Highcroft's Deltawing *Update: granted ALMS 2013 full entry! *

  • Thread starter Hun200kmh
  • 482 comments
  • 60,356 views
Pupik
What the hell does "brilliant failure" mean, Stavelot? It sounds to me you want to take credit for the DeltaWing's success if it works out well, and show off your mortar board if it doesn't have immediate results.

Armchair engineering at it's finest...

Brilliant failure? Well it'd be a better failure than the AMR-One....

I don't want to be involved and nor do I want credit if it fails or succeeds. However that armchair engineering line is rich, got a counter argument or would you like to just rubbish what I'm saying?
 
This car is meant to eek out incredible performance as a result of incredible efficiency. The persons who designed this car, and the persons who will be using this car, know far more about it than yourself. I'm sure that you had nothing to do with the design if this car. Yet, you say it will fail, because you jump to conclusions about it from what your eyes are telling you.

Is your blind faith really any better than blind scepticism?

You say it won't fail, because you jump to conclusions about it from what the people promoting it are telling you.

Until it hits the track it's all theoretical.
 
Until it hits the track it's all theoretical.

Quite agree. And I will add that, whatever gain this architecture brings, as always it will happen with some trading off. The car cannot be better than a conventional car in all areas. As Stavelot pointed out, the lack of front wing(s), may turn this car into a nightmare in slow sections. Also, this car can even prove to be very dangerous if - with what we can only guess will be a very hard, unforgiving front suspension - it is prone to lift its front in a bumpy area.

I'll say this again. I wish this car succeeds. But I'm holding my breath because the whole concept is so radically different from all we have known so far .... it makes me fear a fail.
 
The slow sections are where aerodynamics have no effect and it's all about mechanical grip so doesn't really effect it not having wings. It's supposed a ground effects car. I don't know much about ground effects hence why I'm skeptical but that would explain the early f1 cars having little wings. Delta wing is such a great mystery. Ill have to see it to believe otherwise lol.
 
That mechanical grip that the DeltaWing has is so understeer heavy they'll have a hard time sitting on throttle thru the Porsche Curves....
 
Funny, I think it's in the Porsche Curves that the DW be consistently quicker than all other cars. Enough speed to make the huge Venturi glue the car to the ground. Where I think the car will struggle more is in the very slow corners (Mulsanne and Arnage especially) plus the Dunlop and the second Ford chicane.

I follow, since a couple of years ago, all Highcroft former ALMS drivers on twitter and I have been watching all the encouraging tweets Marino Franchitti is receiving from drivers of all disciplines. Very interesting. I'll quote a selected few:

Christopher C. Dyson
@MFranchitti If anyone is going to make that sucker turn, it's you, bro. I say turn the boost way up and let 'er rip. #goingtobefun


Oliver Gavin
@MFranchitti congrats on the #24LM deal! #pioneer #ThinkingOutSideTheBox

Simon Pagenaud
@brabsracer @MFranchitti @porsche914yr74 hello boyzzz,congrats on ur lemans rides!hope u ll both be on the podium!wish i could be there too!

Allan McNish
@MFranchitti Delta Wing, well done Marino, hope it goes well. First laps in it will be interesting to get first impressions!

Alexander Wurz
@MFranchitti how will u get your head around this one geeza? I admire delta wing project - innovation drives us. Same for us @Toyota_Hybrid
 
Last edited:
There's some bumps in the Porsche curves that will be a pain in the backside for this car (cue Peugeot taking flight video) and I don't think it will be a fun ride.....
 
Fun or not, this car is getting some endorsements from the usual suspects in the sportscar world. Besides I don't think this car can go fast enough to do what the Peugeot did.
 
Is your blind faith really any better than blind scepticism?

You say it won't fail, because you jump to conclusions about it from what the people promoting it are telling you.

Until it hits the track it's all theoretical.

You're ignoring all of the factual evidence put forth, and saying that it will fail. It's all theory now, but based on the physics lesson they are giving us, it may very well do what it is set out to.
 
After that "leaked video" from yesterday I have been on the look out for any news of what appeared to be just a shakedown. However, both Franchitti's and Highcroft's tweeter feeds have remained remarkably silent, their lips are tight sealed.

However, found in Adam Cooper's tweeter a reference to this article on autoweek, read it and - because I found it interesting - decided to share with you guys, both enthusiasts and sceptics. :)

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120302/ALMS/120309965
 
That was a very detailed article that gave novices like me the idea that we could almost understand the basic conceptual design. he goes into great detail about the balance, weight transfer, brake biasing, and suspension load horizontal/vertical. it almost makes sense to me now. interesting him comparing it to an arrow saying hit has "self correcting" properties. watching that vid i felt like when i am at home watching the science channel dumb down the explainations of things like quantum physics and sub atomic particle science. Sometimes youre like oh yeah, I sort of get it now (even though you dont really)
 
More than one week has passed and the total black-out continues and - evidently - the mainstream motorsports media is "in the secret" because they remain totally silent regardless of the evidence that some kind of test took place. Why do they respect this blackout? Must be because there's something big to be told later, I suppose. Good ... or bad.

In my case, I must say that I was beginning to fear the worst (like: the car being a total joke, the real life thing not behaving like all computers and scientists predicted, totally unable to keep up with LMP2 pace, that sort of thing ...) but today I got the very first piece of news around and it is filled with "good news" (if you are not a DeltaWing hater, that is ...)

Got it from here:
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/race/sports-cars/the-delta-wing’s-first-test/

But I'll place the text below for all that don't like to click on "links" ;)

The Delta Wing was driven at Buttonwillow by Alex Gurney and Marino Franchitti and more testing will take place over the next few weeks. Hopes are for the car to make its first demonstration laps prior to the Sebring 12 Hours on March 17. The Delta Wing will make its race debut at the Le Mans 24 Hours in June.

Calls to Delta Wing designer Ben Bowlby, the drivers or Dan Gurney were rebuffed with apologies and a refusal to comment. But a source, who was present at the test, said that the car could not have performed better.



“It was really impressive,” he said. “The car looked really stable under acceleration and braking, and it turned perfectly. The drivers said the car was very responsive and stable. There was no understeer and a little controllable oversteer. They said the braking was tremendous too and found they could lock-up the rear brakes without any trouble.

“Seems like there may have been some minor electronic problems like you might expect in a first test,” our man added. “But all the systems performed perfectly and everyone seems to be excited and in very good spirits. For a completely new concept, it was a hell of a first test.”

So ... the relevant news here are:

1 - Alex Gurney, son of Dan Gurney and former Grand Am champion, is probably the 2nd DeltaWing driver (unless he is only doing a test driver role, I find that unlikely)

2 - The test seems to have been positive and promising

3 - Maybe (hoping, hoping) we all get to see the car lapping a demo run at Sebring, before the 12 hours. If they achieve that it'll be awesome!
 
Well, would you look at that! The car actually does perform well. Look like the armchair engineers were wrong.
 
interesting him comparing it to an arrow saying hit has "self correcting" properties.

An arrow has self correcting properties because its center of gravity (due to the length (and arrowhead)) is well ahead of its center of aerodynamic pressure (determined largely by the size, number and placement of fins). Like a weathervane, if the back end gets out of line with the airflow, it will self-correct.

On the Deltawing, if I understand the article, it is hinted that the center of gravity is somewhere between the rear wheels. That sounds little far back to me, but okay maybe it is. So for it to be like a weathervane or arrow, the center of pressure as determined by the body area and fins must be aft of the center of gravity by X%. If the Cg and the Cp are a bit too close together, the vehicle will become unstable. If they are too far apart, it will always try to point directly into the wind, i.e., it won't turn.

There must be very little weight over the nosewheels. I worry that a sharp bump might send the nose skyward. But I agree that the concept of low drag, small size and light weight is a winning formula. Karting is great example.

I've raced a kart a time or two at Buttonwillow. If I remember correctly there is one corner going over a fairly sharp crest. They will be able to gather important data on how the wheel loads change.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
 
NISSAN is not only an engine supplier, it is a full partner. Hence the car being now referred to as the "NISSAN DELTAWING".

(I guess this means we'll get to drive it in GT6) ;)

This video is very interesting. If nothing else, one thing is now clear. These guys are not playing games, they mean business


 
Last edited:
Well, would you look at that! The car actually does perform well. Look like the armchair engineers were wrong.

:odd: We've not seen anything so far to say it performs well.

I hope it does live up to it's expectations. It will be the most innovative race car design in at least 40 years i'd imagine. Mixing up the established design language of single seater/sports prototype racing cars can only lead to further innovations, which is a good thing. 👍

Doesn't change my opinion that it won't work to expectations.
 
It will be the most innovative race car design in at least 40 years i'd imagine.

Revolutionary race cars have a checkered history. I can recall a few:

- Mickey Thompson's rear-engine Indy car with radically small, wide tires. The first low-profile tires.
- Andy Granatelli's STP Turbine Indy car
- Colin Chapman's 4WD Turbine Indy car.
- Several of Jim Hall's Chaparral cars.
- Don Nichols/Trevor Harris Shadow Can-Am car almost the size of a go-kart with tiny wheels.

Obviously some worked well and others didn't. I'm cheering for my old hero, Dan Gurney and his AAR shop. 👍

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
 
Marino Franchitti just revealed the name of another DeltaWing driver, and it is the reigning FIA GT1 champion, Michael_Krumm . Not surprisingly we have a NISSAN man. With Le Mans experience, best result when he drove for Audi in 2002 (3rd).

So, we have:
1. Marino Franchitti - Formerly an Highcroft driver, was going to be announced by Peugeot (replacing Lamy I think) for the 2012 WEC but after the surprise withdrawal by the manufacturer became available and Highcroft got him.

2. Alex Gurney - Grand Am champion, son of Dan Gurney, one of the mentors to this project, he is "the american" in the line up.

3. Michael Krumm - Probably brought by NISSAN, he is an experienced GT class driver (and current champion) but also knows his way around Le Mans.
 
Well props to Nissan for have the testicular fortitude to step up and take a leap of faith by putting their name all over the side of this thing, considering it could be viewed by investment board as a risky investment. funny though... They waited until after the first test was a success to tell everyone they were involved. lol. but anyways, go nissan highcroft!
 
A nice article here

From it I get that the DeltaWing will do some laps at Sebring next Thursday (in 2 days), at 12:30 (local time I presume).

I guess we can expect lots of amateur videos soon.

One thing maybe some of the americans here might help with is this. Franchitti's inboard lap around that track is somewhere between 51 and 52 seconds. Obviously that's a short configuration of the track (Buttonwillow?), and I tried to look for recorded laps (and lap records) of that same track and configuration, but without any luck.

Even if it is a demo run, and presumably he would be able to go a lot faster, how does this DeltaWing's 51,5 seconds lap compare to other types of cars there? Anyone knows?
 
It looks like this variation (the bit highlighted in red) to me, at least from the video (Buttonwillow West Loop). Haven't found any times though. :grumpy:

Untitled-1.jpg


EDIT: Found this, but these are only road cars. :indiff:

http://www.fastestlaps.com/tracks/buttonwillow_west_loop_config_24.html
 
Last edited:
*edit - tree'd!*

Buttonwillow East - 57.6
Buttonwillow West - 1:06.32

(both times in stock road cars)
 
Ok, I have a problem with replies to questions 4 and 5. First, I don't understand how having litle weight at the front makes the car need only a small contact patch to turn. Doesn't downforce "create" weight anyway? Doesn't less weight mean the opposite of what they reply, meaning, the need for a greater "patch" of contact with the road?

Second, and specifically about the reply to question 5, my problem is double: 1) I'm no enginier; 2) I'm not an English native speaker. So ... I just don't understand that reply properly, could anyone more knowledgeable both in engineering and in English help me out? :)

Q4 - Think of the car as a Porsche 911 taken to the extreme. All the weight supported by the rear wheels basically. The fronts only exist to turn the car (and for braking I guess).

Downforce does add weight, but you can control the the balance between front and rear just like with gravitational weight. The difference between downforce and gravity though is mass. Adding weight through gravity means you add mass, which means you need to apply more force to get a given acceleration. Example, you have a 2000 lb car. When you turn the car, the front wheels produce 2x lbs of force. The lateral acceleration is propotional to 2x/2000. If you add a 2000 lb ballst to the car, the front wheels produce 4x lbs of force. In the turn, you get an acceleration of 4x/4000, which is the same as 2x/2000 and it behaves the same*. If instead you add 2000 lbs of downforce, the acceleration in the turn looks like this: 4x/2000, which is double the acceleration in the other cases.

*Non linear tire performance keeps this from happening in real life.


Q5 - Torque from the force generated by the front wheels is what turns the car. Torque = force * moment arm. Moment arm is a distance, and this is the lever talked about in the answer. Placing the cg back makes the distance between the cg and front wheels longer, allowing a smaller force to create the same torque as a larger force with a smaller moment arm.

The slow sections are where aerodynamics have no effect and it's all about mechanical grip so doesn't really effect it not having wings. It's supposed a ground effects car. I don't know much about ground effects hence why I'm skeptical but that would explain the early f1 cars having little wings. Delta wing is such a great mystery. Ill have to see it to believe otherwise lol.

Slow is a relative term. Aerodynamic devices can provide useable downforce at any speed depending on the car. Ground effect is good in that it produce wing level downforce without the drag, but it's sensitive to ground clearance and suspension travel. It probably also has a lot less tolerance for positive angle of attack, where it could easy create lift instead of downforce.


To illustrate these disadvantages I have modelled a rectangular ground effects car which I humbly call the “Machin Wingcar”:-

I really like this guy's design. I think it could be more of a threat to the Delta than current LMP's, though I wouldn't discount current LMP's against the car either. We would probably see LMP's more like the car that this guy proposed if rules were loosened.
 
For those confused by the physics involved, think of a hand cart laying down, like this:
images
, but laying down on it's wheels. Put a lot of weight over the rear (bigger) wheels, and even a little force by the small pivoting front wheels will turn the car quickly. Put the weight over the front wheels and they need to turn much more mass, but can't because of the lower traction. (They need more lateral torque, which is force times lever arm, force is relative to the mass and it's position, for the engineers ;) Just think of the back as the pivot point and the front is where the force is applied. And move a ballast around. Towards the back is easier) I can draw this out in paint if anyone wants me to.

Back to the deltawing design, I see one major problem with this. If the car goes over a bump in the road at speed, it could tend to wheelie or lose traction in the front wheels. Depending on what they have done with the underbody I could see a possible solution to this, but it'd be difficult and may not always work in all conditions, like in Le Mans.

I guess entering in Le Mans would be a good trial by fire for it. Who knows.
 
Back