TO NO-ONE'S great surprise, Audi dominated last weekend's 24-hour endurance race at Le Mans, in the bucolic Loire district of France. A hybrid version of its R18 sports car took the chequered flag—the first time a hybrid, from any manufacturer, won at Le Mans. Another Audi hybrid came second, and the company claimed third and fifth with a pair of turbo-diesels. Toyota returned to the race after a 13-year absence with two hybrids of its own—only to see one crash and the other retire with mechanical problems.
Though a novelty, the hybrids were not the stars of the show. A tiny triangular-shaped car known as the DeltaWing was giving the other 55 fire-breathing machines a run for their money when it was unceremoniously bumped off the track and into the crash barrier by one of the Toyotas. So ended a brave attempt to show that a car with half the weight, half the horsepower and half the aerodynamic drag could run rings round the dreadnoughts of the sport.
It was not the first time that a radical, lightweight design has challenged conventional thinking in motor racing. Something similar happened when Colin Chapman's featherweight Lotus 23, with Jim Clark at the wheel, made its debut at the Nürburgring's infamous northern loop in 1962. With its tiny 100 horsepower motor (a third that of its rivals), the Lotus 23 shot ahead of the field of ponderous Porsches, Aston Martins and Ferraris. After one lap of the rain-soaked track, Clark was 27 seconds ahead of the leading Porsche driven by the American ace, Dan Gurney. The world of motor racing had never seen anything like it before.
The following month, when two Lotus 23 cars—one with a 750cc engine and the other with a 1,000cc unit—were entered for the Le Mans endurance race, French officials promptly banned them for being too good. Chapman swore never to enter a Lotus car for the 24-hour Le Mans race ever again—and kept his promise till the day he died.
More than in any other motor sport, engineering improvements made to meet the gruelling demands of endurance racing feed directly into everyday motoring. Unlike Formula One cars or their IndyCar cousins, where teams focus on making vehicles that run furiously for a few hours, endurance events like Le Mans are more about building sporty but reliable machines that can run flat out for a full 24 hours, with only brief pit stops to take on fuel, replace worn tyres and swap drivers.
Also, much of the Le Mans circuit (officially known as Circuit de la Sarthe) is made up of public roads that are used for the rest of the year by cars and camions. Le Mans requires drivers to cope with rough, cambered surfaces as bone-jarring as anything everyday motorists face. To compete successfully, Le Mans cars have to be not only robust, but also have good fuel economy and be extremely stable, especially at high speed.
Long, fast straights dominate the Le Mans circuit. Because drivers were reaching 250mph (400km/h) before hitting the brakes for the sharp turn at the bottom of the three-mile (five-kilometre) downhill Mulsanne straight, two sets of chicanes were added in 1990 to slow the cars down. Even so, Mulsanne remains a savage test for aerodynamic stability. In 1999, a Mercedes-Benz CLR became airborne while hurtling down it, flying spectacularly over the safety fencing before landing in the woods beyond. That was not the first time. The CLRs had flipped twice during practise. Fortunately, no one was seriously hurt.
But the stability problems were enough to make Mercedes-Benz withdraw from the race and abandon its entire sports-car programme before further accidents could tarnish its public image. Last weekend, after being hit by a Ferrari, one of the Toyota hybrids also took to the skies before slamming into a tyre barrier at the bottom of the Mulsanne straight, fracturing two vertebrae in the driver's spine.
Such are the perils of relying on aerodynamic downforce for high-speed stability. Any interference, whether a nudge from another vehicle or a bump in the track, can upset the airflow over the car, especially on the wing at the rear that creates the bulk of the downforce. The car will often "porpoise", as the rear wing stalls and air pressure builds up under the nose, sending the vehicle tumbling end over end.
The little DeltaWing car at this year's Le Mans aimed to do things differently. Conceived by Ben Bowlby, a British-born racing-car designer, and built by Dan Gurney's All American Racers as a contender for the 2012 IndyCar Series, the DeltaWing carried no external wings, because of their propensity to generate drag along with downforce. Instead, the car got most of its downforce from the underside of the body.
To reduce drag still further, the DeltaWing's frontal area was made as small as possible. The front wheels were spaced just two feet apart, while the track at the back was a more conventional five-and-a-half feet. The result was a car with superior straight line and cornering speeds, and much better fuel economy than any of the IndyCars it was designed to replace.
Another feature of the delta layout is the way the wing's leading edges generate strong vortices that energise the air flowing over the rest of the wing. That keeps the airflow attached more effectively to the surface, allowing the wing to sustain much higher angles of attack before stalling. Used on a racing car, with the lifting surface beneath the vehicle and pointing down, the vortex effect can be used to keep the vehicle glued to the ground.
Though Mr Bowlby's novel design was deemed too radical for the IndyCar Series, his car was invited to participate in this year's Le Mans race as a “Project 56” entrant. Apart from the 55 cars that qualify to race each year, the organisers reserve one extra slot on the grid for a car considered so innovative that it should be allowed to compete without having to comply with the rules.
With its 1.6 litre, four-cylinder Nissan engine, the DeltaWing was far from the most powerful machine on the grid. However, like the featherweight Lotus all those years before, it tipped the scales at just half the weight of the big Audis and other “prototype” sports cars in the race. That let it produce a similar power-to-weight ratio of 600-700 horsepower per ton, but with a drag coefficient of just 0.24 compared with the 0.47 of the all-conquering R18s. What the diminutive DeltaWing lost in outright speed, it gained by not having to go into the pit so often to change tyres and refuel.
So popular was the little DeltaWing with fans that when it was forced into the crash barrier by a Toyota driver who did not see it creeping cheekily alongside, the number of people listening to the race commentary on Radio Le Mans fell by 30%. Will it race again? Probably. But most likely under different management. Mr Bowlby designed the DeltaWing as an open-source project, so other teams could build their own versions to race.



Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Funny u should mention hybrids TE
another story in te mentioned F1 hybrids - about flywheels - comments closed
regenerative braking to a battery is BS
bottom line is flywheels seem better than capacitors for fast charge discharge
They should team up w/ hard drive makers - spinning disks fast is their business & has long been
other thing would love to have said they totally put flywheels in a mobile sense, where u had to haul the weight
in a stationary situation, they are brill - make em heavy - who cares?
2tonns spinning @ 7k rpm - doable - crankshafts do that all the time - is a lot of stored energy - makes way more sense than a chemical battery
an array of counter balanced ones makes sense
standard rigs in vacuum sealed shipping containers for wind/solar/tide power farms - serious stationary batteries on the cheap
a serious axle betw 2 standard freight car bogies done right could spin 40 tonnes on its bearings easy if it was a non bumpy ride - its not new tek - they do the same globally now
nobell prize time
who is going to invent the zero friction ~ bearing - as in mag lev bearings?
After analysing the information, the main conclusion drawn by the researchers is that in a situation where cooperating with others is beneficial, the way the individuals involved are organized into one social structure or another is irrelevant. A first analysis contradicts what many researchers have held based on theoretical studies. In the experiment, the degree of cooperation in a network in which each subject interacts with four other individuals is compared to a network in which the number of connections varies between 2 and 16, that is, one that is more similar to a social network. What has been observed is that the results in the two networks are identical. "This happens because, contrary to what has been proposed in the majority of studies, people do not make their decisions based on the rewards obtained (by them or by their neighbours), but rather based on how many people have recently cooperated with them, as well as on their own mood at the time," the researchers explained. These results help understand how people make decisions, above all in the context in which one has to decide between collaborating with or taking advantage of others. "Understanding why we do one thing or another can help in designing incentives that induce people to cooperate," the authors of the research pointed out. On the other hand, the fact that the networks are not important has implications, for organizational design, for example. The experiment revealed that people are not going to cooperate more because of being organized in a certain way. In this respect, it can be inferred that we do not have to be concerned with the design of organizational structure, but rather with motivating people individually to cooperate. Ruling out that network organization influences in the cooperation of people, and having discovered that what is important is reciprocity, that is, cooperating according to cooperation received, will radically change the focus of a significant number of researchers who are developing theories on the emergence of cooperation among individuals
It would be as fun if they did it on sedgeway s round the local cycle track
lot less fuss
NV might know quite a bit about cars, but he/she isn't all that good at geography. Le Mans is NOT in the Loire district; it's about 80 km (50 miles) from the river, in the département called the Sarthe.
But the article is still a good read.
DeltaWing seems to be to Le Mans what Mitsubishi Zero was to WWII fighter planes.
Interesting analogy.
BTW - The Mits Zero was developed based on American technology (stolen by spies of course). It's design was based on Howard Hughes' H1. A pic of the H1 and the Jap Zero shows they are strikingly similar. I think it was developed for the US military but they passed on it at the time.
Just a little historical note.
H1 design would have been rejected by both US Army and US Navy because it had zero armour. The Zero had no armour because it needed the manouverability to win dogfights against more powerful opponents. This was one design choice no other air forces could ever make or accept. Also, the H1 design was actually acquired through open channels because US armed forces weren't interested in it.
Why no data on the 'spies' who 'stole' the H-1 design for the Zero?
Clearly, the H-1 development process would have been of great interest to someone tasked to design a prototype with such similar requirements......however, it's a stretch to say [without documen-tation that it was 'stolen.'
Contra the F-111 wannabe the USSR [almost certainly stolen], knocked off.....or their reverse
engineering of the B-29's that force landed in russian territory during WWII.
The (English) Lotus banned from the (French) Le Mans... classic!
Another example of The Economist's anti-French bias...
You can see it everywhere, if you're paranoid enough!
But to be fair, the french hate everybody.
The article seems to suggest that the aerodynamic grip created by external wings is somehow inferior and that the DeltaWing "aims to do things differently," but creating downforce through an underbody diffuser is subject to the same stability issues as the former. It is true that the drag penalty is much worse with wings, but interrupted airflow (car riding over a rumble strip through a corner) will doom diffuser grip just the same. Either way, F1 cars use both and each system (wings and diffuser) accounts for roughly half the total downforce.
Also, you'll never see this setup on an F1 car because the track (axle) width is mandated by the technical regulations. A chassis must be 1800mm wide at each axle.
Wow Economist, did you copy the info on the Lotus 23 direct from Wikipdia or what?
The Open Source comment at the end is very interesting.
Sure the TE has a proud tradition of extreme anglophilia and extreme xenophobia, but would it kill them to acknowledge the fact that the entry was not just powered by Nissan engine-wise (and a great engine that is indeed), but also sponsored by Nissan, labeled Nissan, and impossible without Nissan?
Whatever the origin of the idea, the car that impressed at Le Mans was the NISSAN Deltawing.
It would also be fitting that it was a Japanese firm that supported the DeltaWing concept: First successful example of "Half the weight for half the engine power" design in history would be Mitsubishi Zero fighter...
A point some of you serious techy guys might be missing is that 3 wheeled cars, trikes, tricycles, auto cycles, cycle cars are great fun. I realise there isn't much room for fun in today's world but would preach loudly that any man with blood in his veins should at least once get into or onto a 3 wheeler, be it a Morgan, a sidecar, whatever, and go for a blast. Open top better, loud exhaust better, big petrol engine best.
Neighbour of mine has 1928 BSA Scout 3 wheeled car, 2 front 1 rear, open top, absolute top fun and will do near 60 mph which is quite terrifying, while being quite good on fuel.
Did anyone else see the Top Gear episode where the 3 wheel Robin kept falling over at every turn? Bowlby et al figured this one out better but it is a bit of an answer to a question no one asked. This may become a niche sub-class race series but until it can really run with the big dogs, sub 3:30 laps at Sarthe , it'll only be a curiosity. Oh and the main Mercedes CLR flips occurred at the Indianapolis section of Le Mans.
The Nissan Deltawing is a four-wheeler. And to compare a vehicle that is able to lap Sarthe in 3:45.737 to a Reliant Robin is borderline insanity.
In 1990 Equinox (Channel 4 science + engineering programme, not seen nowadays) made an excellent programme about a certain Ben Bowlby, grandson of John Bowlby, himself famous for writing a book called 'Child Care and the Growth of Love'. Young Ben had not done well at school but showed a remarkable talent for -designing racing cars. He had made a model )I think) of one of his prototypes and dammit if it didn't look a lot like the Deltawing.
That was in 1990. It was one of the best Equinoxes I saw. Sometime they went off the wall but when it came to motor racing they were usually very good.
Th programme as called 'The Nuts and Bolts of Ben Bowlby'. A thoroughly nice and enjoyable programme which made important points about what the education system didn't do. Trouble is I guess it would be very hard to see to-day, otherwise I'd recommend people to try and see it.
And now we get to see what happened to the lad - pretty much what you'd expect after seeing the programme, so good on him, I say.
I am not a physicist or an engineer, but I have tinkered with cars in my day. I always had been told that at low speeds (i.e. sub-sonic), that the most aerodynamic shape was teardrop (fatter in front, narrower to the rear). Delta shapes were necessary as one started approaching supersonic (to minimize turbulence). Is this no-longer the rule of thumb?
You were probably told that by the same textbook that proved that a dragster could never cover a quarter mile in less than 9 seconds. A teardrop doesn't have the plan area needed to obtain ground effect downforce, and doesn't have the low center of gravity and wide stance needed to avoid tipping over during turns.
I wasn't asking about why race cars are not built to look like bullets or footballs. I understand exactly why cars have wings and spoilers built on to them. I also understand that racing cars have to provide for other factors such as engine cooling and turning stability. The story premise, however, appears to be that a radical delta wedge shape to the body of a car is somehow much more aerodynamic than existing shapes. I am uncertain as to why this would necessarily be the case. The article seems to indicate that the car shape actually redirects more air over its wings to create more downforce, but that is not the same thing as saying it is more aerodynamically efficient (i.e. reducing air friction over the entire car).
If you ever bother to look at the cross section of a wing, you will see that it is designed with a teardrop shape (fatter on the leading edge, and progressively thinner as you approach the trailing edge).
Qualifying 24th is "giving the fire breathing machines a run for their money"? Really??
If outright lap speed determines qualification, then this was the Delta wings weakness. As the article states its primary advantage was lower tyre wear and better fuel efficiency resulting in less pit stops.
Size matters, once again! Gimme a 'fire-breather' anyday.
Money no object if this would help an F1 team it would already be in place.
Case in point is the Tyrell P34 last raced in 1976 and took first and second at the Swedish Grand Prix and the 1982 ban of the Williams as the FW08B of such technology.
Hey we have some F1 fans at the Economist!!!!
They also banned 4 wheel drive, turbines, active suspension and CVT among others ... And they kepp trying
Audi didn't win that race, they bought it.
They spent so much money no one else really had a chance.
As to Audi's hybrids vs diesels, for reasons of political correctness there was no way they would let their diesels win ahead of their hybrids if they were in site of the finish, so that little bit a a tad neat too. I hate it when politics mixes with sports.
All Audi has proven, again, is that they are willing and able to spend more than anyone else.
Let me predict next year's LeMans winner.....um....Audi!
I know, it's a stretch, but I'm sticking to it.
Audi won because Peugeot decided not to play, and because Toyota did not devote the time or money to build a competitive car.
One of the key elements for victory in endurance racing is the ability to fix problems and replace failed parts quickly. Audi's years of experience have given it an enormous advantage; its pit crews are the best, but they are so proficient in part because of the job done by the engineers.
There is another source of major physical instability of the DeltaWing.
With its narrow front axis, the vehicle is effectively a tricycle. And the turning radius is markedly shortened, which is good for parallel parking and slow speed manuevering.
However it has marked increase angular momentum. This threatens high speed stability and simple lane changes can result in over-rotation of the whole chasis. I would imagine the steering has very touchy handling. And have trouble with lateral tracking. And be accident prone.
Proof of Concept: in over a 100 years of vehicle production, there has never been a successful tricycle consumer vehicle...save the Mattel Big Wheel.
It is an inherrently unsafe design. That is why this vehicle will remain rare and avoided.
Yep. These things are becoming stabilized motorcycles. They look substantially similar to designs raced in cycles for many years.
Proof of Concept: in over a 100 years of vehicle production, there has never been a successful tricycle consumer vehicle...save the Mattel Big Wheel.
Apart from the thousands of Reliant three wheeled cars built, the thousands of Morgan sports cars built and raced and in the UK, the plethora of three wheeled bubble cars bought during the late '50's. Properly designed tricycles are inherently MORE stable than four wheeled vehicles but sadly it seems are still destined to be sidelined by ignorance and prejudice....
If it was an inherrently unsafe design it most likely would not have gotten this far already. I imagine there were plenty of people saying similar things about those damn flyin' machines in the early 1900s.
But if it has a low enough center of gravity, it's not going to be tippy. For instance, the Big Wheel, versus a regular trike.
But the Morgans, Reliants, etc. have two front wheels and 1 rear wheel, which can be engineered to act the same as a 4 wheeler, whereas three wheelers with a high center of gravity are prone to that tricycle fall forward thing that Arte Johnson popularized on Laugh-In.
That's kind of what I thought, motorcycle with sidecar racing. Adjust the wheel layout slightly and a couple of other minor archetectural changes and that's what you've got with the Delta wing thing.
That's not an argument against three wheeled cars, just against having one wheel in the front.
That being said, I have to wonder why three wheeled cars haven't really caught on. They're sold mainly as tiny budget cars, and not as full sized cars (aside from the Dymaxion Car), which is where the real business would be? Is it because of the corporate conservatism of the type that was rumored to have gotten the bankers to block financing of the Dymaxion Car so that it wouldn't threaten their traditional car business holdings? There was the Aptara, which was a very promising 2 passenger car, which was technically successful, and had amazing mileage/efficiency, but the investors pulled out anyway, believing that 2 passenger cars didn't have enough potential sales in the US to justify the cost of launching a new car company to scale.
I have just arrived from a plane trip. There was some crosswind during the take-off run, and the pilot had to make small corrections all the time to keep the nose of the plane on the right track along the runway.
The plane had a tricycle landing gear arrangement, of course, and the nosewheel seemed quite sensitive. It felt like a series of little sideway jolts all the way down to the moment the wheels left the ground. (the same has happened other times in similar conditions and many kinds of planes).
So, this seems to demonstrate your point about the "touchy handling" of tricycle nosewheels.
Even though I don't know whether, during take-off, the pilot steers directly the nosewheel or applies the corrections to the vertical rudder in the tail. Any pilots or engineers available to tell us? (the plane was an Embraer 195, which seems a quite conventional, no-frills small airliner).
Not exactly. One can counter this via a stiffer anti-roll bar.
Not to nitpick, shape does not determine "angular momentum," forces do (L=I*omega in 2D). While it might have a lower "I" about roll axis, that does not make it "unsafe" ... Depending on its suspension, it could be even safer than a "normal" car.
A "consumer" trike is a different matter (passenger space, aesthetics, frontal crumple zone, etc.).
Couldn't agree more. Also they need to make them a more aggressive design flare. I guarantee you that plenty of teenage and young college/university drivers would buy a car like that (needs to be cheap too) if they get the design right.
I think there's been some confusion between 'Project 56' (the constructor) and 'Garage 56' (the race slot).