Good point about Braking instability. The DW's front tires total 8 inches of width. Other cars racing there had 24+. The excuse of no spares is also silly. We got specific custom special parts made in hours, drove them through the night and had them mounted the next morning. There is a entire network of special parts deliverer's who stand by 24/7 to courier parts anywhere in the world at a moments notice. This is racing 101.
Piling on indeed! Go for it, I can handle it. You got one thing right. Most young people aren't car guys. Outside of Sebring and Petit Le Mans most sports car races in the US attract skimpy crowds. That's why I think innovation and technology is the way to their hearts. The boobs and bang ups aren't getting the job done. The attributes of the 458, RSR and CSR you promote aren't doing the job either. And--not to pile on Jim too much because i admire what he's done--the P4/5 is a modern interpretation of a vintage car that should appeal primarily to people of a certain age. The designs coming from young designers at the Art Center and the Center of Creative Studies look nothing like P4/P5. As for the DW not achieving anything, the lap times they achieved may not have pleased many here, but they were pretty strong for a car with only 300 horsepower. It also features Dan Gurney's BLAT technology which never got a fair shake from CART. Enough said. Time will answer the question of its value.
Bill Ferrari P 4/5 by Pininfarina was designed by an Art Center Graduate. The age demographic of those who like and follow P 4/5 Competizione on social media is Very Young.
I can't for the life of me understand the outright hostility some are expressing toward the DW project. I realize it is different and, therefore, controversial, but the acidic tone of some posts is unwarranted. Who gives a rats ass if it relevant to road car technology? Is a DRS system relevant to road cars? How about giant rear wings and multi-planed front wings; are they relevant to road cars? How about V8 rear wheel drive "stock" cars? How about tires that last only 50 miles? Can anyone advise me of the relevance of cars that get 1.8 MPG while racing? Bowlby had a radical concept that was built very rapidly and generated a lot of public interest for LeMans, Nissan, etc. It is another in a long line of potentially innovative racing concepts some of which work well and some of which do not. As auto enthusiasts, we should at least agree that innovation is worthy of admiration. Who has forgotten the Indy turbine cars, the Tyrell 6 wheeler, The Chaparral 2J, etc? Between them, they won exactly one race. While they didn't permanently change the face of motorsports, they certainly added to its historical landscape, and we are all better off for that. This web site being for car freaks, I am surprised that there isn't some consensus that the DW was at least worth trying. And I am shocked that so many car enthusiasts are so hostile toward Bowlby and the others.
Lots of talk about DW and youth; if I recall correctly, at the moment the DW was introduced at Sebring, some of the best young talent fighting for the very few pro racing jobs were in the USF2000 section of the paddock preparing to race their cars - powered by Mazda, who, unlike Nissan, really are a part of the US racing scene.
Ditto on Mazda. Dave 1.8? P 4/5 CM with KERS got close to 6 during the 24. As for DRS are you kidding? Ferrari has been using DRS on their road cars for years. The 2014 ACO Le Mans rules clearly show what the Future of Motor racing at Le Mans will be and it won't be the DW.
That point of view is every bit as valid as those who oppose it, no doubt. But the questions remain: Why was it worth trying? Simply to try something different doesn't cut it. If the "something different" doesn't advance the status quo then the "something different" serves no purpose...its just "something different" for the sake of being different. Thus, how is it anything but a vanity project to spend millions and reap nothing from it? What does the design prove? What does the design improve upon a traditional car? What problems does the DW aim to solve that aren't better dealt with a traditional car? As for the F1 example such as DRS, exotic front wings & tires which sh#t themselves after a few hot laps...you're spot on as its woefully irrelevant to the showroom & growing more so each season (although a number of manufactures use a "pop up" rear wing). But that's F1 - an engineering exercise. IMO, the DRS and purpose built short-lived tires manufacture drama which cuts off the brilliance of the chassis designs at the knees. However, endurance racing is quite relevant. The P 4/5 Comp non-flywheel KERS, triple & quadruple stinted tires at Le Mans, GT cars flogging steel rotors around La Sarthe for 24 hours, Audi/Pug diesels achieved much more 1.8 mpg, a showroom 911 GT3 RS running the Nurburgring 24 last year, etc. It doesn't get more relevant to what we write checks for than that. If you want to build a car to lap a road course in the shortest time it would like like an F1 design. If you want to build a car to run at the limit of speed and durability for 24 hours it will look like an LMP. The DW is built neither for all out speed or durablity, so besides being different, what's the point?
We also used the same set of steel rotors for 24 and could have used one set of pads for the 24 as well. For safety we changed the front pads at 20 hours but they could have easily gone the full distance.
I find the following funny: It was called a crazy idea that would never happen: it did It was said that it could not turn: it did It was said that it would tip over: it did'nt It was said that it would be slower than a GT car: It was not It was said that the Audi's would run over it or cause a wreck: It did not and in fact Nakajima applogized for running into it Now it is being called irellavent and a wasted effort. You will pardon if, given the history of comments by the peanut gallery, that I disagree. Fact is that a super innovative idea that outperformed expectations, was built and run on a very low budget, proved the concept in one of the toughest motorsport areas in the world. Who knows where the future of racing is but the ground breaking ideas tried in the Delta Wing are sure to foster new approaches to problems that would otherwise not be solved using conventional thinking.
As the race went on the DW moved further and further to the rear of the pack. That is fact. It was MANY laps behind. There was nothing ground breaking about the design. It was an old design that had been rejected in the past as it should have been as it didn't work for CART and it didn't work at Le Mans as it's standing when it was punted proved. The idea that the DW is "sure to foster new approaches to problem that would otherwise not be solved using conventional thinking" is laughable. The 2014 Le Mans LMP 1 rules show the problems that have to be solved. Endurance, Consistant quick lap times on less fuel utilizing hybrid technology. I didn't notice anything that related to the design of the DW in those rules. Do you seriously think Audi, Toyota, Porsche, and others will be building 2014 LMP 1's that use DW technology?
this is the point. IT WAS NOT WORTH TRYING, neither was the similar Cart concept. Race tracks, even ovals, have corners. To achieve a competitive lap time you have to be able to generate G forces through those corners. This narrow front, also with such little front rubber, immediately means the car will not achieve its best possible cornering speed, therefore it should have stayed on the drawing board. If somebody had entered an aerodynamically bodied Caterham with the same Nissan engine I reckon the lap times would have been faster. Pete
They would have been a lot faster. That engine in a proper race car that weighed the same as the DW would have been a LOT faster as a modern CART racer with equal HP and weight would be a LOT faster around a CART race track. CART realized that a long time ago.
It didn't work for CART? Here's what Gordon Kirby has to say about it on his website: "Another notable Eagle Indy car was the '81 Eagle-Chevy. This car pursued a completely different technique of generating ground-effect called BLAT (boundary layer adhesion technology) developed by designer Trevor Harris and was powered by an all-aluminum 'stock-block' Chevy V8 at a time when everyone else was running Cosworth DFX turbos. Mike Mosley put the car on the front row at Indianapolis in 1981 and scored a famous win from the back of the field at Milwaukee two weeks later, but the car eventually was outlawed by Gurney's rival CART team owners." I worked at CART in the early Eighties. Politics ruled the roost and they ganged up on Dan.
The DW didn't work for/wasn't chosen by CART/INDY car as their new car. From 2010: http://dvice.com/archives/2010/02/radical-deltawi.php Am I wrong in thinking it wasn't chosen to be used?
No, but you're wrong in calling it CART. That organization is ancient history. Since the DW uses BLAT technology and you mentioned CART I could only assume you were referring to Gurney's Eagle in the day.
My Bad about calling it CART instead of Indy Car. Dan's Eagle wasn't narrow front, small front tires like the DW was it?
Might have been my bad . The pictures I have found re '81 Eagle-Chevy on the net do not show a narrow front track. Pete
The 1981 - 1982 Eagle wasn't banned, but the powers that be (Penske, Haas, Patrick, etc) voted to give the turbos more boost on road courses. That effectively made stock blocks obsolete, even though CART had stated they were headed to a stock block formula EXCLUSIVELY. In addition to a front row start at the 500 and a win at Milwaukee, the Eagle led at the Michigan 500 (engine grenaded), poled and led at Riverside (jammed wheel nut at a pit stop), and was dominating at Watkins Glen when it ran out of fuel.
http://www.lemans.org/fr/courses/24-heures-du-mans/actualites/nissan-deltawing-une-immense-fierte-_7982.html It was nice to see it race at LM, quick too But I agree with many that this is not the future for endurance racing. Concepts of lightweight cars with smaller (hybrid)engines might work very well, but with normal front and rear track.
If the stock block was the only reason they would have changed engines. I was at CART in 1983. My comment on politics is based on my experience then. From what I heard, the manufacturing standards were changed in a way that gave an unfair advantage to another team owner who built his own cars overseas, making the Eagle too expensive to sell at a competitive price. It had something to do with the thickness of the aluminum conforming to a European standard. Aluminum that met that standard apparently had to be sourced from Europe, increasing the cost of building in the US. Gurney had several teams interested in buying chassis, and many ran turbo Cosworth's, but he couldn't get enough volume to absorb the difference in manufacturing cost. Again, its hearsay. As with most political shenanigans the truth will never be told. Jim, I'm glad to see that I am not the only one who can't keep all the various organizations involved in Indy Car racing straight! It was an honest mistake, as was mine. I never implied that the 1981 car was a DW design. Some here have said that the car was totally irrelevant and none of the technology is of any use. That is why I defend BLAT. This has been fun, but I have a business to run. Enjoy yourselves!
I thought that. I served time with the DFX during the late70's-early80's and what was told to me was that the cost factor along with the advantage that came with aftermerket stock block engines upset owners who had a significant investment in both Cosworth's and March/Lola chassis. The arguement was more about politics & profits
