F1technical.net

In a single make series though.. which is more important? Designing a car with some crazy amount of aero development to squeeze out every ounce of speed... or designing a car which is race-able, affordable, and attractive?

Jersey Tom wrote:In a single make series though.. which is more important? Designing a car with some crazy amount of aero development to squeeze out every ounce of speed... or designing a car which is race-able, affordable, and attractive?

How relevent to road technology and the wider world demands would it be though?
If it is not, then it will have a very short shelf life.

autogyro wrote:

Jersey Tom wrote:In a single make series though.. which is more important? Designing a car with some crazy amount of aero development to squeeze out every ounce of speed... or designing a car which is race-able, affordable, and attractive?

How relevent to road technology and the wider world demands would it be though?
If it is not, then it will have a very short shelf life.

In that respect there is no real racing series that contributes greatly to road technology.

Road car technology can develop just fine without the help of racing. It has and will.

PNSD wrote: Road car technology can develop just fine without the help of racing. It has and will.

And should.




Mod Note: I just merged the two 'New Indycar for 2012' threads. In case someone wonders where their thread went...

autogyro wrote:

Jersey Tom wrote:In a single make series though.. which is more important? Designing a car with some crazy amount of aero development to squeeze out every ounce of speed... or designing a car which is race-able, affordable, and attractive?

How relevent to road technology and the wider world demands would it be though?
If it is not, then it will have a very short shelf life.

As I am fond of saying.. racing never has been, and never has the need to be relevant to consumer technology. Technology is generally developed outside of racing and brought in, not the other way around.

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/ ... -notebook/

See notes on the Deltawing concept.

Just a thought... If this thing is as slippery as he says, but generates the same downforce. Then, cornering speeds would be the same but braking distances would get longer (reduced drag), all other things being the same. (Yes, I realize that the Deltawing concept is claimed to be much lighter which would offset the affect.)

Should the pursuit of more passing opportunities be a major shift in wings vs. ground effects? What if there was a rule requiring the car to have a maximum Cd? Just spec the motor, the overall dimensions, the weight, and a maximum Cd. Have at it...

countersteer wrote:http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/ ... -notebook/

See notes on the Deltawing concept.

Just a thought... If this thing is as slippery as he says, but generates the same downforce. Then, cornering speeds would be the same but braking distances would get longer (reduced drag), all other things being the same. (Yes, I realize that the Deltawing concept is claimed to be much lighter which would offset the affect.)

I think that the speed is not so much different between curent car & delta wing.
more over take will produce because delta shape make trail braking impossible, driver must finish the brake before turn, but acceleration will be better just like what we see in Top Fuel. But the brake distance will still shorter because it is "too" light.

PNSD wrote:

autogyro wrote:

Jersey Tom wrote:In a single make series though.. which is more important? Designing a car with some crazy amount of aero development to squeeze out every ounce of speed... or designing a car which is race-able, affordable, and attractive?

[I vote for race-able, affordable, and attractive]

How relevent to road technology and the wider world demands would it be though?
If it is not, then it will have a very short shelf life.

[No linkage here at all. In fact, production cars are ahead of race cars in terms of technology: direct injection, variable valve timing, variable valve lift, traction control and stability control, etc, etc]

In that respect there is no real racing series that contributes greatly to road technology.

Road car technology can develop just fine without the help of racing. It has and will.

Racing technology trickles down only to VERY limited-production cars -- highest end Ferraris and McLaren road cars come to mind.

You must be joking! There are many, many items in common use today, which owe their developement to F1. Even kers, and paddleshifts, sequential gearboxws etc etc

Other than looks, the Delta wing is starting to make a bit more sense to me, especially the brakes.

Modern race cars are front brake biased, and this is an inherently unstable condition.

The rear bias on the Delta does make some sense, moving the braking bias naturally to the rear of the car.

Giblet wrote:Other than looks, the Delta wing is starting to make a bit more sense to me, especially the brakes.

Modern race cars are front brake biased, and this is an inherently unstable condition.

The rear bias on the Delta does make some sense, moving the braking bias naturally to the rear of the car.

Calling total BS on this. If anything, I would say the opposite. I think anyone who has been in a racing car and used excessive rear brake bias would agree... when they trailbrake a corner and spin out.

Instability under the brakes comes mainly from one of two sources. One is excessive rear brake bias... leaving little lateral capacity and stability on the rear axle and an overpowering amount at the front. The second is load transfer sensitivity of the tires, which is going to exist regardless. All things being equal, adding front brake bias will stabilize the car and move toward understeer under braking.

Moral of the story - don't take DeltaWing's claims at face value. A lot of them, IMO, are total crap.

Especially any claims they make with regard to how the car performs in simulation are complete BS given that the tires do not exist yet. I've heard rumor that the first prototypes were produced within the last month only.

I am no expert, I am merely regurgitating what I read in Motorsport. It could be wrong, but sounds legit to me.

"Normally, more than 50% of the braking comes from in front of the center of gravity, and that is an unstable condition where you have to be terribly careful not to lock the rear brakes. The reality is that the front tires give us incredibly responsive directional change. This is because there is very little inertia and very little mass, and the tires are tuned to that mass so we have an optimized, highly responsive car" - Gordon Kirby, Motorsport Magazine, April 2010 issue.

Giblet wrote:Modern race cars are front brake biased, and this is an inherently unstable condition.

It's simple. With 50-50 weight dist. you need more than 50% front brake balance as the rear goes lighter under deceleration. I highly doubt that any racing car (even rear engined) would be safe to drive with rearwards brake dist.
Aren't you a simracer? You should know what happens if there's too much rear braking.

EDIT: Obviously if the DW weight distribution is extremely rearwards then the brake balance is adjusted accordingly to achieve maximum efficiency. But in any case you'll end up with an unstable condition where you have to be terribly careful not to lock the rear brakes.

super narrow front track, Rear brake> front brake, 72% of weight & Down force on rear wheel, but can drive well

could I say that this design is put all the wrong thing together to make it right?

Pandamasque wrote:

Giblet wrote:Modern race cars are front brake biased, and this is an inherently unstable condition.

It's simple. With 50-50 weight dist. you need more than 50% front brake balance as the rear goes lighter under deceleration. I highly doubt that any racing car (even rear engined) would be safe to drive with rearwards brake dist.
Aren't you a simracer? You should know what happens if there's too much rear braking.

EDIT: Obviously if the DW weight distribution is extremely rearwards then the brake balance is adjusted accordingly to achieve maximum efficiency. But in any case you'll end up with an unstable condition where you have to be terribly careful not to lock the rear brakes.

So in this car, it would be the opposite, the front's would be the ones you would worry about locking the most?

I am a sim racer, but I'm sort of Kimi-like. I just drive and let the techies figure out the technical. I'm not great at setup work. I have a lot to learn.