and independent front suspension you would able to keep both tyres square to the road and therefore increase the grip, does that make sense?
i came to same conlusionAs to why it does not have a single front wheel, a couple of things occurred to me. First as a three wheeler I suspect it would be regarded as a bike not a car. A secondly even through the track is so narrow the car will still experience a degree of lean across the front axle in a fast corner. It the car only had a single wheel then the car would end up running on one side of the tyre whilst unloading the other leading to a loss of grip.
By having two narrow tyres and independent front suspension you would able to keep both tyres square to the road and therefore increase the grip, does that make sense?
acf8181 said:
Streetrod said:
I am no trained engineer, but have built my own cars, but was amazed that I actually understood how the whole thing worked. Previously I thought it would just under steer into the nearest bush.
As to why it does not have a single front wheel, a couple of things occurred to me. First as a three wheeler I suspect it would be regarded as a bike not a car. A secondly even through the track is so narrow the car will still experience a degree of lean across the front axle in a fast corner. It the car only had a single wheel then the car would end up running on one side of the tyre whilst unloading the other leading to a loss of grip.
By having two narrow tyres and independent front suspension you would able to keep both tyres square to the road and therefore increase the grip, does that make sense?
i came to same conlusionAs to why it does not have a single front wheel, a couple of things occurred to me. First as a three wheeler I suspect it would be regarded as a bike not a car. A secondly even through the track is so narrow the car will still experience a degree of lean across the front axle in a fast corner. It the car only had a single wheel then the car would end up running on one side of the tyre whilst unloading the other leading to a loss of grip.
By having two narrow tyres and independent front suspension you would able to keep both tyres square to the road and therefore increase the grip, does that make sense?
Also the 'scrub drag' is much closer to the centre line of the car which helps considerably with turn in.
That's a really facinating piece by Chris Harris and some good chat and comments.
I haven't seen much about the Delta wing apart from the news stuff on its Le Mans incidents.
What are the Deltawings advantages over conventional LP cars?
In the intro Chris talks about the low drag, and in the driving section he mentions the low weight (417kg).
Despite the clever suspension engineering that allows it to steer, and brake in a stable way, it seems unlikely that the deltawing could generate as high cornering and braking forces as a more conventional car with bigger contact patches further from the CoG, so able to develop more lateral and braking load on those tyres through weight transfer when cornering and/or braking.
Does it make fast lap times by quicker acceleration out of corners, to a higher top speed?
I guess I'm wondering of the Deltawing is a funamentally better design, or just a design that 'takes advantage' of the way racing cars are currently configured?
I haven't seen much about the Delta wing apart from the news stuff on its Le Mans incidents.
What are the Deltawings advantages over conventional LP cars?
In the intro Chris talks about the low drag, and in the driving section he mentions the low weight (417kg).
Despite the clever suspension engineering that allows it to steer, and brake in a stable way, it seems unlikely that the deltawing could generate as high cornering and braking forces as a more conventional car with bigger contact patches further from the CoG, so able to develop more lateral and braking load on those tyres through weight transfer when cornering and/or braking.
Does it make fast lap times by quicker acceleration out of corners, to a higher top speed?
I guess I'm wondering of the Deltawing is a funamentally better design, or just a design that 'takes advantage' of the way racing cars are currently configured?
JakobusVdL said:
What are the Deltawings advantages over conventional LP cars?
I believe that the core goals of the project were to deliver a car as fast as the conventional LMPs, but with "half of everything":- half the weight.
- half the power.
- half the fuel required.
It shows that by clever design a much more efficient package can be produced - effectively doubling the fuel economy/range whilst not compromising performance.
As an engineer myself I have some of the same problems the designers and backers of this car have had. For years I have tried to convince my colleagues that by simple application f engineering logic and technology we can do the same, or as close as doesn't matter, thing cheaper, smaller, faster, simpler. No one want's to listen as they would rather stick to their tired lazy ideas which in the end will lose us customers.
I love the Deltawing, not only for it's cool looks but that it represents what can be achieved by engineers applying simple logic and design to solve a problem that nobody else thinks needs solving and in the process demonstrating that the problem can be solved easily.
I love the Deltawing, not only for it's cool looks but that it represents what can be achieved by engineers applying simple logic and design to solve a problem that nobody else thinks needs solving and in the process demonstrating that the problem can be solved easily.
JakobusVdL said:
That's a really facinating piece by Chris Harris and some good chat and comments.
I haven't seen much about the Delta wing apart from the news stuff on its Le Mans incidents.
What are the Deltawings advantages over conventional LP cars?
In the intro Chris talks about the low drag, and in the driving section he mentions the low weight (417kg).
Despite the clever suspension engineering that allows it to steer, and brake in a stable way, it seems unlikely that the deltawing could generate as high cornering and braking forces as a more conventional car with bigger contact patches further from the CoG, so able to develop more lateral and braking load on those tyres through weight transfer when cornering and/or braking.
Does it make fast lap times by quicker acceleration out of corners, to a higher top speed?
I guess I'm wondering of the Deltawing is a funamentally better design, or just a design that 'takes advantage' of the way racing cars are currently configured?
The first and most obvious difference is that the overall design of the car is not restricted by what the LP rules do and do not allow. The LP formula rules and the rules of many other formulas are very prescriptive about what a designer can and cannot do. One of the key things that the DW shows is that 40 years of high down force wing design has produced cars that need twice the BHP of the DW to beat the DW. The DW shows there's another, faster direction for car development.I haven't seen much about the Delta wing apart from the news stuff on its Le Mans incidents.
What are the Deltawings advantages over conventional LP cars?
In the intro Chris talks about the low drag, and in the driving section he mentions the low weight (417kg).
Despite the clever suspension engineering that allows it to steer, and brake in a stable way, it seems unlikely that the deltawing could generate as high cornering and braking forces as a more conventional car with bigger contact patches further from the CoG, so able to develop more lateral and braking load on those tyres through weight transfer when cornering and/or braking.
Does it make fast lap times by quicker acceleration out of corners, to a higher top speed?
I guess I'm wondering of the Deltawing is a funamentally better design, or just a design that 'takes advantage' of the way racing cars are currently configured?
A lot(most) of the downforce comes from the underside of the car which works better than a car with a front wing and conventional track because the front wing and tyres really messes up the air for the rest of the car.
I think the faster lap times come from a mix of high speed and much better cornering than people expect!
The Petit Le Mans race was interesting to watch - the DW lost a little breaking earlier into corners but flew through the corners and blasted down the straight.
When you consider that the DW finished Petit Le Mans 6 laps down on the P1 winner with half the engine power (320 vs 600 I think) it would have probably won with 400.
If the DW had the same power as the P1 cars it would have probably wiped the floor with them!
Thanks Jeremy C & Bsdnazz, that is really helpful background and information.
It looks like the delta wing project is achieving it's objectivespretty quickly.
However, if it doesn't conform to the LMP rules, does that mean it only gets to take part in the ALMS by special dispensation? If so, I'd guess that it won't be allowed to become too sucessful, wouldn't the Series would just pull the pin on the dispensation? or is it officially in the series now?
Eitherway, a pretty interesting experiment, can't wait to see how it goes from here
It looks like the delta wing project is achieving it's objectivespretty quickly.
However, if it doesn't conform to the LMP rules, does that mean it only gets to take part in the ALMS by special dispensation? If so, I'd guess that it won't be allowed to become too sucessful, wouldn't the Series would just pull the pin on the dispensation? or is it officially in the series now?
Eitherway, a pretty interesting experiment, can't wait to see how it goes from here
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff