Deltawing crash at Road Atlanta

[Rhino]

2 problems i could see if they raced on ovals. 1 most drivers steer the car through the apex using the front wheels as reference. On the Wednesday practice at Le Mans one of the dw drivers did this and hit the kerb so hard it cut the engine. Doing 200mph at Indy going for a gap when you  aren't sure of the width. Or running up to the wall without going to far.
2 most single seaters have side impact bars bonded to the side of the chassis. Usually one high one low. Not sure if the dw has them. Would mean having a sidepod similar to F1 dimensions. Perhaps spoiling the aero as it is.

[Shortcut]

A couple of good points made by Fax and Rhino.  As we know, the DW is made from one of the four redundant AMR One chassis.  These chassis are constructed with 1" thick high density aluminium core in the drivers side to aid in a side impact.  The original car was designed to have the regulation flat floor that would have been protruding from the side of the car, and structural radiator ducts on the side of the chassis, and a side pod outer, all of which would help to dissipate the energy in a side impact.  The DW has none of these of course, apart from the 1" thick core which is part of the chassis.  This will make it more vulnerable than an LMP1 or 2 car in a side impact.  In the rollover that the DW car suffered at Atlanta however, it will have fared better than an LMP car.  The roll hoop structure that is an integral part of the chassis withstood more than 12 tons of pressure during the mandatory FIA crash test before deforming at all.  Obviously the DW is lighter than an LMP car, so the roll hoop structure should be able to cope with any roll over the DW may suffer.  From the photos I have seen of the DW after its Atlanta crash, it appears to have worn off part of the roll hoop as it has skidded down the track upside down. The top 30mm of the roll hoop is solid carbon fibre, therefore a simple repair at the track should have involved bonding on some solid carbon to the top of the roll hoop.

Therefore, the modified chassis that the DW runs is good for safety in some areas, but seriously lacking in safety in other areas.  To be fair, if Ben Bowlby were allowed to design a purpose built chassis to his way of thinking, I am sure he would be able to build in the necessary safety structures.

Having said that, I still would be very scared to see a full field of 33 of these heading towards turn one at The Brickyard at 230mph......

[Brad Zarse]

Errrm....the only thing that matters in that car, is that it has the same carbon fibre monocoque that was designed for a car that weighed twice to three times that of the Delta Wing.  

Sidepods, radiator ducts etc are not structural to a monocoque, hence the reason it's called a monocoque - singular - not dependant on anything else etc - That monocoque would have had to be tested, on its own (without any ancillaries, sidepods etc) and would have had to withstand loads based on the weight of an LMP1 car - those include front impact, rear impact, and side puncture.   If you think about it - Sidepods on a modern F1 car, don't offer any protection for the driver, and very little in the way of energy dissipation - 80% of the driver sits IN FRONT of the side pod:



In the areas you describe, it doesn't NEED to be "as safe" as other LMP cars, as it would never need to deal with the same loads as an LMP1 or LMP2 car - the potential energy is in such a different league, owing to the cars low weight.

 I would suggest that the DW is so heavily over engineered in the safety areas in its current form, that this is very much, the least of any worries you might have if you're in the cockpit.  

[Boorish Grobian]

Your totally right Brad, the tub was designed for a car that was three tines heavier than the DW...a car that was actually built to the regulations!
Why are we even debating this...PR STUNT!  I suppose I should call it something else now that it's actually turned a wheel, perhaps gimmick is a better description.  Actually I never thought it would actually be built, and race, so I'll certainly eat some crow on that.  But I still don't like for the same reason's Rhino, and Shortcut point out, it doesn't conform to any sanctioned racing regulations, therefore I can't take it seriously as a racing car.
Its a clever kart...
Fax

[Shortcut]

Thank you Brad.  I agree with you, and you make the point that I was trying to make.  The chassis is an ex LMP 1 chassis, and therefore has gone through the mandatory FIA crash test, and as I explained, it exceeded the roll structure test by a long way, and of course the DW is lighter than an LMP 1, so overall is a safe car.  What I meant regarding the rad ducts, is that they are a substantial structure, usually with 3 plys of carbon either side of core, and are fixed to the side of the chassis very securely.  You correctly say that they are not part of the crash test, and they are not a regulation crash structure,  but do offer energy absorption in the event of a side impact.


On an F1 car, as Rhino correctly points out, there are two crash tubes bonded to the side of the chassis for energy absorption.  Overall, the point I was trying to make is that the car is as safe as any other car on the track in the event of an accident, but as we have debated before, the car should not be out there in its own invented class, and is quite frankly dangerous as shown at Atlanta.

[Rhino]

Brad in your picture the side pods are bonded on the car. It's in there that the side impact tube is bonded on the car. The lower one is incorporated in the floor and bolted to the tub. With Indycars the side pod/rad duct is part of the side impact structure. I know in other LMP cars side pods i don't believe have to be part of the crash test but are usually (as Shortcut say's) beefed up to avoid the tub being damaged in event of a side impact.
The DW does have anti intrusion panel's which i take to mean an outer panel of the tub made of Kevlar or Dyneema. They made bullet proof vest's out of it so good for stopping most things!
My main worry would still be drivers unable or forgetting to gauge width at the front and either going for too narrow a gap or as happened at Le Mans on wednesday practice hitting the apex with the front wheels and forgetting the back. The DW seems to look as though it will be prone to turning sideways in accidents where other's bounce off.

[Brad Zarse]

Your totally right Brad, the tub was designed for a car that was three tines heavier than the DW...a car that was actually built to the regulations!
Why are we even debating this...PR STUNT!  I suppose I should call it something else now that it's actually turned a wheel, perhaps gimmick is a better description.  Actually I never thought it would actually be built, and race, so I'll certainly eat some crow on that.  But I still don't like for the same reason's Rhino, and Shortcut point out, it doesn't conform to any sanctioned racing regulations, therefore I can't take it seriously as a racing car.
Its a clever kart...
Fax

PR Stunt?

Your definition of PR stunt must be fairly warped.  I'm fairly sure a PR stunt would never:

  - Turn a wheel in anger.
  - Race.
  - Finish 5th in a race that you've claimed is so important to the world of sportscar racing, that it should be included in the WEC calendar.
  - Outpace an LMP1 car on a straight

I'm also fairly sure that every single major invention and innovation in motorsports over the last 50 years has been rubbished, and termed a "Gimmick" by people who claim themselves to be in the know about motorsports.....Putting the engine in the rear, putting a wing on the back of a car, putting a wing on the front of a car,  Ground effects, fans, KERS, using diesel to race in an endurance race......  the list is endless....the funny thing is, that the people who criticise these things are often those who are scared of change, or the ones who believe that motorsports should stay the same forever.  Those who actually understand, embrace the innovation of looking at the same problem, in a different way.  And those who are in charge, generally take the learnings, copy them, and change motorsports forever. 

PR stunt or not, Deltawing HAS changed the way people think about the motorsports problem.  It will continue to do so, and I suspect you're going to see more and more operations using innovative wheel combinations, and extreme efficiency classes becoming more and more important in the future. 

PR stunts come and go.  Innovation changes the face of motorsports.   This is about as far from being a PR stunt as is possible.

[Boorish Grobian]

Look Brad, first off, let's get things striaght, my opinion's are of purely my expression on the state of sportscar racing  None of what I say is a personal attack on anyone's intellect, or opinion.  Your brother has met me, as have other's on here, I don't think any of them have found me that objectionable (at least they didn't tell me to my face) I suspect we would get along like a house on fire.
But I just don''t get the DW? It was floated in the competition to be the next Indycar, when that didn't happen they bolted on headlights and presto! It's a Sportscar? They didn't even have a purpose built tub for it, they just bolted on a AMR tub, and the rest is the DW bits.   Really?  This is just wrong to me as a lifelong sportscar racing enthusiast. Build something with purpose, not as a adhoc plan B.
They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, in 1979 every F1 car on the grid copied the Lotus 79.  Let's see in the next couple of years how many cars copy the DW...If they actually bother to create a class for it.
Fax

[Nordic]

I'm also fairly sure that every single major invention and innovation in motorsports over the last 50 years has been rubbished, and termed a "Gimmick" by people who claim themselves to be in the know about motorsports.....Putting the engine in the rear, putting a wing on the back of a car, putting a wing on the front of a car,  Ground effects, fans, KERS, using diesel to race in an endurance race......  the list is endless....the funny thing is, that the people who criticise these things are often those who are scared of change, or the ones who believe that motorsports should stay the same forever

All if those have been, as far as I can think, have been allowed within a formula, ie the designer has looked at the regs and seen way round or the rules makers have embraced a concept and set up a class that every one can compete in.

The Delta Wing is wonderful expression of design, but it does not really bring anything new to the table, its light, Chapman and others did the same about 100 years ago.

The designer has done a Libra car for a class that does not exist and its being judged against cars that have to compete in a tightly regulated system.

[Brad Zarse]

Look Brad, first off, let's get things striaght, my opinion's are of purely my expression on the state of sportscar racing  None of what I say is a personal attack on anyone's intellect, or opinion.  Your brother has met me, as have other's on here, I don't think any of them have found me that objectionable (at least they didn't tell me to my face) I suspect we would get along like a house on fire.
But I just don''t get the DW? It was floated in the competition to be the next Indycar, when that didn't happen they bolted on headlights and presto! It's a Sportscar? They didn't even have a purpose built tub for it, they just bolted on a AMR tub, and the rest is the DW bits.   Really?  This is just wrong to me as a lifelong sportscar racing enthusiast. Build something with purpose, not as a adhoc plan B.
They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, in 1979 every F1 car on the grid copied the Lotus 79.  Let's see in the next couple of years how many cars copy the DW...If they actually bother to create a class for it.
Fax

Absolutely, lets be clear, this is a debate - I'm not out to attack people personally.... You have one viewpoint, I (often it would seem) have a completely different one - nothing I've written should be regarded as a personal attack - indeed, I suspect that we'd get on famously (and if you make it to Sebring this year, we might just find out!).  With that said though, I completely fail to understand your insistence to continue to term the DeltaWing as a PR stunt.  Research project, yes - experiment, yes - but PR stunt?  It's quite simply not one....Initially I would have agreed with you, but the way things have developed over the last year have done as much as is possible to dispell that myth.

Also - when DW was sighted as an IndyCar, it was a design - it didn't exist.  When it failed to get awarded the IndyCar contract, the owners of the design, rightly in my opinion, sought a different platform in which to race.   So they looked as suitable tubs for sale in the sportscar area, and bought the AMR ONE. 

Given that the initial investment from Nissan didn't exist at the time, the team couldn't have afforded to purpose design, and build a chassis, without knowing for sure that the design works - Let alone get it through Homologation, crash testing, etc etc.  I'm sure they would have loved to have a purpose built chassis, but in times of austerity, and without major investment, that was never going to happen - certainly never safely anyway - If the AMR One had been bought as a platform for the Indycar, then yes, you'd be right - but it wasn't, the design principle was specifically applied to a sportscar chassis.  It's absolutely no different to Pescarolo using an AMR ONE and changing its configuration/parts/aero. 

Surely if they create a class for DW, I would  assume most people will copy it?!?

Most interestingly though, my father has some SERIOUS explaining to do if you've met my brother! 

[Boorish Grobian]

Huh! Really confused, Andy's your old man? Or are you even related?  I obviously was under the wrong impression.  Ooops!
Agreed, we often disagree, but that's fine, if everyone on this forum was in agreement about everything, it would be one boring as hell forum!
I said in a previous post, to me it's not a PR stunt anymore now that it's actually tunred a wheel, and that I stand corrected (or will eat some crow, same thing).  But until it actually races to a set of regulations, and not just as a one-off special entry, I can't, and won't take it seriously as a racing car.  To me its just a clever engineering project.  This is where you & I disagree, I'm not going to change your mind, you won't chnage mine, but like I said, that's fine.
Fax

[Steve Pyro]

Huh! Really confused, Andy's your old man? Or are you even related?  I obviously was under the wrong impression.  Ooops!

It's a Zarse thing - (a bit like the Masons, the Knights Templar or the Worship Company of Weavers or something :-) )

[Brad Zarse]

I am so tempted to reply that Andy is my old man... I literally have tears rolling off my cheeks right now .

Andy, myself and a few others are not brothers... Simply "Team Mates" is, I guess the best way to explain it.

The Team Zarse name originates from a childish idea,that the addition of Zarse to ones name, said quickly enough,makes it sound like you are speaking about that persons rear end...

Andyz arse
Stevez arse
Bradz arse
Jonz arse

It's childish, immature, and like loads of other things on that intellectual level, lots of fun.

[Boorish Grobian]

Wow!  I've taken that bait...hook, line & sinker over all these years.  Feel a bit silly but what the hell, all in good fun.
Learn something new everday.
Fax

[mgmark]

.....I literally have tears rolling off my cheeks right now .

Not quite resulted in tears rolling down the cheeks, but that did make me smile broadly.  The thought of it.  Mind you, years of team interbreeding could produce all sorts of offspring I suppose......

MG MArk