I think this picture shows a little more realistic look at the concept, thanks for the link Chamoo...
Printable View
I think this picture shows a little more realistic look at the concept, thanks for the link Chamoo...
mark.....why do think some fans reworked mock-up of the ACTUAL model that deltawingLLc rolled is more realistic?
The problem is that it didn't change anything in any substantal way. Yes, it looks different (maybe a bit better). But it still has the same basic steering flaws, too long a wheel base and too narrow a front track. THAT is what I see as a fault with it, the dynamics of the thing, not the looks. But then again I'm an engineer not an artist, so what do I know? ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Chuck, you are saying what many people are saying about the car not turning and the long wheel base being bad. I'm not trying to sound like a prick, but you and everyone else saying these things is basically calling Ben Bowlby a liar. This man just put in a year working on this thing. If he says it will turn, I believe him. If he says it will be stable, I believe him.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Have some faith in the man.
Again, this isn't a personal shot at you Chuck, not trying to pick you out of the crowd, you just happened to be the last person to post in this thread lol.
Has an engineer ever been wrong?
I see your point Ken. However, this is a man who penned the Lola B03/00. A man who Chip Ganassi trusted with this project.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken
Bowlby is more or less staking his reputation on this project. He just spent a full year working on this. I just feel that when he says the car will turn, the car will turn.
When non-engineers trying telling an engineer he is wrong, it usually doesn't go in the non-engineers favor.
Chamoo, you and I keep pointing out Bowlby is an engineer who designed race cars, and these guys will stand around saying "ummm I don't think so" but until the car is reality, we have only Bowlby to go by.
I am with you, he has too much at stake reputation wise. Just rememeber, "experts" can be wrong, but they are "experts" usually for a reason....
Oh come on mark....your the guy who took a mockup from a forumfan and claimed it to be more 'realistic'
Listen guys, for the record, I am an engineer. I don't want to tell you exactly what I do, but it is related to the race industry. I do know some things about vehicle dynamics. Not as much as Bowlby, but some. Bowlby has designed great cars before, but to hold him up as someone who can not ever make a mistake, even big mistakes, is foolish.
I have never said that this design won't work. It will work as long as this new, never been tested in race conditions, very complicated, electronically controled differential steering works. All I'm saying is that VERY EXTENSIVE TESTING needs to be done on this system before I'd go staking the entire series on this thing.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Just to put thing in perspective:
Smokey Yunick had the "side car"
Harry Miller had the Miller-Ford and later the Gulf-Miller
Colin Chapman had numerous failures amongst many brilliant cars....
Maurice Phillipe designed the Louts 72 and then the first Parnelli Indycar (the one with the funky wings that was a flop)
John Barnard had a couple of flops in there...
My point is that engineers/designers get it wrong - sometimes in a big and apparently obvious way... To defend Bowlby blindly is the same as saying the concept is junk blindly....
The steering concerns seems pretty valid to me... it is pretty easy to see these cars at an oval - much more difficult to see them in the Long Beach hairpin....
You can respect the engineer and still want to see his ideas proven....