Thoughts on the Delta Wing
(I usually don’t write long entries on this site, and this turned out longer than I expected…Just call me Georgie)
OK, when you first look at a car, then look at a car again the next day, and repeat that process for five days, you’ll end up where I am now.
I can tell you that my opinions on the Swifts and the Dallaras has remained pretty much unchanged since they were first revealed. For you calculus nerds, my d(opinion) / dt is zero on those.
I can also tell you that my opinion on the Delta Wing has improved greatly. The time rate of change of my opinion has been positive.
That’s not to say explicitly that I like the Delta Wing the best. In fact, I’d say that visually, it needs to be changed. That said, I don’t think it is as ugly as when I first saw it. In a chaotic world, first-order linear extrapolations are not realistic, and I’m probably never going to find the Delta Wing to be completely beautiful.
Is it wingless? Sure. Is that unlike any race car I’ve followed with any great passion since my birth? Certainly.
I’m not here to make C&B jokes, which is why I went with the more abstract Wayne’s World reference initially. I try to keep those off my website.
The reality of the situation is that the anti-proprietary nature of this car is the same that revolutionized the software world in the mid-1990s. No one ever thought that a Swede’s pet-project would evolve into the most powerful operating system in the world. Many of you have no idea what Linux is, but I can tell you that without it, you wouldn’t be reading this right here. I could make an argument that the open source software movement of the 90s led to the slightly lagged internet explosion.
But this ain’t no freaking nerd blog, and I’ll punch you in the FACE if you suggest anything otherwise.
This non-proprietary movement is key to the evolution of the series. If you have all the specs and designs readily available, they can be incorporated into a boat-load of aerodymanics-type classes in engineering programs across the country. That, in turn, can develop fans.
That and beer, but I’ve covered that before.
They’ve explicitly said it’s on the 18-35 or whatever year olds that they want. As a latter part of whatever defined demographic, or at the very least, one somewhat recently removed from it, I get this concept. I thought iPods were stupid, but I now own one. I thought iPhones were stupid, but I don’t know how I lived without one. I really don’t know what people did before the internet, even though I lived 13 years without it. I thought HDTVs were a rip-off and bought a 52" Sammy a few weeks ago. A lot of things seem silly at first.
I don’t get the looks, but I get the concept.
It’s just a real shame that something that I truly looked forward to has devolved into a split-era whine-fest. It has already become tiring.
February 14th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Ex-freaking-actly. Marshall Pruett’s latest article on Speed actually summed up my feelings almost on the nose. If we want any kind of variety in the series, any long-term tecnhical intrigue beyond “the cars have cool lights on them”, any chance of attracting “car guys”, it has to be the Delta. Admittedly, they need to make it not look like something obscene, they need to answer some questions about what will be modifiable and what won’t, and they’ll need to convince people to knock off the pithy “it looks like C&B!” comments (as you eloquently put it), but fixing the looks and demonstrating how it’ll work should go a long way there.
I’m hopeful. I’ll leave it at that.
February 14th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Open sourcing is not a change which can only be brought about by accepting the entire Delta Wing doctrine. Innovation in the competitive marketplace enables new ideas and products to stand or fall on their own merits. That is not what we are watching today.
In the past, that’s how products from Hi-def TV’s to Cooper Indy cars were introduced. They could only control the marketplace by establishing the superiority of their product.
Again, that is not what we are watching today. A domestic race car builder could permit rules changes which enable open sourcing for every component of their design: if you can build something more efficiently than the domestic factory offers, go for it.
That’s not a revolutionary concept from Delta. That’s the relaxation of the imposed limit demanded by the manufacturer to protect his market. If he can change his manufacturing structure to reduce costs, he can erase those licenses and still remain competitive with independant suppliers. That’s open competition.
The revolutionary concept is that the strongest members of the supply chain, the owners who form the Delta Wing group, are attempting to control the market with their product: the racing that they provide for the fans. This is not a reliance on their skills as innovators, which I find great fault with. This is a rejection of the attempt to work within the structure of the existing monopoly in the market by replacing it with another.
Call me anti-trusting, but that doesn’t work any better for me.
Andy Bernstein
February 14th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Andy,
Great points all around. I was actually thinking the other day “why not convince Dallara and swift to open source their design as well?”.
My biggest bone of contention, a question I’d still like addressed, is this; the IRL already struggles with having a relevant feeder series that prepares its drivers to man an indycar. ALL open wheel feeder series in this country, be it Star M, Indy Lights, or Atlantics; would be a futile stepping stone to a series full of these cars. There’s no way they handle anything even remotely like a typical open wheel car.
My other bone of contention is there won’t be a working prototype of any of the chasis until after a choice has been made.
February 14th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
I actually wrote a blog post on this, where I said that the central question around the DW project (and I still haven’t heard a clear answer) is how open they mean open to be. Is it open in the sense that any third party can make and sell their mandated panels, which can then be subtly tweaked by teams, or does it mean that another manufacturer can design a very different looking chassis that still hits the major criteria (low drag, fuel regulation, shrouded wheels, light weight, no wings)?
I like a ton of what they have to say, and the car actually bothers me less with some time to digest. But it’s just such a vague set of principles so far, it’s tough to tell if it’s a legit solution or not.
February 14th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Cheers Mutt,
You are one of the very few on the interwebs who is envisioning the big picture.
A Dallara factory on the side lawn of the Speedway would be the best solution for all concerned, even the owners who have signed on to the Delta force.
Open subcontracts for local parts manufacture. Loosen licensing requirements to allow competitive suppliers. Send your young driving prospect across the street to pick out a Topolino to race in his ladder series event.
Delta wants to use a $140K bespoke ARE MZR-R racing engine, detuned. That is not open competition, nor is it economical. Better domestic sources already exist.
Delta pronounces the eco-friendly value of a 10 MPG threshold. Manufacturers are fighting to reach 40, not investing in racing development programs. Honda redesigned the HI V8 engines to run on eco-friendly ethanol. Nobody cared.
Full ground effects designs are inherently unstable in pitch or yaw events. This design must surely be accompanied by active suspension control, in addition to the “steer by wire” torque application system. Neither are examples of simple or economical solutions. They are not innovations to existing road car technology. The Delta car is an intricate, unproven, masterful design exercise. I like race cars.
Owners cry in unison about the cost of equipment. Many could not afford to field the Delta if it were available today for free. The cost of any new chassis and engine package will reduce their operating budgets by maybe 25%, after the investment of $1.2M for their new car and a spare. Randy Bernard knows the problem is revenues, and hopefully he will realize that there may only be four owners left to buy new gear in 2012… Delta Wing charter member or not.
Brian Barnhart recently discussed the chassis selection with the phrase “We don’t want to get into a group think situation”.
The Delta group has certainly done a lot of thinking. Despite the fact that they are all very smart men, it doesn’t mean they came up with good answers. Or strategies to implement them in the days to come.
Andy Bernstein
February 14th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
One aspect of this Delta Wing proposal that has been nagging at me is the way in which the cars are proposed to be manufactured. Delta Wing doesn’t want to build the cars, but rather out-source them in what they claim as an open-source type of way. As Andy pointed out, though, it really isn’t quite the same as the Linux revolution (which was awesome btw!). My question is why would a successful engineering firm like Lola or Swift want to build someone else’s design? How does that further their brand image? The only people I can see interested in building the Delta Wing car are local fabrication companies.
February 14th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Yes Doug, through authorized suppliers, I believe Ben Bowlby said. One possibility of that scheme is that an interruption in the supply chain from a subcontractor who gets behind or screws up, and a lot of people can’t build their vehicle.
Watching USF1 trying to get a tub built and crash-tested might be a relevant example.
I believe Lola and Swift have plenty of other business, and I know for sure that Dallara does. Making small batch runs of low cost components for somebody elses’s race car doesn’t sound like a lucrative proposition for them to me, either.
Had Delta actually built a car to demonstrate proof of the theoretical model, and in so doing assembled the list of authorized subcontractors who could get the job done, then we would be in a different place.
At the moment, IICS is expected to accept the Delta on a wing and a prayer. And it doesn’t have any wings.
February 15th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Who would take the time to read this? This is WAY too long.
February 15th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Yeah, presenting facts is like that.
Usually…
Here’s Lola:
http://lolacars.com/newsstory.asp?NewsId=189
February 15th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Lola mentions U.S. production, but falls short of the commitments Mr. Dallara has pledged.
These are great evolutionary designs, with the safety improvements the IICS is looking for. The common tub for IndyLights is a practical approach.
However, I don’t think they have gone far enough to change the face of IndyCar racing, or demonstrate enough reason to dump the existing supplier for a new one.
Dallara #3 still gets my vote to satisfy all of the criteria. It’s a more radical evolution that could still possibly enable old equipment to run on the race track along side it.
Everybody wants variety, no manufacturers will subsidize it. Alternate body kits can be made for any chassis that receives final approval, and Lola did a nice job of that.
Still, nobody can build prototypes until IICS tells them what general configuration is going in the engine bay.
Andy Bernstein
February 17th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Here is an explanation of the torque vectoring system from Ben Bowlby, reprinted from tonight’s Robin Miller Mailbag:
This is from Ben Bowlby: “The front wheels steer the car; they have up to 23 degrees of steering angle each way – slightly more than the current IndyCar has at present. The differential, located in the gearbox, has the capability to actively control relative rear wheel speed (but not the average speed, which would be traction control and this is not part of the differential’s functionality). This effect can be described as torque vectoring or torque steer. This is not essential for achieving steering of the car or cornering but it is probably the most consistent way of altering the balance of the car and can be driver controlled with a position switch in the cockpit that alters the sensitivity of the torque vectoring. To be clear – the rear wheels do NOT steer and do not create the force required to steer the car.”
That makes me quite happy to say that my presumptions were inaccurate, and even more puzzled as to how this concept vehicle will actually change vector.
Andy Bernstein
February 26th, 2010 at 7:21 am
Thoughtful and right-on series of observations, Andy Bernstein!