The first ACTUAL pic of the DeltaWing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken

this is where i get hung up on the entire project related to cost...

one actual builders get hold of the basic 'conceptual plans'.....and reengineer it ... tweak it test modify it update it build and deliver it I dont believe the projected 1/4 to 1/2 cost for a second.......

---

That is valid....but at some point this controlling of cost is just a myth in my books anyhow. The only way you control cost is to have a spec series, which all but a few of us DON'T want.....

AT some point, people have to wake up and realize that racing is expensive, and how fast you want to go is related to how much you want to spend. Penske and Ganassi won all but one race last year in a series where there is cost containment and everyone races the same car. Obviously money still buys speed anyhow.....

Money gets you to the race track, anyhow, Mark. That's why cost containment is a big issue, especially now. It, sadly, ain't the '50s and '60s anymore.

Much bigger fan of the Swift.

Sorry, the NASCAR reference was about teams merging, e.g.

DEI absorbed another team (MB2?), and then merged with Ganassi and gone from running approx 8 cars between the 3 teams, to just 2.
Evernham merged with Petty and then with Yates, probably halfing the number of cars run between them.

The only Champ Car team merger I remember was RuSport/Rocketsports.

I'm not debating IndyCar is in a far more dire state than NASCAR, but team mergers have hit NASCAR far more than IndyCar, especially considering de Ferran wasn't here before anyway, so we haven't lost a car (and might gain one if they are able to expand to two as a result)

This all seems like a Berniesque type publicity stunt.

This bugger is never going to see the light of day as a human driven race car; unless they move the Indy 500 to the IRP Drag Strip or to the Bonneville Salt Flats.

Just one man's opinion.

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but everyone on here saying that the thing won't turn is slapping Ben Bowlby right in the face. Considering this man does this for a living, and knows whether this thing will turn or not, I'm willing to throw my trust behind him. Maybe you should atleast give him the benefit of the doubt that the car will turn when he says it will.

I agree, all of the criticism of the car is about how it looks. We have very little idea what is under the skin to make the car perform. Somewhat silly to suggest that they didn't look at all the tracks it will race on, to make sure it can go around the turns. Seems pretty basic. If it can make it through the hairpin at Long Beach, that about covers it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V12

Sorry, the NASCAR reference was about teams merging, e.g.

DEI absorbed another team (MB2?), and then merged with Ganassi and gone from running approx 8 cars between the 3 teams, to just 2.
Evernham merged with Petty and then with Yates, probably halfing the number of cars run between them.

The only Champ Car team merger I remember was RuSport/Rocketsports.

I'm not debating IndyCar is in a far more dire state than NASCAR, but team mergers have hit NASCAR far more than IndyCar, especially considering de Ferran wasn't here before anyway, so we haven't lost a car (and might gain one if they are able to expand to two as a result)

---

Nothing to be sorry about, he knew full well what the reference was.

Gary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chamoo

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but everyone on here saying that the thing won't turn is slapping Ben Bowlby right in the face. Considering this man does this for a living, and knows whether this thing will turn or not, I'm willing to throw my trust behind him. Maybe you should atleast give him the benefit of the doubt that the car will turn when he says it will.

---

What? You mean all these doubters don't have x-ray vision and telepathic powers to examine the car in detail from the comfort of their overstuffed arm chairs. Say it ain't so! I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you!

Gary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V12

Sorry, the NASCAR reference was about teams merging, e.g.

DEI absorbed another team (MB2?), and then merged with Ganassi and gone from running approx 8 cars between the 3 teams, to just 2.
Evernham merged with Petty and then with Yates, probably halfing the number of cars run between them.

The only Champ Car team merger I remember was RuSport/Rocketsports.

I'm not debating IndyCar is in a far more dire state than NASCAR, but team mergers have hit NASCAR far more than IndyCar, especially considering de Ferran wasn't here before anyway, so we haven't lost a car (and might gain one if they are able to expand to two as a result)

---

In NASCAR they had more to merge....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garyshell

What? You mean all these doubters don't have x-ray vision and telepathic powers to examine the car in detail from the comfort of their overstuffed arm chairs. Say it ain't so! I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you!

Gary

---

You don't need X-Ray vision, just a bit of knowlege of physics. That thing will not turn if it only has conventional type steering. Why do you think dragsters, and land speed record cars are built like that?

Now the thing that this car does have going for it is the "differential steering". That should help it quite a bit, as long as it doesn't go haywire. But hey, when was the last time something on a race car didn't work exaclty as it was supposed to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chamoo

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but everyone on here saying that the thing won't turn is slapping Ben Bowlby right in the face. Considering this man does this for a living, and knows whether this thing will turn or not, I'm willing to throw my trust behind him. Maybe you should atleast give him the benefit of the doubt that the car will turn when he says it will.

---

Ben Bowlby himself said that this is just a concept. And even Ben Bowlby cannot change the laws of physics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

You don't need X-Ray vision, just a bit of knowlege of physics. That thing will not turn if it only has conventional type steering. Why do you think dragsters, and land speed record cars are built like that?

Now the thing that this car does have going for it is the "differential steering". That should help it quite a bit, as long as it doesn't go haywire. But hey, when was the last time something on a race car didn't work exaclty as it was supposed to?

---

Bowlby said it would have conventional steering (=via the front wheels).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

Bowlby said it would have conventional steering (=via the front wheels).

---

Got quote? All reports I read said differential steering.

Gary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

You don't need X-Ray vision, just a bit of knowlege of physics. That thing will not turn if it only has conventional type steering. Why do you think dragsters, and land speed record cars are built like that?

---

Wow really? Gee, I never would have known. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Now the thing that this car does have going for it is the "differential steering". That should help it quite a bit, as long as it doesn't go haywire. But hey, when was the last time something on a race car didn't work exaclty as it was supposed to?

---

Well, hell then lets take the wings, brakes, fuel valves etc off the cars. None of this new fangled technology stuff can be trusted at all.

Gary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garyshell

Well, hell then lets take the wings, brakes, fuel valves etc off the cars. None of this new fangled technology stuff can be trusted at all.

---

I'm not saying that it can't be trusted. Just that it is something new, and must go through a pretty exhausting testing phase before I'll put my total trust in it.

Remember that in the 60's lots of wings failed. Same goes for all the other "new" stuff. Again, I'm not saying that it won't work, just that I'd need to see quite a bit of testing before I'd put my total faith in it (ie: run a whole series dependent on this tech.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I'm not saying that it can't be trusted. Just that it is something new, and must go through a pretty exhausting testing phase before I'll put my total trust in it.

Remember that in the 60's lots of wings failed. Same goes for all the other "new" stuff. Again, I'm not saying that it won't work, just that I'd need to see quite a bit of testing before I'd put my total faith in it (ie: run a whole series dependent on this tech.)

---

Chuck, you make a good point. Innovation is a wonderful thing - but it could be very dangerous in a spec series. The 60's were great because there were a lot of cars that tried new ideas and fundamentally failed - which is fine for 1 car but not for a field of them.... There are also lots of ideas tried on cars that basically failed that were later integrated into highly successful cars....

I like the concept behind the Delta wing - perhaps not so much the exact look - but they are going ot have to be very careful to make sure everything is PERFECT if it is going to be another spec car.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garyshell

Got quote? All reports I read said differential steering.

Gary

---

He said it on the radio, I think on Trackside with Curt Cavin.

I think the worries about the steering is a VERY valid point. It is the one thing that I view about this car that I do find questions with is the steering. Bowlby's contention that differential steering would help sounds a little too Star Wars for my taste.

That I think will be the change that will happen to this concept when the car hits the track. The Deltawing will likely have a shorter nose, wider front track and more conventional ideas. I think the steering is one thing but I also now think the suspension and tracking of that front end will be more complicated in that front end. That said...he is the engineer, I am just a track rat. Let him continue on...his claims and ideas are refreshing..and god knows this sport needs a clearing of the air on ideas.

From Popoffvalve.com

Delta Wing Variation

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

I think this picture shows a little more realistic look at the concept, thanks for the link Chamoo...

---

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 chuck34

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? ;-)

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken

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.

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....

I bet they could make a wider front clip for road courses only. And for ovals reconfigure the car into a slim front end.

The purpose of efficiency is more for promotional value more than genuine contribution to green movements. That's only my opinion.

You know those CSX freight train commercials you see all over television now? Claims of moving 1 ton over 400+ miles per gallon of diesel fuel? I'm pretty sure that is pretty optimistic even at peak efficiency. That is, not taking into account starting off, getting up to speed, crosswind resistance, blah blah, etc etc. It's a great attention getter - but not reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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.

---

+1 on that. If the design goal was to set a closed course land speed record, no one would be second guessing Bowlby. There is no good data on how effective a narrow front track car with an extreme rear weight bias would be in a track racing situation. There is data that indicates the narrow front track will be a problem, so it's only reasonable to be sceptical. No one is currently using differential steering in a high speed environment, so until it is proven to work, this car is nothing more than a design exercise.

I see on AR1's home page that there are some CFD images of the Delta Wing. Are these available to the public (i.e. non subscribers)? If so, where can they be obtained? I'm interested to see what conventional RANS models make of the body shape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken

Oh come on mark....your the guy who took a mockup from a forumfan and claimed it to be more 'realistic'

---

???? Don't recall that...but then again, unlike some, I admit I get things wrong.

It just makes me laugh that guys are judging the engineering without seeing it. I remain skeptical, but I would like to know what Bowlby did before judging him.

Back on post 219....

Did you not claim a photoshoped version of the dw created by a memeber of another forum was a more realistic interpretaion of the concept

?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken

Back on post 219....

Did you not claim a photoshoped version of the dw created by a memeber of another forum was a more realistic interpretaion of the concept

?

---

Right...well you have me on that one. My point was and is tho this guy didn't fall off the turnip truck and he is presenting us with a concept, not a done deal. I would like to see what he has planned. My comment on the photoshopped pic being more realistic is likely what might happen but, I am not so skeptical to think Bowlby's ideas WONT work, as many have asserted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chamoo

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.

---

And?

Colin Chapman designed the Lotus 49, 72, 79 and followed them up with the Lotus 63, 76, 80 respectively.

Jim Hall followed the 2 E/F/G with the 2H.

I could keep going and bring up Maurice Philippe, John Barnard, Nigel Bennett, Alan Jenkins, and so on, all had great designs that had flops that followed.