Tommy Cookers wrote:conceptual 'thought experiment'
a railway train has no slip, slide, drift or whatever (because of the flange)
olefud wrote:It appears that there’s agreement that tail-hung-out racing is unlikely in F-1. It’s just faster to be tidy. Yet on dirt tracks sprint and late models as well as rallies they’re running full opposite lock and driving with the throttle. Would they be faster if they cleaned up their act? Is F-1 racing of years past analogous?
Just_a_fan wrote:Two concepts
1950s = cross ply
2012 = radial
bill shoe wrote:As tires become grippier they tend to developing peak grip at lower slip angles.
Don't know if this can be explained with theory
bill shoe wrote:Cars on dirt tracks have no chance of maintaining near-static friction when they go fast around the corners. They will always be in a kinetic friction regime. A high slip angle means the spinning drive tires push the car into the center of the turn so you can go around the turn faster. Again, this wouldn't work with typical pavement and tires in the near-static friction regime because the radial drive force of the spinning tires would take you into the lower-grip kinetic regime, but when a dirt surface already forces you into kinetic friction you might as well optimize that situation by using the drive force to directly accelerate toward the turn center. In theory the optimum slip angle would be a full 90 degrees, but then you would lose forward drive around the turn. You have to drive some angle less than 90 so you have a tangent component that keeps you going through the corner.
This is also true on snow, gravel, or situations like really hard kart tires on polished concrete. Any situation where fast driving puts you into constant kinetic friction.
Tommy Cookers wrote:why wouldn't the designer want both ends of the car developing high cornering forces ?
Users browsing this forum: gixxer_drew and 8 guests