Delta Wing Street Car
 

Jalopnik: If You Want 70 MPG, Your Next Car May Have To Look Like This

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...hhsxxhvgxr.jpg

"The DeltaWing idea is based on four ideas: reduced weight, increased powertrain efficiency, decreased energy consumption, and improved aerodynamics. They say the street car will do all of these things, and their current targets are zero to 60 mph in six seconds, a 130 mph top speed, and up to 70 miles per gallon with a small four-cylinder engine with somewhere between 85 and 110 horsepower."

I think it's backwards. Should be reversed for a proper tear drop shape.

Looks an awful lot like the Vigillante of over 20 years ago:

http://www.vigillante.com/images/Vig_5.jpg

Welcome to VIGILLANTE'S Page 2

Why not ditch the fourth wheel and gain all the benefits of being in the motorcycle category? :confused:

Looks too much like a tapir to me...


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...r_standing.JPG


-soD

what do you think a front end crash would look like? and 0-60 in 6 seconds with a 100hp engine? doubtful

I'd think a frontal impact would look much like any rear-engined car. Better not ever ride in a VW, Porsche, or Corvair. Or Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc.

They got the aerodynamics backward! :-D

I bet it handles like a big version of the 3 wheel Rascal scooter , looks about as good ! That's not a complement ..

It would depend on the center of gravity. If it is low enough, it should actually be stable, while having the wider end in front is more stable and more aerodynamic.

People always worry about the front!

How would a rear-end collision go with two wheels in front and one in the back?

*chuckle* Add the Tesla Model S (broke-the-rating-scale) to that list. :D

-

The handling should be similar to the race car. The cabin is far back from the front wheel, and the mechanicals are packaged around the rear axle, so it should be pretty good. Frontal and offset crash ratings should be good, but I'd worry about the small overlap test, since that might expose some vulnerability in the cabin crash structure by bypassing the front end completely!

and a lot of the Jalopnik poster commented the same.
but the delta wing is actually quite stable. It has a massive rear weight bias, so the center of gravity is pretty much just in front of the rear tires.
THat was the whole premise of the thing. Only put as much track width and tire as the weight required.

wheras the robin had most of the weight above that single wheel

Wheelie machine then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIUMOgq2F3s#t=189

were all fooled into thinking ,ultra efficient vehicles are all concept vehicles and way too expensive to produce.Sure if the body is hand laid carbon fiber,it would be pretty costly to produce,but there are plenty of other materials that work just fine.I bet VW's 120 thousand dollar ? XL1 could be produced tommorrow using standard production methods,off the shelve engines,transmissions and still get 100 plus mpg,2 liter per 100Km.and cost no more than any other car to produce.

The Aerocivic beats those specs except for the 0 to 60 mph time and is safer in a front end crash.

lol, loved that reliant video. Generally I don't like TGs small car bashing, but it was pretty obvious what a fale the reliant is in the handling department.

I'm fairly convinced that any forward trike arrangement is a bad idea, it is the worst of both worlds. two wheels handles fine (and much better aero potential), as does four. Bought any new 3-wheel ATVs lately?

Three just keeps you from leaning properly without enough leverage to keep you upright, and forces you to radically alter the weight distribution for mediocre handling. Reverse trikes are "ok", but even then you have to widen the track and/or lower the cg, and you will still slide the rear end a lot (oversteer) to keep your momentum up around the corners, not an efficiency "win", plus frontal area is increased with the offset tire.

Building one in your garage is one thing, put a vw and a goldwing in the garage, dim the lights, light the lavender candles and throw on some Barry White and see what happens. But production is going to be limited to "expensive toy".

a 3 wheel atv would be fine if it was stretched out and wasnt so tall, and the COG wasnt so close to the front wheel.

well there is the "utility" aspect of it too, that stretched out portion has to be light, and the front wheel becomes even less load bearing on such an arm. I admittedly don't quite have my finger on it, but my insight is telling me it is off. That cool-factor hype is overruling a proper analysis of the physics involved. Like if you made essentially the same mods to a 4 wheeler it would be just as efficient if not more so, and even more stable and practical. I think basjoos is on to something, if you have to extend anything, extend the tail.

It's fine as a dragster though.

Proper trikes are extremely stable and nimble. Improper trikes are, of course, tippy. Same with quads.

but how do you do apples to apples? I mean look how wide the actual delta wing is, that width is frontal area aero penalty, and low height can just as easily be applied to a 4 wheeler, with more equal tire loading. Would a 4 wheeler be narrower for the same tip-over force?

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...zz1dtt8jpg.jpg

I was going to add that it would predictably handle worse while braking and cornering, but don't ever try a pitt maneuver on one either:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW7qaG9K2_c

Also a lot of interwebbers seem confused as to what "frontal area" means, that somehow moving the area as seen from the front towards the rear of the car makes it not count...

I wonder why they didn't make it in the reverse trike design in that Nissan wide up front not behind ?

Must be a reason they choose the delta wing, perhaps they are hoping to "hover" around the track one day..

I'd still buy an Elio over this car any day. (Assuming that I'll be able to do that anyway...)

I think it'll be challenging for the driver to get a sense of the true width of the car. Probably end up knocking the rear fenders off on a regular basis.

Good point, while a tapered back should be unusually difficult to hit.

The "Venturi Effect" occurs when air rushes between two close-proximity bodies causing them to be "sucked" together...such as two race cars!

Would be interesting to say the least, but I wouldn't hold my breath for Nissan to release a road-legal version of the Delta Wing.

Nissan dropped out.

I like the idea of having a class of lightweight fuel efficient racers though, just too much to sort out with a delta. I also like keeping f1 as a "performance is the only consideration" class as well.

One other issue is the vortex generators creating downforce on the underside. It appears a slight bump into the air will destroy the downforce, as will getting a bit sideways, at which point your tires are skidding (braking) and you don't have the leverage at the front corners to help keep it flat. And people seem to enjoy knocking the delta around :)

Anyone else bothered by the title? Should read something like "f You Want 70 MPG, Your Next Car May Have To Be A Gen1 Insight". My 2000 is still showing 71.2 average over 10 years/125K miles that I've owned it. (Admittedly it's not getting quite as good as it used to, since the lifetie average dropped from 71.4 a year or so ago.) So with 14 years of technical improvement, you have to go to something like that delta wing to get not even a significant improvement, but the same fuel efficiency?

I saw a 4 wheeled one once.

http://imganuncios.mitula.net/2000_r...3022782257.jpg

That actually looks a lot better with the round headlights.

Looks way better than the Nissan.