F1technical.net

This might have been from RCE. I found it in a collection of Mark Ortiz's article online...He usually writes "The Consultant" on RCE:

http://www.eviltwinmotorsports.com/wp/w ... 011.10.pdf

Its specifically on Delta Wing and its relevance(or lack thereof)....

Just noticed from another thread that the Le Mans practice times are in:- The Deltawing putting in a time that is 6 seconds off the pace of the leading LMP2 car... now I know that the Deltawing is a new car and the LMP2's have had a fair amount of development, but on the raw stats alone (ignoring the wheel-layout side of things) you'd think that it should be faster:-

The Deltawing has: More power to weight, More power to drag and more downforce to weight.... it will be interesting to see if in the course of the next few weeks they can re-dress this balance... maybe LMP2 vs. Deltawing is going to be the main point of interest in the race...?

Autosport this week have a short article on the Deltawing; apparently they're not running with the Torque Vectoring Diff anymore due to lack of development time. I think this is a good thing because this technology would also benefit the rectangular cars, so running it on Deltawing would potentially mask the actual differences between the delta and rectangular wheel layouts.

machin wrote:Autosport this week have a short article on the Deltawing; apparently they're not running with the Torque Vectoring Diff anymore due to lack of development time. I think this is a good thing because this technology would also benefit the rectangular cars, so running it on Deltawing would potentially mask the actual differences between the delta and rectangular wheel layouts.

Bowlby and Jim Hamilton were emphasising the importance of the torque vectoring diff for the concept to work ....so why not using it?

I didn't think that was the case and I found this on autoweek;

The differential has capacity for vectoring torque to either wheel
(or for remaining open), but the car is stable without that torque
vectoring.
“Our intention is to make the tuning of the car's balance driver-
adjustable,” Bowlby said. “That's a slightly lofty goal at the
moment, but all of our simulations have been done without
torque vectoring.”

full article here; http://www.autoweek.com/article/2012030 ... =mobileart

Can you provide a link where they say contray to this?

machin wrote:Autosport this week have a short article on the Deltawing; apparently they're not running with the Torque Vectoring Diff anymore due to lack of development time. I think this is a good thing because this technology would also benefit the rectangular cars, so running it on Deltawing would potentially mask the actual differences between the delta and rectangular wheel layouts.

from the Highcroft FB, they said that they didn't climb the kerb, they didn't chase the lap time, the fuel tank is always more than half, and using the same tires in 2 days. so I think they should be faster then what we see

That is a small engine they have in there

[youtube]www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew1RKXOuSxY[/youtube]

Scania wrote: they didn't climb the kerb, they didn't chase the lap time, the fuel tank is always more than half, and using the same tires in 2 days. so I think they should be faster then what we see

I think so too; With 20% more power per ton, 47% more power to drag, and 50% more downforce per ton it should be way quicker than LMP2....

machin wrote:

Scania wrote: they didn't climb the kerb, they didn't chase the lap time, the fuel tank is always more than half, and using the same tires in 2 days. so I think they should be faster then what we see

I think so too; With 20% more power per ton, 47% more power to drag, and 26% more downforce per ton it should be way quicker than LMP2....

but their "target Time" is 3:45, so I don't think they will going too fast, maybe 42-43, the best.
but they can gain the time in pit stop---shorter time for refill fuel & no need to change tire every time, so I still think that they can beat LMP2 if they finish the race

1 more advantage, the test drivers said that DW is so easy to drive, in a 24hr race, the focus & physical are so important, a easy drive car means they can still go fast even the drives are not in the best performance

it was in the ltest issue of RCE mag methinks.
http://elcorteingles-es.zinio.com/page/ ... cat1960016

marcush. wrote:it was in the ltest issue of RCE mag methinks.
http://elcorteingles-es.zinio.com/page/ ... cat1960016

The only quote I can find on torque vectoring says its not required:-

May issue of RE wrote:Intelligent torque vectoring as Bowlby calls it, could also be fully enabled in time for the 24-hour race but, in testing, the teams and its driver were quite pleased with the open differential currently being used

scania wrote:but their "target Time" is 3:45, so I don't think they will going too fast, maybe 42-43, the best.

Regardless of "targets", surely you've got to admit that a race car with 20% more power per ton, 47% more power to drag, and 50% more downforce per ton and yet which is still slower shows there must be a serious flaw in the design somewhere unless those figures are wrong (they've been calculated from data released by the Deltawing team)?... however, we don't know its slower yet... only time will tell....

machin wrote:

marcush. wrote:it was in the ltest issue of RCE mag methinks.
http://elcorteingles-es.zinio.com/page/ ... cat1960016

The only quote I can find on torque vectoring says its not required:-

May issue of RE wrote:Intelligent torque vectoring as Bowlby calls it, could also be fully enabled in time for the 24-hour race but, in testing, the teams and its driver were quite pleased with the open differential currently being used

scania wrote:but their "target Time" is 3:45, so I don't think they will going too fast, maybe 42-43, the best.

Regardless of "targets", surely you've got to admit that a race car with 20% more power per ton, 47% more power to drag, and 26% more downforce per ton and yet which is still slower shows there must be a serious flaw in the design somewhere unless those figures are wrong (they've been calculated from data released by the Deltawing team)?... however, we don't know its slower yet... only time will tell....

and Deltawing was only built in less then 1 year from none, and no body really know how to set the car is the best, so it is not surprise to see DW can't beat LMP2 on lap time even it is so good. we need more time to learn to make it perfect.

Scania, are you on the Delta wing race team?

Scania wrote:and Deltawing was only built in less then 1 year from none, and no body really know how to set the car is the best, so it is not surprise to see DW can't beat LMP2 on lap time even it is so good. we need more time to learn to make it perfect.

An admittedly blunt observation, but you've come across as extremely defensive and lacking on objectivity with regard to the DW since Day 1.

The car has been in development for some time. Should be plenty of data with which to run plenty of sims. There's been test time. When are we going to start to be realists, here?

the tire was only designed on simulation, no road test while developing, maybe is the reason y it a little bit slow