The first ACTUAL pic of the DeltaWing

What if the car was more of a cross between the concept and this Honda F1 modified for Bonneville?

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/a...-car-ever.html

Wider front wheel stance, some form of front wing, but the larger rear fin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Was the Turbine car an Indy car? Was Brabham's Cooper in 61 an Indycar? People at the Speedway said no, but both were outside the box thinking. The Cooper changed the destiny of the Speedway forever, and the Turbine could have if it wasn't outlawed. We shouldn't have any preconceived ideas of what the Indycar should be. THIS innovation and change is why Indy was always a very interesting place to be in May for DECADES leading into the 90's. Whether it was the Junk formula of the 30's, the front wheel drive roadsters, the Offy's laid down sideways, the stock blocks, ground effects Chapparals, or Mercedes OHV design, Indy has had a tradition of innovation.
.

---

No, the Turbine car wasn't an Indy car, is was the Turbine car. In the same way the Cooper wasn't called a Roadster.

The problem with your thinking is that both of those cars, while a clean sheet from the car side, was just another page in the book as the race went because is was an addition, not a replacement. When Andy brought the Turbine the rules weren't changed so only the Turbine car could race, you could still race a roadster or rear engined car.

So let me say this. The Delta Wing will be a spec car, so what happens when Innovation becomes Ordinary? When 3 year after this car comes about the same internet posters complain that all the cars are the same, it's ugly, blah blah blah, that you all complain about now? What then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gofastandwynn

No, the Turbine car wasn't an Indy car, is was the Turbine car. In the same way the Cooper wasn't called a Roadster.

The problem with your thinking is that both of those cars, while a clean sheet from the car side, was just another page in the book as the race went because is was an addition, not a replacement. When Andy brought the Turbine the rules weren't changed so only the Turbine car could race, you could still race a roadster or rear engined car.

So let me say this. The Delta Wing will be a spec car, so what happens when Innovation becomes Ordinary? When 3 year after this car comes about the same internet posters complain that all the cars are the same, it's ugly, blah blah blah, that you all complain about now? What then?

---

You are missing the point. Make the rules so there is innovation and an attraction for new vendors, engine manufacturers and the like to join the sport. The way the IRL is now, it is a monopoly. Look how WELL that has worked?

The Delta wing should be a concept that fits within a rules structure or not. Put a "box" out there and let people build cars to fit within it. The way it is now, they will look at all designs and pick ONE and then lock it up for 5 or 6 years. Cost effective? Yes....but short sighted really. It is probably why the IRL is hurting for fan support. NASCAR has the COT, and it hasn't hurt them yet because the racing has been pretty good with it; but to try to duplicate that in a forum that has always inthe past had a variety of innovations and cars is just short sighted.

This cost containment stuff has given us a racing formula that is boring and is producing boring racing. 2 more seasons of this and the only people watching will be friends and family....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

You are missing the point. Make the rules so there is innovation and an attraction for new vendors, engine manufacturers and the like to join the sport. The way the IRL is now, it is a monopoly. Look how WELL that has worked?

---

But that is my point, this will be another monopoly. You will have 33 of the same looking cars out there, and in 3 years when you all get tired of this car the same internet losers will be complaining about the same things they are now.

This is by far the most assenine "indycar" proposal. This is not a formula car, it is not an open wheel car, and it is one of the ugliest things I have ever seen. This will turn what is left of AOWR into a joke. It would have been easier to use a top fuel car. I love the Indy 500 and the history involved, but this could be the last step. I hope that randy bernard really gives this some good thought. I agree with what has been said above, that this would be an interesting idea for an attempt at a 500...but a league wide spec car would unwatchable. We already have zero passing, why not make it even more difficult. I sure am glad F1 will be starting soon. Atleast those cars look fast and sporty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

The Cooper was seen as a radical car at Indy. No one in the US was building a rear engined Indy car. I have read the stories of how people there viewed the rear engined revolution and they figured for oval racing the Roadster was the way to go. No American even built anything like the Cooper and they mocked Brabham showing up with a little Climax motor until he was 20mph or better faster in the turns. Indy always had to be shown something worked before the conventional wisdom was changed. Ditto for the Turbine....and now you read the posts on here on why people dump on the delta wing (styling wise I don't like it) but none of us ACTUALLY know if the car will work. Bowlby designs race cars for a living, let's hope he can get one to the track and prove the merits of his design one way or the other.



He says he addressed all that....and I agree it is goofy looking...but he is an engineer who has probably thought of all of this. It isn't his first rodeo...so lets hope something is learned...because if these delta's actually put on a really good show racing, I might almost put up with it...

---

The Cooper may have been seen as radical by Indy car standards, but technically, it was a known quantity and was hardly revolutionary. What was more revolutionary was the advent of wings.

As someone who has a degree in mechanical engineering, there are aspects that make sense, and some that make no sense at all. Even with modern tire constructions, there is a limit to how much traction you can get with a certain width and loading. The only possible way that might work is with a severe rearward weight bias, or have tires that last a few laps. I am not sure how they can achieve that and still get a lighter car. There are only so many mechanical bits you can move.

The problem is building car that can run by itself and be controllable is a lot different that the issues of racing the same cars. With today's cars, certain common events like banging wheels don't immediately result in disaster. With widely different track widths, if the rear wheels touch, the car will likely rotate. Not good and a probable crash.

Crash loads are reduced with crush space. The side pods are minimal, so when the crash does occur, there isn't much crush space. That severe rearward weight bias may have some unexpected dynamics in a spin, and race cars do spin. A car tends to spin around the CG, and if it is rearward, that funny nose will have some serious velocity as it comes around.

Technical innovation is great, as is thinking outside the box, but with so much hard data on vehicle and tire dynamics, building something this radical that is vastly different than any other solution anyone has built just makes little sense. Perhaps I will be proven wrong (won't be the first), but this reminds me too much of the Mickey Thompson "roller skate" and other ill conceived "radical" ideas.

There is a good reason most race cars look a lot alike. Base on the laws of Physics, everyone comes to similar conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garyshell

I read EXACTLY what you wrote above. Please tell me how what you wrote was NOT assuming that what Graham Rahal saw was the same as the renderings posted.

But now it appears that the joke is on all of us and the leaked renderings are the actual car. Yikes! I don't see how the front wheels can steer. Looks like a salt flats car to me.

Gary

---

not sure what to tell you gary.....i think you need to actually read what was written..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

Thinking about this a bit longer, I wonder if the drivers would be able to judge the width of the car. With today's high sideprotection a driver does not have a very good view of the rear.
Also, if you skim this car against the wall you will have problem. A car with equal front and back width will bounce. But when this car hits the wall, the rear hits first, and then the front will slingshot against the wall.

---

I said the same thing to a buddy this afternoon.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gofastandwynn

But that is my point, this will be another monopoly. You will have 33 of the same looking cars out there, and in 3 years when you all get tired of this car the same internet losers will be complaining about the same things they are now.

---

I have not advocated they use only this car. Read my posts, I want this damned series opened up before it suffocates....

I have only said that if the car does everything Bowlby claims, then it is worthy. What I see is everyone deriding it as ugly, and claiming it wont work without any proof or techincal analysis.

I think it is ugly....but if if raced well and you could run a normal car against it, then I would be ok with it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beachbum

The Cooper may have been seen as radical by Indy car standards, but technically, it was a known quantity and was hardly revolutionary. What was more revolutionary was the advent of wings.

As someone who has a degree in mechanical engineering, there are aspects that make sense, and some that make no sense at all. Even with modern tire constructions, there is a limit to how much traction you can get with a certain width and loading. The only possible way that might work is with a severe rearward weight bias, or have tires that last a few laps. I am not sure how they can achieve that and still get a lighter car. There are only so many mechanical bits you can move.

The problem is building car that can run by itself and be controllable is a lot different that the issues of racing the same cars. With today's cars, certain common events like banging wheels don't immediately result in disaster. With widely different track widths, if the rear wheels touch, the car will likely rotate. Not good and a probable crash.

Crash loads are reduced with crush space. The side pods are minimal, so when the crash does occur, there isn't much crush space. That severe rearward weight bias may have some unexpected dynamics in a spin, and race cars do spin. A car tends to spin around the CG, and if it is rearward, that funny nose will have some serious velocity as it comes around.

Technical innovation is great, as is thinking outside the box, but with so much hard data on vehicle and tire dynamics, building something this radical that is vastly different than any other solution anyone has built just makes little sense. Perhaps I will be proven wrong (won't be the first), but this reminds me too much of the Mickey Thompson "roller skate" and other ill conceived "radical" ideas.

There is a good reason most race cars look a lot alike. Base on the laws of Physics, everyone comes to similar conclusions.

---

At least you have some technical knowledge to base your assertions on. I accept these better than hearing someone merely say it is "ugly".

The Swift is the car I like personally but I would love to see it race the Dallara...