Delta wing indycar concept

  • Thread starter red7
  • 66 comments
  • 14,588 views
Are you serious? The delta wing is nothing remotely close to being revolutionary. Not to mention that it does not have that large of an affect on aero performance when it comes to cornering.

I personally don't find anything about the car to really be all that attractive. Just because it's different and looks more like something out of a batman comic book doesn't necessarily make it cool, aesthetically pleasing, or anything I really need to see become a reality.

On the other hand, such a design would promote good, close racing on a relatively cheap budget as you mentioned. But the IRL already has that with their current designs...and for the spectators and the people outside looking in, they could care less about how affordable the race cars are, as long as the grids are filled up on race day and the machinery is equal enough in order to make a show out of things.
 
Last edited:
timeattack07gt
Are you serious? The delta wing is nothing remotely close to being revolutionary. Not to mention that it does not have that larger of an affect on aero performance when it comes to cornering.

I personally don't find anything about the car to really be all that attractive. Just because it's different and looks more like something out of a batman comic book doesn't necessarily make it cool, aesthetically pleasing, or anything I really need to see become a reality.

Well, I like the radical design. Some people are so opposed to anything different. They'd accept any openwheel design over it, even the current F1 car which is butt ugly and looks nothing more then an overgrown go-kart with a snow plow on the front and a retarded rear wing that grew a bit too short.

The Lola and Dallara designs are again, the same o same o.

Keep in mind the car can be tweaked and will most certainly not look like the renders or the model as no car ever ends up doing so.

timeattack0gt
On the other hand, such a design would promote good, close racing for on a relatively cheap budget as you mentioned. But the IRL already has that with their current designs...and for the spectators and the people outside looking in, they could care less about how affordable the race cars are.

The delta wing car itself costs half that of the current Dallara. Not sure how often you have to rebuild the engine in the current car but in the Wing its every 5,000 miles.

Crash the current car and you've destroyed wings, suspension parts, alot of things. Alot of money. Crash in the new car and you've destroyed alot less parts. Thats more money right there.

With the new attention that only a radical car can give to the Indycar series more manufacturers will be interested in supplying engines because of the increaed awareness which means more money.

Alot of team owners and media who follow Indycars back the Delta car and they have encouraged people to look beyond its looks and look at what it could mean to the series.

Some have even eestimated 50 cars showing up for Indy.
 
Problem is that the fans are what drive the business and if they don't like it the IRL could be in even worse shape than it is now(they aren't going to like it just because someone told them to). NASCAR's COT is the perfect example with this, since it came out fans have been dropping left and right, now they are making changes and are trying to improve it to bring them back. The only difference is that NASCAR had fans to spare when they rolled out the COT, this is a luxury the IRL doesn't have.
 
I think perhaps I was thinking on a different dimension to you guys, I view this car and ask "how will it corner on a tight street course?". I accept it will probably be a good design for an oval but for any other kind of course I don't see where this design is a huge benefit over a standard wing design.
I don't see how shifting the weight around will overcome the reduced cornering ability of the front of car, now that I've thought about Ovals though, it does make sense for ultimate top speed, but is IndyCars going to be restricted to just Ovals in future?

Could someone post the Dallara and Lola proposals?
 
Dallara's proposals:
2012-Dallara-IndyCar-Concept4.jpg

2012-Dallara-IndyCar-Concept6.jpg

2012-Dallara-IndyCar-Concept12.jpg
 
IndyCar: Inside The Delta Wing Project
Written by: Robin Miller (SPEED)
---------------------------------
If the DeltaWing IndyCar does everything that Ben Bowlby says it's supposed to do, then does it matter how it looks like? This Air Force kid thinks it looks like a bad ass front-line fighter jet.

Many of us, including myself, have said we want a car that forces drivers to take their foot off the gas on an oval. We want a car that generates less dirty air so the drivers can race closer and pull off slingshot passes. We want a car with better torque. Bowlby says that the DeltaWing does all of that for $600,000 including the engine. The car only needs a $10 aluminum wicker to switch from an oval setup to a road course setup. And for those of you worried about cornering speeds on road/street courses, you have to DECREASE cornering speeds to encourage passing.

Give DeltaWing a chance. Bowlby and the IndyCar team owners aren't idiots. Didn't you people want innovation? The traditional single seater open wheel car's exposed wheels generate a lot of drag. Who's to say single seater race cars wouldn't have evolved to this point if no sanctioning body had limited engineers' designs? Even the FIA has limited what F1 engineers could design since the 1980s.

And DeltaWing welcomes the competition from Dallara, Lola, and Swift. Put 2 of each chassis on the track and see how well they can race in close quarters. And let's see if Dallara, Lola, and Swift can build a $600,000 IndyCar. Let's go racing! May the best car win!
 
Last edited:
Ben Bowbly: chief technology officer of deltawing

"Ben has worked with Lola Cars and designed Champ Cars for CART, European and Nippon F3000, SR1, SR2, LMP 675 sports cars and BTCC touring cars. In 2003, Ben joined Chip Ganassi Racing as Technical Director where he worked on development for IndyCar, GrandAm and NASCAR as well as developing a unique full-scale straight-line aerodynamic test facility. Ben began working on the DeltaWing concept in January 2009."

Nice resume:sly:


---Another thing drivers would have to adjust to is the fact they're not using the front tires to visually place the car anymore, being that the rear track is so much wider. They would have to get used to peering over the nose and re-learning a good clearance from this perspective. Cutting a corner too close would oddly put an inside rear over the curbing instead. Overtaking a car from the rear and say to the right you could approach closely with the nose but would have to widen the gap to avoid clipping your left rear with an opponents right rear. Drivers would find this very strange at first I would imagine.
 
Last edited:
Robin's wrong. We said we wanted innovation with limits kind of like what F1 does but with the Indy Car linage.
 
Without calling it out before seing how one (or a group of them) perform on a track, it seems to me like change for the sake of change.

The YouTube vid posted of the simulation reminded me of Motorcycle sidecar racing vehicles.

 
Robin Miller was one of the few who was shown the car a month before it's public unveiling. He wrote this article about 30 days ago. I read it when it came out so when the car was shown to the public I just didn't look at how it looked but everything else about it. I think its looks can be improved but even if they dont touch it I wouldn't mind that much.

"Collectively, racers are a doubting breed, always skeptical of something new and usually wary to try it. It’s always been that way, whether it’s a car, engine, driver or rules change.

The proposed Delta Wing concept Indy car for 2012, which will be displayed to the public for the first time at an upcoming auto show, has enthused most of the 50 or so people who have seen the model and listened to designer Ben Bowlby’s presentation.

However, some doubters claim it will be unstable or not even turn the corners, while the car owners behind the project love its space-aged shape and are convinced it will be much racier compared to today’s aero sensitive cars.

The naysayers scoff at 325 horsepower and a chassis that’s going to weigh significantly less than a sprint car while the Delta Wing LLC. group is jazzed about the in-line 4 turbo engine’s sound, mileage and identity with the American car manufacturer.

An open wheel purist will likely have difficulty embracing the radical look at first but that was the same reaction the roadster devotees felt when the rear-engine revolution broke out.

But, the bottom line is that IndyCar is long overdue for a makeover because running the same car for seven seasons has made things boring, predictable and did I mention boring?


That ugly old Dallara has sucked the life out of a Gasoline Alley that once enjoyed cutting edge technology and embraced free thinking.

What Brian Barnhart & Company can’t seem to grasp is that the different cars and engines were always as big a part of the attraction to Indianapolis as the drivers.

We idolized Jim Hurtubise, Jim Clark and Parnelli Jones and we paid even more attention when they were in the Novi, the Lotus and the turbine. Roger Penske tried three chassis in 1995 and still couldn’t make the show a year after dominating Indy and there’s never been a bigger crowd on Bump Day.


Open wheel racing, even in the late ‘90s in CART, boasted five chassis and four engine manufacturers, which created interest, competition and a cash flow that hasn’t been seen since.

Nobody is saying that a new car/engine package is immediately going to add 25,000 spectators to the ISC ovals or manufacturers are going to start throwing money at IndyCar teams.

But what if an American-built car only cost half of what owners have to shell out today? What if the car was assembled in Indianapolis from components built over here instead of paying the outrageous exchange rate to get parts from Italy? What if the rules were written so that local race car builders like Joe Devin and Danny Drinan could come compete at Indy with their own ideas and not have it cost them $1 million for one month?

What if the trailing car suffered no aerodynamic disadvantage going into a corner?

What if Lola, Swift and Panoz are enticed to come back?

What if the engine cost a tenth of what a lease is today? What if it got such great mileage that rebuilds were 5,000 miles apart? What if the smaller, more efficient engine platform suddenly got Detroit’s interest? What if Porsche or Audi or Alfa wants to show off their 4-cylinder engines?

What if normally-aspirated or V-6 engines also wanted to play?

What if suddenly
there were 50 cars going for 33 spots in May instead of scrambling at the last minute to fill the field?


We won’t know the answers to these questions for at least a year but the point is that at least the owners are taking the initiative to try and come up with something fresh, different and relevant to the times.

As well as something more affordable.

Of course the most interesting aspect of this move is that Bowlby is employed by Ganassi and the Chipster has spent his own money fronting this project.

Considering Ganassi and Penske and their four drivers (Dixon, Franchitti, Briscoe and Castroneves) won 16 out of 17 races in 2009 and those two operations have been in victory lane 48 of the last 65 races dating back to 2006, one would imagine they’d be content to keep the same car for another eight years.

Yet as much as Ganassi enjoys winning, he seems to realize this stagnant formula isn’t a good scenario on many fronts.

Why would we think a new car might loosen the stranglehold Ganassi and Penske have on the field? Just look at Champ Car in 2007 and note that the little teams of Derrick Walker and Keith Wiggins each scored a pair of wins in the new Panoz DP-01. Sure, Newman/Haas/Lanigan still won the most races and the title with Sebastien Bourdais but that new car truly leveled the playing field.

There’s no denying that Honda and Dallara have been good suppliers and, without Honda, this series may have already died. Nobody is saying they’re not welcome, but having a closed shop for spec racing is not what IndyCar is about, nor what it needs. Honda’s attitude was always the more the merrier and that’s what IndyCar’s attitude needs to be.

But even though IndyCar has given a verbal OK to the Delta Wing Project to create a prototype, there’s hardly been a show of support. The Hulman/George family should welcome it because it won’t cost them anything and could actually instill some renewed interest in Indy.

Barnhart will be the biggest obstacle either because he feels threatened or ostracized but, considering his total lack of effort in addressing new cars, budgets or rules, he seems to be part of the problem instead of the solution.

The last thing IndyCar needs is another war but don’t be surprised if one breaks out over this new car. "
Source

Without calling it out before seing how one (or a group of them) perform on a track, it seems to me like change for the sake of change.

The YouTube vid posted of the simulation reminded me of Motorcycle sidecar racing vehicles.



That does look just like it. To the haters, does it really look that bad? They look pretty racy and quick as well.

Indy can either use this car which will by itself generate interest, slash costs and perhaps change racing in some ways, or they can replace the current Dallara with another garden variety openwheel car and hope a miracle happens and Danica wins championships to bring fans and manufacturers back.
 
Thing is when you hear "open wheel" you think of the "garden variety" car's Dallara and Swift have proposed. If you were to totally abandon this design that has been around for a very long time you would probably wind up losing a large chunk of your existing fanbase.


I just can't see this going over well. When an ESPN columnist puts out an article just to try and sway people it's obvious people don't like it and won't support it. People will see this design, than hear it only has an I4 and write it off as slow and ugly because that's the stigma around I4's.
 
Last edited:
Thing is when you hear "open wheel" you think of the "garden variety" car's Dallara and Swift have proposed. If you were to totally abandon this design that has been around for a very long time you would probably wind up losing a large chunk of your existing fanbase.


I just can't see this going over well. When an ESPN columnist puts out an article just to try and sway people it's obvious people don't like it and won't support it. People will see this design, than hear it only has an I4 and write it off as slow and ugly because that's the stigma around I4's.


I agree. And not only that but the cornering speed and lap times will most likely fall off significantly due to the extremely low down force levels, bringing the overall performance to an even lower level.

With that said, if most fans and viewers were to see such a design and accept it, they would expect there to be a revolution in performanc. Not a step backwards from the already dumb downed IRL Dallara's which are much slower than the Champ Cars which used to circulate the ovals and super speedways a decade or so ago.
 
Last edited:
If this thing is as fast as the old indy cars, it'd be interesting to see them race! But I can't imagine them cornering very well........
 
I personally can't see this design having an issues with lifting the rear inside tire while cornering. With the narrow front track (which minimizes body roll), long wheelbase, rear weight/DF bias, I don't believe it would be an issue.

As far as the car ever rolling over- I don't think this would ever be an issue either, with the center of gravity as low as it is. The CoG would have to be several feet high (WELL above the centerline of the f/r axles) with extreme amounts of mechanical/tire grip for there to be an issue with rolling over while in a state of yaw.

Your view of the laws of physics may be a bit flawed in this situation.

From what I can see, the car does not have an appreciably lower CG than a regular Indycar. You'd be surprised how low the CG actually is in one of those cars, and unless they've turned the engine on it's side and have added a hundred pounds of lead to the bottom side, this car may even be a little higher due to the taller nature of inline fours. As well, you're removing about a foot and a half from each side of the base of the car at the front. The front profile is roughly a square.

Narrow track NEVER reduces body roll: in fact, it usually INCREASES it. That's why manufacturers sometime makes sports models wider. It better distributes the inertia shift, and also means the car must tip up higher in order for the CG to pass over the contact area. You take this away, even if it's only at the front, and suddenly the CG doesn't have to travel as high upwards in order to go over the top of the contact patch. Result? easy rollover, particularly when the car's sideways at more than 180 mi/h. That's why high CG vehicles roll easily, and why widening the track without lowering the vehicle makes the vehicle more stable.

That does look just like it. To the haters, does it really look that bad? They look pretty racy and quick as well.

You notice guys hanging off the side...why do you think that is? Simple - to keep the very light vehicle from turning possum, he has to shift the center of gravity of the system by shifting his entire body. Three-wheeled vehicles are naturally more unstable than wide-track four-wheel vehicles. In order for this car to work, it'll need some way to shift the mass in the corners, adding weight, complexity, and cost. Either that, or the driver's gonna have to scurry back and forth...and he/she has no room to do that.

Sure, you could allow turbo fours and Sixes, even eights, I'd invite that. (especially if power levels hit '80s F1 levels.) Making a lighter car with less downforce, too, though that'd make IRL more like a junior formula league. Make it as ugly as possible, too. Go ahead. Just don't rely solely on what your limited simulations say. I think when this group takes this design from paper to parts, they're gonna get a nasty shock.
 
Last edited:
Your view of the laws of physics may be a bit flawed in this situation.

From what I can see, the car does not have an appreciably lower CG than a regular Indycar. You'd be surprised how low the CG actually is in one of those cars, and unless they've turned the engine on it's side and have added a hundred pounds of lead to the bottom side, this car may even be a little higher due to the taller nature of inline fours. As well, you're removing about a foot and a half from each side of the base of the car at the front. The front profile is roughly a square..

Well I wasn't comparing the CG to an Indy car to begin with, which are virtually impossible to traction roll at that. The CG of this concept is still relatively low and not particularly venerable (in my view) to traction roll/tipping given the long wheelbase, rear weight bias, and front/rear median track width.

In the end, the designer of this concept has a pretty long list of credentials, meaning that to question his design and knowledge without being extremely well versed in physics, design and the exact details and specs of his concept, makes it impossible to pass any judgment when it comes to the rollability of the design.

I'm not a fan of the design but nor do I think it will flip like a bicycle like some have cemented and pictured in their minds.

Narrow track NEVER reduces body roll: in fact, it usually INCREASES it. That's why manufacturers sometime makes sports models wider. It better distributes the inertia shift, and also means the car must tip up higher in order for the CG to pass over the contact area. You take this away, even if it's only at the front, and suddenly the CG doesn't have to travel as high upwards in order to go over the top of the contact patch. Result? easy rollover, particularly when the car's sideways at more than 180 mi/h. That's why high CG vehicles roll easily, and why widening the track without lowering the vehicle makes the vehicle more stable..

You're right and I should have worded my statement more accurately. Given a set center of gravity and center of mass, a wider track will reduce body roll as you mentioned. What I was trying (I didn't do a good job at all) to get at by saying the track is narrow in the front was that the front of this concept is very compact and light, which in itself reduces the polar moment of inertia thus reducing body roll. But regardless, you are right when you say a wider track will reduce body roll, only when the center of gravity and mass is at the same point.


You notice guys hanging off the side...why do you think that is? Simple - to keep the very light vehicle from turning possum, he has to shift the center of gravity of the system by shifting his entire body. Three-wheeled vehicles are naturally more unstable than wide-track four-wheel vehicles. In order for this car to work, it'll need some way to shift the mass in the corners, adding weight, complexity, and cost. Either that, or the driver's gonna have to scurry back and forth...and he/she has no room to do that.

Sure, you could allow turbo fours and Sixes, even eights, I'd invite that. (especially if power levels hit '80s F1 levels.) Making a lighter car with less downforce, too, though that'd make IRL more like a junior formula league. Make it as ugly as possible, too. Go ahead. Just don't rely solely on what your limited simulations say. I think when this group takes this design from paper to parts, they're gonna get a nasty shock.

Side cars are designed to work around a rear passenger/rider, with the rear rider adding another variable and necessary skill to the sport. Given their high CG and rather small foot print (wheelbase/length) with all of the weight (driver/engine) placed on the right side of the vehicle, if they didn't have a rider on the rear to shift the center of mass around, there would be a lot of cases where they would be quite vulnerable to traction rolling or at least tipping, when going around a left hand corner. Again, this all comes back to the sidecar being DESIGNED to work best with two riders on the vehicle. If it were the same three wheeled vehicle, not designed around having a rear rider, the design would ideally be much differnet in terms of the center of mass and the position of the pilot (he would be placed much further rearward to get rid of the dangerously high CG he has over the single front tire)

When the rare scenario happens where the rear rider loses grip and mistakenly shifts his body from from the left side to the right side (where all the static weight is) going around a left hand turn, the sidecar is then very venerable to flipping.

Case in point :lol:

 
Last edited:
I do like how the two styles and lights car are all modular. This would seem a more evolutionary step for indycars and people mjght not have a heart attack over the look. :lol:
 
New Long Beach Simulation. They should put some generic paint on these cars like Lola did to make them look better and more plausible.

At 1:43 they handle the extremely tight hairpin very well

 
You'll excuse me for being a bit skeptical about a "simulation" produced by the designers themselves...but yeah...not going to believe such a small front wheel base is going to be such a great idea on anything but ovals without seeing the real thing done.
 
I really wish they would give some info on the program used for the "simulation".

I would guess either rFactor or GTR2 since it's a small company without tons of cash. Of course if it is that really wouldn't be good since while they are good simulations they are from realistic. Even the ones used by F1 teams(which cost an insane amount of money) aren't 100% realistic.
 
Well, at the very least it would be good for IndyCar to have a mixed formula rather than spec, like the man says.
I think the Lola does what the Delta does but in a far less radical way, so there is perhaps less risk in losing fans. But I think many people would be at least interested to see how the Deltawing performs, so they should at least build a prototype and run it.
I would love to see some of the designs raced against each other, but I think thats wishful thinking.

I think ultimately they may go with the safer Lola option, with its swappable chassis with IndyLights, but lets see.
 
Sadly, the car on that stand is NOT a runner, rather, a fiberglass mockup. I got close enough to touch the thing (didn't,) and the cockpit is nothing more than a flat cover. At this point, we're looking at a "paper" project," and until it cuts some laps, I'm not convinced it's gonna work.
 
Last edited:
I think the bigest change that would be most effective is the fuel limit. So the teams will have to be more creative by making fuel efficient race cars. Mixing differnt fuel source would be another step forward like hydrogen, hybrid or full electric. But making it where every car has to run the entire race on one fuel load limit or full charge if its electric. Well maybe with a generator onboard but with limited fuel too.

It just brings back the era of real racing for the purpose of research and development. Not entertainment. I think the fans will still be entertained as long as the cars still run as fast as it can. At the same time generate more grass roots teams and inovation.

I hope USF1 dosen't show up with the Delta wing car in Formula One. haha! :dopey:
 
Last edited:
Speed Racer!

No thanks!

Next Flying Cars!

What would it be like in a crowded pit?

I would like to see Speed Racer and flying cars. They would be alot more interesting then the current Dallara

Marshall Pruett made a good point about how if someone walked out of a movie they certainly wont be coming back for the sequel. What will Indycars gain by replacing the current car with a slightly different one?

You can either try to appease the tiny group of fans you have left in Indycars or try to reach out to a new fan base.

Prices are out of control. A sprint cup stock car costs around $200,000 including the engine. The result? 56 cars tried to qualify for 43 spots in this year's Daytona 500.

A 7 year old Indycar dallara? $650,000 without the engine. 1.2 million for the engine lease. The result? Barely 33 cars at Indy every year.

The Delta wing will be 600,000 for the car and engine. The current indycar engine has to be rebuilt every 3,000 miles, the delta wing every 6,000. More money saved.

None of the other proposals look spectacular or anything that will make people take notice like the Delta Wing. At the very least I was hoping somebody would propose something like this:

011201.jpg
 
The car is starting to grow on me. Although one big question is on my mind. Are they expecting them to change the rules for this car to race?


IRL Regulations:
Weight: 1,565lbs-1,630lbs depending on circuit or road course.
Width: 77.5in.-78.5in.
Wheelbase: 121.5-122in.

Delta Wing:
Weight: 1,030lbs
Width: 70in. (At the rear tires)
Wheelbase: 125in.
 
I think passing is going to be a disaster in a triangle-shaped car. You can try to stick your nose between two cars in front of you, but if you're going faster than they are, you're gonna crash the rear flanks into them.
 
Back