DELTAWING
nothing to show for the time and money consumed. Bowlby says that you could
argue the original design of the DeltaWing was that of a spec racecar. Spec racing may be low cost, but it is also low value, missing ‘the value’ that can found in the brains of the clever people who can be found in racing. How, he asks, do you allow development in a series where the value needs to be high and everybody is concerned about the costs?
THE CLAIMING RULE Some race series, he observes, have a ‘claiming rule’ to control costs, where a competitor can ‘claim’ the engine from a winner’s car for a price pre-set in the regulations. However, in a situation where one person does most of the winning, they would have to keep selling their engines. With open source, all the designs are published and given away, though the parts themselves are subject to copyright, so the other competitors could, if they choose, buy, or manufacture under license, those same components for their own use. Using this thinking, the DeltaWing team believed that they had a viable and scaleable business model. If a large number of companies became involved, they would take a cut of each part that was sold. If fewer parts were developed, the business could
In open source thinking, a list of all accredited parts would be available on a dedicated website. Solid models, design drawings, even supplier names and lead times, could be downloaded for free, a fee only becoming necessary if / when the part is validated for racing
simply be handled by less people. There is much that can be done using new media that can be applied to this process. The dedicated website, for example, would contain a register of all the accredited parts, including the solid models and design drawings, the part numbers, the supplier, the lead times and costs. This information could then be downloaded at no charge by anyone signing on to the terms and conditions. There would be nothing to stop someone manufacturing a sample part or a team using a part in a test – a fee would only be necessary once the part was validated for racing. In this way, a new supplier could try out whether it was actually capable of making a better / lower cost part. Any published part manufactured by a company that has been granted a license to supply it for racing could then be sold through the managing entity. When the part had been manufactured it would go for QA inspection for conformity to
design, and be given a unique identifier and serial number. To finance the business, the managing entity would charge a fee for managing and supplying the part, while a royalty would be paid to the design’s originator. In the DeltaWing embodiment, it was the intention that the
IDentification) tag. It would be the team’s task to ensure that every part used in the car’s build was inspected, identified as having been made to a published drawing, and then loaded onto the tag by the managing entity. To ensure compliance, race inspection might randomly require parts from cars post- race, in which case the parts’ identifiers would be scanned and, in the event of a possible anomaly, they could be inspected for conformity at HQ. It would be easy to find out if the part did not meet the drawing and, in such a case, a penalty would be levied. ‘If there was a horrendously gross violation, then the team would have to be chucked out of the championship,’ adds Bowlby. ‘Not using published parts would be a black and white no go.’ The series’ organiser would publish all changes that any
the rate of technology
growth has become critical for competitiveness
Far from stifling competition, encouraging others to work on developing the same parts would save wasted effort and encourage the rapid adoption of the best technical solutions
www.racecar-engineering.com • Le Mans
combined price of the spare parts for a complete car cost no more than $386,000. A cost cap would be in place but it would not have been portrayed as such. The true cost of a part might have meant that it could not be used within that ceiling. However, the manufacturer could still supply the part, but only if the price to the customer was lowered to meet the rules. Initially, this might not make commercial sense, but other returns on investment, such as marketing or technology advancement opportunities, offer reasons to take on this cost burden. In some ways, this aspect of Bowlby’s scheme reflects the 2012 IndyCar regulation that says aero kits must be sold for $70,000, a figure way below their actual development cost. Bonded into each chassis there would be a RFID (Radio- Frequency
team may have made, meaning that such as Ganassi would know what Penske was doing and vice versa. This would avoid any acrimony and there would be complete transparency. ‘The goal of this would be to leave no one behind and ensure that the best technical solutions would be largely adopted. However, there would be nothing stopping teams from doing some development that improves the breed.’ It might be said that
the latter action would be counterproductive, in that it would ultimately benefit all teams, but Bowlby answers this by saying that, in this way, the team concerned could prove to sponsors that it not only wins races but also drives technology. The team could also make money manufacturing these parts for others on the grid. A suitable lead time would ensure that no team, including the originator, had the part in advance of its rivals, and slowly the car’s spec would improve and quality would be assured. Put like that, it seems to be a win-win situation.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86