Red Bull X2011 prototype vs. Nissan DeltaWing

  • Thread starter Thread starter ITCC_Andrew
  • 21 comments
  • 8,181 views
ITCC_Andrew

ITCC_Andrew

(Banned)
Messages
18,532
Canada
Kitchener
Hi all,

After reading the Top Gear thoughts on the DeltaWing (an interview with the designer,) I'm left wondering about why the fuel wear is so poor on the X2011, (you can get more laps out of a set of tires, than you can out of a full tank of fuel.)


Obviously, it seems a bit wrong, that the Red Bull designers went that crazy with the build, for horsepower, that the fuel wear is so poor as it is.


As far as I know, every car in GT5 gets a 100 litre fuel tank. To see the fuel tank of the X2011 gone in 7 laps of Laguna Seca (about 20 km?) suggests that the entire 100 litre fuel load was burned in 20 km. 5 litres of fuel per kilometre?


The only real difference, (asides from the tire configuration,) is the downforce. Is the active downforce (vacuum pressure being created through air pumps or such) really that bad on gas?


And, at the other end of the spectrum, there's a car (the Nissan DeltaWing) which uses half the fuel of LMP2 cars. (For a decent reading on that, go check out the fuel wear on a Pescarolo, and then divide the fuel wear in 2.)


THAT, is astonishing. I'm not going to say that the DeltaWing is faster than the Red Bull X2011 prototype, in terms of outright speed, but, the stark contrast in efficiency is astonishing.


Anyways, you can read my source here. (click here)
 
MrMelancholy15
The only real difference, (asides from the tire configuration,) is the downforce.
Click to expand...

I'd call having a 200hp 1.6 litre, 4 cylinder engine powering a 375kg car to sub-LMP2 laptimes a "real difference" from having a 1,500hp, 2.4 litre, 8 cylinder engine powering a 600kg car to laptimes 60% quicker than F1 cars.

But I'm a bit mental like that.
 
Famine
... 200hp ...
Click to expand...

I think it's 300hp. In any case, There's nothing comparable in the purely virtual X2011 and the DeltaWing. The X2011 is intended to represent the fastest you may go with current technology. THe DeltaWing is intended to show you can go as fast as a given spec (in this case, LMP2) using half the resources.
 
Famine
I'd call having a 200hp 1.6 litre, 4 cylinder engine powering a 375kg car to sub-LMP2 laptimes a "real difference" from having a 1,500hp, 2.4 litre, 8 cylinder engine powering a 600kg car to laptimes 60% quicker than F1 cars.

But I'm a bit mental like that.
Click to expand...

The X2011 is 550 kg, and the DeltaWing is 300 hp at 475 kg.


Asides from the specifications, which make the differences abundantly clear, I'm thinking about the philosophical aspect; the "two people with two completely different ideas of what the future of racing holds."


While one group tries to re-invent the human body's tolerance to g-forces :lol:, the other group tries to reinvent "the laws of physics."


I'm going to open it up to speculation; will the future of motorsports be headed towards a series as imagined by the designers of the X2011, or a series as imagined by the designers of the DeltaWing? Will efficiency or speed be the future of motorsports?
 
I think the fact that one of them exists and will race the LM 24, while the other is as real as any F-Zero or Wipeout "car" ... speaks for itself.
 
It has been a while since I've used the X2011 but I think it gets more laps than that. I think I will have to test this.
 
MrMelancholy15
While one group tries to re-invent the human body's tolerance to g-forces :lol:, the other group tries to reinvent "the laws of physics."
Click to expand...

A wide-front end to a car is not a law of physics. In actual fact what on earth does the X2010/2011 have to do with g-forces? Its meant to be the fastest car period regardless of g-force, safety, etc.

The one thing both cars have in common is that they are an answer to a question that has an easy answer. Can you design a 250mph+ formula car virtually? Yes very easily. Can you beat LMP2 cars with a car that doesn't meet their regulations? Should do - if the ACO didn't limit how well it can perform.

Neither of these cars is particularly ground-breaking.
 
Alright, I agree with that logic as well. But, while it's not a law of physics, it is uncommon to see a car with a thin front end.
 
Doesn't it also have a gas turbine for an engine?
That would PROBABLY hurt fuel economy. ;)
 
Last edited:
It has a 3.0L Twin-turbo V6, with a gas turbine, the fuel consumption at full throttle will be comparable to a similar reciprocating engine, it's just that the turbines consume more fuel at idle.

As for which will actually go ahead, I'm pretty sure efficiency will take precedence over speed. Speeds will probably keep on being reduced.
 
Danger in high speeds.
The only time that too many g-forces are a problem is for something like an Indycar at Texas. Kart shop owner said that they were down in Texas years ago when the cars were actually fast, and the drivers were getting sick from the g-forces. Starting to black out and stuff.
 
So, obviously the Red Bull car is not likely to *ever* become a real race car. It's too much like a fighter jet, not enough like a car. The g-forces alone make it comparable more with a jet fighter.


And, well, jet fighters have systems in place to help a driver survive the intense g-forces. I haven't heard of a race car fitted with any of those things yet.
 
MrMelancholy15
And, well, jet fighters have systems in place to help a driver survive the intense g-forces. I haven't heard of a race car fitted with any of those things yet.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the racing equivalent of a G-Suit could be developed quite easily (in the 'unlikelihood' that Red Bull actually build the x1 :sly:)
 
TayTheDay
I'm sure the racing equivalent of a G-Suit could be developed quite easily (in the 'unlikelihood' that Red Bull actually build the x1 :sly:)
Click to expand...

:lol: It is unlikely, without a doubt.


I'm juts curious, as to the sentiments people have about speed/efficiency, too. In your personal opinion, is it more important to develop faster cars, or more efficient cars, or is it cool to try to do both, at the same time? Or, maybe it's best to make safer race cars, so the technology could be used on the streets?


Or, is there some completely different direction, that you believe/want to see racing pulled into?
 
MrMelancholy15
I'm juts curious, as to the sentiments people have about speed/efficiency, too. In your personal opinion, is it more important to develop faster cars, or more efficient cars, or is it cool to try to do both, at the same time? Or, maybe it's best to make safer race cars, so the technology could be used on the streets?


Or, is there some completely different direction, that you believe/want to see racing pulled into?
Click to expand...

I think as fans, most of us would like to see progression of speed in racing (Obviously within the limits of what is deemed 'safe') ...I guess we just crave the excitement like that but safety should always be at the top of the pile.

I love the whole, 'No sugar, same great taste' philosophy of the Deltawing! If they achieve what they set out to do then maybe people will stop crying about the revised F1 regulations for 2014 :sly:
 

Latest Posts

Back