Delta Wing Project

[Brad Zarse]

Why is everyone so negative about something which is trying to break new ground? 

Surely this project is the very essence of everything that racing fanatics stand for?  OK, it might not work, but to call it a death trap?  On what grounds?  It has to pass the same safety tests as any other race car, so it can't be THAT much of a death trap. 

It strikes me, that everyone's an expert when it comes to something different.  I've seen SO much negativity from people (not just on here - everywhere) about how this project is going to fail, how it could never work.  Of those people I doubt any of them are specialist race car designers (indeed the only race car designer I know, takes the same view as me - wait and see how it runs before condemning it to the scrap heap.)

Ultimately, at the very least it's a concept that will either be proved and the whole world will be racing them, or it will fail - But rather than write it off, why not actually see if it works first?  Afterall, they said Man would never fly and would never land on the moon.... sometimes the ideas that everyone thinks won't work, are the ones which set new benchmarks....   

[Barry]

Physics.

[Grand_Fromage]

I'm completely in favour of innovation and novelty in motorsport, but when something looks right it generally works, and when it looks ugly it usually doesn't. After 100 years of the development of racing machines, nobody has yet improved on a wheel at each corner.

Why is everyone so negative about something which is trying to break new ground? 

Surely this project is the very essence of everything that racing fanatics stand for?  OK, it might not work, but to call it a death trap?  On what grounds?  It has to pass the same safety tests as any other race car, so it can't be THAT much of a death trap. 

It strikes me, that everyone's an expert when it comes to something different.  I've seen SO much negativity from people (not just on here - everywhere) about how this project is going to fail, how it could never work.  Of those people I doubt any of them are specialist race car designers (indeed the only race car designer I know, takes the same view as me - wait and see how it runs before condemning it to the scrap heap.)

Ultimately, at the very least it's a concept that will either be proved and the whole world will be racing them, or it will fail - But rather than write it off, why not actually see if it works first?  Afterall, they said Man would never fly and would never land on the moon.... sometimes the ideas that everyone thinks won't work, are the ones which set new benchmarks....   

[Brad Zarse]

I'm completely in favour of innovation and novelty in motorsport, but when something looks right it generally works, and when it looks ugly it usually doesn't. After 100 years of the development of racing machines, nobody has yet improved on a wheel at each corner.

That's not entirely true - Ken Tyrrell came up with a concept which was much better than a wheel at each corner in the P34.  In fact, if that concept had been allowed to continue, we would probably have seen cars with up to 12 wheels.  Unfortunately, much like this project, people dismissed the idea of cars being different, and the FIA ruled that cars should be "conventional" - because they are a bunch of deluded fuddy duddies, who don't like change. 

Science can't explain everything - the speed of light was once thought unbreakable - since proven not to be the case.  Right now, 3 wheels being a balanced and raceable option seems unlikely, but how about people wait and see if they can make it work, before dismissing it out of hand?   If we all kept thinking inside the box all of our lives, we'd never get anywhere.  Who knows -  if the FIA hadn't been so blinkered, someone probably would have come up with a tracks based system that allowed F1 cars to corner flat out - in turn, this technology could easily have found its way onto our road cars, and have re-defined the way in which we think about driving.  Think about it - if the FIA had let those ideas develop, the possibilities of where we could be now, could have been enourmous.

Can you tell my perspective of what is, and isn't possible has been re-aligned by recent events in my life?

[Barry]

Most of the multi wheel concepts were ditched for one reason, the time it took for a wheel change.
Speed of light, latest reports point at equipment irregularities, Einstein's theories still safe, keep up at the back.
Gut feeling, a car which looks right is usually fast , ie Audi Peugeot, Porsche, Lola, Corvette etc.
A car which looks wrong isn't, ie AMR1, which looked a dog from the start.
This car looks wrong, if it gets a set of iffy set of tyres and gets under steer it will end up in LM town centre, IMHO it will not make the race.
A tyre at each corner works, proven. 2 front tyres close together = reliant robin.
It's going to fly, but not in a good sense.

[Chris24]

Going to reserve judgement on this until it runs properly but a mate had a good chat with the designer at Petit and when he said can i ask a question, the designer replied. You are going to ask me if it will corner aren't you.  "The answer is absolutely yes it will corner, it is actually more stable than a contentional car with a wheel on each corner."

Well the designer is convinced by his maths or whatever a computer said. We are all judging it too early based entirely on how it looks and how we don't like to think out of the box. Maybe it will be sh*t, but it may completely surprise us all and be a really good car.

My main cornern is the driver judging the width of his car when all he sees is the front end and can't judge how wide the back end is when overtaking another car.

[Grand_Fromage]

The DW has two major hurdles. It needs to pass scrutineers, and then if it does make it onto the track on test day, it will have to show that it can coexist on the track with more conventional cars. It is bound to take a different line through corners, and it is likely to be destabilised by vortices from other cars.

The word 'science' just means 'knowledge', but science also encompasses the 'scientific method' and knowledge based on evidence and experimental results. It looks to me like the DW is a shot in the dark, designed more on faith, hope and assumption than science. If you reject science you reject evidence-based decision making. All you have left is guesswork and even if you are lucky and you do guess right, you'll have no idea why, so you'll never be able to repeat your success.

[Boorish Grobian]

I applaud your enthusiasm for the project Brad, your right, most of what we consider conventional racing technology once started out as something radical.  You mention the Tyrrell P34, it worked initially, but was complicated, heavy, over-steered like a pig, and ultimately was done in by advances in tire technology (and the fact that Goodyear couldn't afford to make special front tires for them, and another front tire for everyone else) made it redundant.
My biggest gripe with this turkey is that its come off as a publicity stunt from the start. Originally proposed to be the new generation Indycar (which screams gimmicky & PR stunt as soon as that name gets mentioned), that got shot down, so presto! They add another seat, and headlights, and its a sportscar?  There have been far more ideas that bore the quote "Our computations say it will work" that have failed miserably, than have gone on to be the next Lotus 79, or Williams FW14B.
See you in Florida in next week.
Fax

[Lazy B'stard]

I'm with Fax on this one. It's a turkey.

It's one thing designing a car to work on relativly smooth short circuits like those in the Indy series, but getting it to work on a bumpy and heavily rutted French public road is another matter altogether.

To me it looks like they spent lots of time and money trying to make this the new indy car, and then once rejected, desperately looked around to see where they could recoup that time and money, by turning it into something it should never have been.

Call me cynical, but there is a nasty element creeping into our favourite race. It's about money, not winning. Look at JLOC and Aston Martin- they both knew they had a rubbish car but went there anyway. They didn't go there to win, they went there for commercial reasons, and that is wrong.

Yes, the big teams such as Audi, Pug and Toyota also have commercial reasons for competing at Le Mans, but their money comes from success driving sales, not the short term financial gain of just being there.

I'd rather have seen Lord Drayson's new Lola at LM this year. That's a car that is chock full of new technology that will have relevance in automotive advancement.

Si

[lofty]

rolls only made one 6 wheeled car as far as i know.it was pink.caterpillers make a horrible noise on tarmac.even at 4 miles an hour.the fia didnt to ban them.they didnt work for the road.hollywood preferes humvees over saracens.but ....we will see

[Brad Zarse]

Don't get me wrong - I think it looks wrong too - but I don't know that it won't work, because I'm not a designer, or an aerodynamics guru - In fact, like most people who have an opinion on it, I actually don't know anything about racing car development, other than what pleases my eye, and what has historically been successful.

As for the multi-wheel format - The FIA banned them, stating that cars must have 4 wheels, after someone mentioned the possibility of running 12 wheels!   Williams were developing what looked like a very competitive 6 wheel car at the end of the season in which the P34 ran - right up until they were banned - Ultimately, at that time, all Formula 1 cars were comparatively heavy - and in comparison to the complexities of a modern F1 car, the P34 looks positively antique!  Nothing is too complex for engineers to get their heads around given the right amount of time. 

It is times like this, that I think it would be interesting if there was some kind of parrallel dimension in the universe, where the FIA  had encouraged the development of the multi-wheel technology - I would bet that the "butterfly" effect on how we perceive conventional road cars, and racing cars would be very different if that was the case. 

[Grand_Fromage]

http://www.freakingnews.com/Three-wheeled-Cars-Pictures--1007.asp

[Boorish Grobian]

Actually Brad, Tyrrell threw in the towel on the P34 project at the end of 1977, they experimented with all sorts of track, wheelbase, and radiator configuration ideas to try and get it to work, and it mostly just put on weight.  It won in Sweden in 1976 in the hands of Jody Sheckter, but by '77 they were struggling against the newer generation of conventional car-tire combinations, especailly when Lotus introduced the 78, and ground effects was born.  Also as mentioned, Goodyear was having trouble maintaining development of the small front wheels unique to the P34, especially in light of Michelin joining the battle
The Williams you refer to was an experiment tried on a FW07 in winter 1982-82 pre-season testing, and they went as far as to build a FW08 in that configuration.  Williams opting for four rear wheels, rather than front.  The theory being better use of power delivery.  HOWEVER, there were all sorts of problems building a gearbox that would cope with power being delivered through four wheels.  March built a similar car but most people thought of it as a leg pull, and I don't think it ever actually ran.  The FIA did finally put the kabosh on more than six wheels in 1982.
Fax

[Brad Zarse]

I always thought that March handled really badly....

But then, my one was only driven at the two rear wheels

 

[Rhino]

I do not get the Delta wing. If it was built to the same dimensions as the LMP cars i.e. weight, length and tunnel size, but still with narrow track at the front and proved quicker i would be impressed. Instead it runs to a different set of rule. If you want to showcase new technology then the moulded battery technology used in the Drayson Lola would be better. But too quiet! I just do not get the Delta wing.
The Williams 6 wheeler if i remember right ran 4 rear wheels the same height as the front. This made for better aerodynamics and it's lap time or projected lap time round Paul Ricard with it's long straight meant it would have been seconds quicker than anything else.