RE: Nissan DeltaWing: the full story
Discussion
scubadude said:
Slightly amazed at some of the negative comments wrt the Deltawing, thought this was Pistonheads not head-in-the-sand NIMBY heads?
Firstly I can't believe the rude punt that put them out wasn't punished officially (or if it wasn't I havent heard about it) perhaps from another angle it isn't so blatant but the rear on shot was so sever even a British Touring Car driver would have winced!
Secondly, all this moaning about lap time vs LMP2 is totally stupid was it wasn't in that class, the only comparison you could have drawn was where it finished (if it had finished) against LMP2 given its lack of weight and power.
I can't think of a race series that uses 300bhp/500kg cars (its about half way between F3 and F2 if memory serves) but given that this was its first race I thought the pace was good.
I didn't see much footage of the Deltawing in the LM coverage prior to the poor driver fighting to get it moving again but the exterior shots I did see it didn't look like it was struggling (as has been suggested) in the corners- anyone got a link to some onboard stuff? (I've seen the testing footage and it cornered aright on a flat airfield track)
Personally I think its a shame we don't have more series where totally different cars can race head to head, I don't know what future holds for the Deltawing but it certainly doesn#t deserve the bad press some of you are giving it IMO.
There isn't a class like this at present, but Firstly I can't believe the rude punt that put them out wasn't punished officially (or if it wasn't I havent heard about it) perhaps from another angle it isn't so blatant but the rear on shot was so sever even a British Touring Car driver would have winced!
Secondly, all this moaning about lap time vs LMP2 is totally stupid was it wasn't in that class, the only comparison you could have drawn was where it finished (if it had finished) against LMP2 given its lack of weight and power.
I can't think of a race series that uses 300bhp/500kg cars (its about half way between F3 and F2 if memory serves) but given that this was its first race I thought the pace was good.
I didn't see much footage of the Deltawing in the LM coverage prior to the poor driver fighting to get it moving again but the exterior shots I did see it didn't look like it was struggling (as has been suggested) in the corners- anyone got a link to some onboard stuff? (I've seen the testing footage and it cornered aright on a flat airfield track)
Personally I think its a shame we don't have more series where totally different cars can race head to head, I don't know what future holds for the Deltawing but it certainly doesn#t deserve the bad press some of you are giving it IMO.
(a) There's nothing to stop the FIA creating one. Could be Lotus/Radical level with engine power set accordingly.
(b) Not much to stop the Delta team entering thier car into race series with cars around the 500kg level and changing the engine to meet the power required by the series.
I think the design shows great imagination and I am fascinated to see if the design delivers the what the concept dreams of, but if it's going to race in a class of one it's going to be pointless. Let's hope the team are encouraged enough by it's performance at Le Mans to bring it back next year and race it in one of the existing classes.
I think LMP3/CN is quite similar to this although perhaps slightly smaller in dimensions, physically.
Here's an example:
http://www.chironworld.com/chiron_005.htm
Here's an example:
http://www.chironworld.com/chiron_005.htm
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
In practice and qualifying it was lapping about 2/3rds down the P2 field and achieving the target time set by the ACO. At no point had they done a ball out lap as they were still refining the car.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
In the race they had a gearbox problem from the beginning hence being slow, which they eventually resolved and were lapping quicker and quicker before they got taken out. As it happens, the gearbox is an off-the shelf item, so not something specific to the unusual concept.
Regarding the fragility, I think it needs to be put into context. The P1's and P2's run at a minimum of 900kgs, the GT's obviously much heavier. The Deltawing was 400kg so was always going to come off worse in any contact. However, it achieved all the crash test requirements, so the drivers safety was never compromised. It ran as an example of what could be achieved with half weight/power/fuel etc. If the P2 class for example was reduced to 400kg, then it wouldn't be such an issue as numerous other cars would also be just as light weight.
For reference, a GT car swiping a prototype has the same effect - ie: look at what happened to Davidson...
Probably mentioned already but did anyone see the Westfield Deltawing put together by the Top Gear lads at Le Mans? The Nissan PR guy mentioned it briefly in the Eurosport commentary. Hats off to Nissan on the Deltawing project too, nice to see something radically different on track.
weyland yutani said:
Probably mentioned already but did anyone see the Westfield Deltawing put together by the Top Gear lads at Le Mans? The Nissan PR guy mentioned it briefly in the Eurosport commentary. Hats off to Nissan on the Deltawing project too, nice to see something radically different on track.
you do realise that Nissan had almost zero to do with the project until the last minute don't you?Scuffers said:
weyland yutani said:
Probably mentioned already but did anyone see the Westfield Deltawing put together by the Top Gear lads at Le Mans? The Nissan PR guy mentioned it briefly in the Eurosport commentary. Hats off to Nissan on the Deltawing project too, nice to see something radically different on track.
you do realise that Nissan had almost zero to do with the project until the last minute don't you?PW said:
Du1point8 said:
Cyder said:
Eric Mc said:
Like the Lotus project?
Do you mean Emerg-e Eric?
DeltaWing - why?
Been musing on this a bit. OK, it's innovative, but is change for changes sake enough justification?
It's basically a three wheeler. OK, there are two wheels up front, but it's close enough to a three wheeler to surely inherit some of the inherent stability issues. Witness JC's hilarous demonstrations of the pitfalls of a three wheeler layout on Top Gear. Bear in mind how it went out at Le Mans - would any other car have arrowed directly into the barriers after a tap like that? OK, the Toyota went airborne, but the speeds were a bit different as was the force of impact. To me it looked like the sort of door handle bashing that's a regular feature of BTCC for example, and not really the sort of thing that should have resulted in complete lack of directional stability.
Then there's the issue of its odd shape. It's undeniable that this contributed to it getting that rude punt in the first place. Spatially those guys are out there placing rectangular objects in their awareness map, and an arrow shape just doesn't fit. Like a Sinclair C5, it was an accident waiting to happen.
Now let's get to the old maxim of racing improving the breed. How on earth is a DeltaWing ever going to benefit the average motorist? Can you imagine the chaos if things that shape were let loose on the general motoring populace? Visualise Tescos car park and the spatially challenged trying to park one - "Well the front went in alright, I don't really know what happened". Imagine being cut up in one - see the BMW go airborne when the back end catches up with him. What about the school run mums popping the front wheels onto the kerb in time honoured fashion and splashing several kids onto the pavement with the back end.
I just can't see where the trickle down would come, which makes it a development dead end even if there were any tangible racing benefits.
What am I missing? The point obviously, but can anyone tell me what that is exactly? Or are we looking at the Emperors new racing car here?
Been musing on this a bit. OK, it's innovative, but is change for changes sake enough justification?
It's basically a three wheeler. OK, there are two wheels up front, but it's close enough to a three wheeler to surely inherit some of the inherent stability issues. Witness JC's hilarous demonstrations of the pitfalls of a three wheeler layout on Top Gear. Bear in mind how it went out at Le Mans - would any other car have arrowed directly into the barriers after a tap like that? OK, the Toyota went airborne, but the speeds were a bit different as was the force of impact. To me it looked like the sort of door handle bashing that's a regular feature of BTCC for example, and not really the sort of thing that should have resulted in complete lack of directional stability.
Then there's the issue of its odd shape. It's undeniable that this contributed to it getting that rude punt in the first place. Spatially those guys are out there placing rectangular objects in their awareness map, and an arrow shape just doesn't fit. Like a Sinclair C5, it was an accident waiting to happen.
Now let's get to the old maxim of racing improving the breed. How on earth is a DeltaWing ever going to benefit the average motorist? Can you imagine the chaos if things that shape were let loose on the general motoring populace? Visualise Tescos car park and the spatially challenged trying to park one - "Well the front went in alright, I don't really know what happened". Imagine being cut up in one - see the BMW go airborne when the back end catches up with him. What about the school run mums popping the front wheels onto the kerb in time honoured fashion and splashing several kids onto the pavement with the back end.
I just can't see where the trickle down would come, which makes it a development dead end even if there were any tangible racing benefits.
What am I missing? The point obviously, but can anyone tell me what that is exactly? Or are we looking at the Emperors new racing car here?
It's original incarnation was as a potential design for future Indycars. The IRL were becoming concerned about exposed wheels and cars riding those exposed wheels in collisions. The inboard front wheels reduces the risk of this type of incident. The design was rejected in favour of the slightly less radical Indycar design which came into use this year.
Having done the work on the delta wing concept, it was decided to see if they could race a car based on these principles in some other series. Le Mans were willing to give it a shot.
Having done the work on the delta wing concept, it was decided to see if they could race a car based on these principles in some other series. Le Mans were willing to give it a shot.
Eric Mc said:
It's original incarnation was as a potential design for future Indycars. The IRL were becoming concerned about exposed wheels and cars riding those exposed wheels in collisions. The inboard front wheels reduces the risk of this type of incident. The design was rejected in favour of the slightly less radical Indycar design which came into use this year.
Having done the work on the delta wing concept, it was decided to see if they could race a car based on these principles in some other series. Le Mans were willing to give it a shot.
Even that original premise is fatally, and obviously, flawed though Eric. It exposes the rear wheel instead, and the entire side of the car, and basically turns the entire racecar into a wedge designed to punt other cars into the air. Not surprised it got rejected.Having done the work on the delta wing concept, it was decided to see if they could race a car based on these principles in some other series. Le Mans were willing to give it a shot.
The whole thing smacks of an engineering vanity project - a solution looking for a problem. Which fits with them trying at at Le Mans I suppose. I just can't help thinking comon sense got left at the door somewhere along the line. "I want to race a souped up Reliant Robin at Le Mans please". The answer should be eye bleedingly obvious.
VictorMeldrew said:
The whole thing smacks of an engineering vanity project
And cheers for them doing it! Its refreshing to see something a little different, without the pressures to be number 1. If you aren't going to undertake something radically different, don't ever expect radical change.Killboy said:
And cheers for them doing it! Its refreshing to see something a little different, without the pressures to be number 1. If you aren't going to undertake something radically different, don't ever expect radical change.
So the best justification is "why not"? Change for changes sake, like I said.I'm a Kaizen man rather than Kaikaku I'm afraid. Maybe it's my age ...
Killboy said:
If you are going to undertake something radically different, expect to fail.
Fixed that for you!Edited by VictorMeldrew on Friday 22 June 11:32
VictorMeldrew said:
It's basically a three wheeler. OK, there are two wheels up front, but it's close enough to a three wheeler to surely inherit some of the inherent stability issues. Witness JC's hilarous demonstrations of the pitfalls of a three wheeler layout on Top Gear. Bear in mind how it went out at Le Mans - would any other car have arrowed directly into the barriers after a tap like that? OK, the Toyota went airborne, but the speeds were a bit different as was the force of impact. To me it looked like the sort of door handle bashing that's a regular feature of BTCC for example, and not really the sort of thing that should have resulted in complete lack of directional stability.
Interesting post, but not sure I agree with the bit quoted above.Stability - It completed a good few laps before the accident both in the race, during practice and also during the testing at Sebring and to the best of my knowledge there were no real complaints about the stability of the car, in fact contrary to many predictions it seemed to handle quite well.
WRT to the accident I've seen it a few times and it seems that the Toyota simply pushed it off the track (look where the Toyota is positioned on the road at 34-35 seconds into the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJAiZVuC3YI). Once the car was on the grass at that sort of speed on a left hand bend with a wall that close there was only one place it was going to end up in my opinion regardless of what type of car it was.
The only thing I can see working against the Deltawing here is that being lighter than the P2 cars it didn't have the 'muscle' to fight back.
I don't think any directional stability issues had any effect on that accident.
Edited by Cyder on Friday 22 June 11:32
Cyder said:
Interesting post, but not sure I agree with the bit quoted above.
Stability - It completed a good few laps before the accident both in the race, during practice and also during the testing at Sebring and to the best of my knowledge there were no real complaints about the stability of the car, in fact contrary to many predictions it seemed to handle quite well.
WRT to the accident I've seen it a few times and it seems that the Toyota simply pushed it off the track (look where the Toyota is positioned on the road at 34-35 seconds into the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJAiZVuC3YI). Once the car was on the grass at that sort of speed on a left hand bend with a wall that close there was only one place it was going to end up in my opinion regardless of what type of car it was.
The only thing I can see working against the Deltawing here is that being lighter than the P2 cars it didn't have the 'muscle' to fight back.
I don't think any directional stability issues had any effect on that accident personally.
I think something with a wider track at the front may well have found enough purchase to be able to change direction. You can argue with that if you like, but it would be akin to arguing that a motorbike can get more traction than a 4WD. Stability - It completed a good few laps before the accident both in the race, during practice and also during the testing at Sebring and to the best of my knowledge there were no real complaints about the stability of the car, in fact contrary to many predictions it seemed to handle quite well.
WRT to the accident I've seen it a few times and it seems that the Toyota simply pushed it off the track (look where the Toyota is positioned on the road at 34-35 seconds into the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJAiZVuC3YI). Once the car was on the grass at that sort of speed on a left hand bend with a wall that close there was only one place it was going to end up in my opinion regardless of what type of car it was.
The only thing I can see working against the Deltawing here is that being lighter than the P2 cars it didn't have the 'muscle' to fight back.
I don't think any directional stability issues had any effect on that accident personally.
Don't be so bloody negative. It was an experiment. Someone else paid for it. Let them get on with it if that is what they want to do.
Well done to the ACO for allowing it to race. It provided a point of interest for the spectators and was sure better to look at than a bunch of cloned Porsches.
If it worked, it will be back. If it was a waste of time, it won't.
Well done to the ACO for allowing it to race. It provided a point of interest for the spectators and was sure better to look at than a bunch of cloned Porsches.
If it worked, it will be back. If it was a waste of time, it won't.
VictorMeldrew said:
Killboy said:
If you are going to undertake something radically different, expect to fail.
Fixed that for you!Edited by VictorMeldrew on Friday 22 June 11:32
If anything, it was quicker than I expected, and the media and support it gained was incredible.
Race terms fail, sure. Engineering undertaking, marketing exercise, experimental coolness = WIN.
Eric Mc said:
Don't be so bloody negative. It was an experiment. Someone else paid for it. Let them get on with it if that is what they want to do.
I'm not trying to be negative, just putting forward some ideas for discussion. I asked legitimate questions, questions that I expect are being asked at Nissan as well. It would be somewhat ironic if we are not allowed to question something that is in itself supposed to question the status quo, would it not? 
Eric Mc said:
Well done to the ACO for allowing it to race. It provided a point of interest for the spectators and was sure better to look at than a bunch of cloned Porsches.
Agreed. with reservations. Eric Mc said:
If it worked, it will be back. If it was a waste of time, it won't.
If you know anything of the culture at Nissan under Ghosn-san you know that this is absolutely true.Edited by VictorMeldrew on Friday 22 June 12:16
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff