F1technical.net

There are times when "general" understeer is fast... particularly when putting power down on exit is at a premium, RWD power is high, and downforce is minimal. Pull the inside front tire off the ground but in doing so keep the rears more evenly loaded for forward traction. Sacrifice mid-corner for exit.

There ya go, Senna tried it for you.

bhallg2k wrote:Why on Earth would a driver want to "drift" through a corner? That's soooo slow.

Depends on how you mean. Optimal slip angle would disagree.

Sure it´s not a massive drift but the most grip happens "over the event horizon" if you will.

For a start you want some slip as that is the most effective way to use the tires but it´s a very fine line to walk.

Nando wrote:For a start you want some slip as that is the most effective way to use the tires but it´s a very fine line to walk.

This is where I think people get tripped up - terminology. What do you mean by "slip" here?

You always have sideslip in the tires as you drive around cornering. Driving a minivan to the supermarket, there's slip. Driving a F1 car around the Monaco hairpin there's slip.

Jersey Tom wrote:This is where I think people get tripped up - terminology. What do you mean by "slip" here?
You always have sideslip in the tires as you drive around cornering. Driving a minivan to the supermarket, there's slip. Driving a F1 car around the Monaco hairpin there's slip.

JT- Exactly. Just what is the definition of "slip"? At any given instant there is some portion of the tire tread surface experiencing some degree of slip with respect to the track surface. Even traveling in a straight line, the tread surface at the very leading/trailing edge of the contact area briefly "slips" as it loads/unloads when passing through the contact area.

While drifting a car sideways through a corner with rear tires spinning is fun to watch, it is actually requires far more skill and finesse to put a road race car through a corner right at the limit of the tire traction capabilities. In theory, I imagine it would be possible for F1 to require spec tire compounds that were extremely hard and durable. Enough so that it would allow a substantial amount of sliding in the turns while also lasting more than a single lap. But the downside is that lap times would be greatly reduced.

optimum slip angle is by tyre design .You will have a very different picture with formula 1 of today and in the 70s
Back then the cars showed a lot more slip angle because it was needed to get maximum grip.
todays tyres need a lot less slip angle to produce that grip so just return to full diagonals and you get a fair chunk of sideways travelling back .

one would have to design the aerodynamics to cope, or even benefit from, air coming from the sides.

riff_raff wrote:

Jersey Tom wrote:This is where I think people get tripped up - terminology. What do you mean by "slip" here?
You always have sideslip in the tires as you drive around cornering. Driving a minivan to the supermarket, there's slip. Driving a F1 car around the Monaco hairpin there's slip.

JT- Exactly. Just what is the definition of "slip"?

From a tire/vehicle dynamics standpoint it's pretty simple. Ratio of lateral sideslip to longitudinal velocity, which can expressed as an angle. That's all that matters. I know this has come up before, and as I'm fond of saying... don't even bother thinking of tread deflection or carcass or chemical grip or any crap like that. It's irrelevant as far as the definition of slip is concerned.

can I suggest that we define slip angles beyond the optimum (ie peak 'lateral' force) slip angle as SLIDING ?

(and remember that the ideal race driver (today or in the past) corners at that slip angle without exceeding it ?)

we agree the optimum angle has been greatly reduced over the last 50 years and an increase is desirable ?

any such increase will need more power and heat the tyres more, unless the DF is suitably reduced
(race cornering even at steady speed consumes a lot of engine power)

Tommy Cookers wrote:we agree the optimum angle has been greatly reduced over the last 50 years and an increase is desirable ?

I don't agree with that last part, no.

Me too.

As i said in my very first post and now that we have the same definition of "sliding" (the vehicule), i re affirm that with current grip levels (hence current cornering speeds) it is impossible to have comparable sliding as in the 50's and i dont want to see it neither; You have several categories with cars sliding, F1 cars are now on another driving style that is extreme in contrary to what many people think and i think that is frankly a good thing.

surely the whole point and practice of F1 etc is to reach and maintain the slip angle that gives the max cornering ?
(without exceeding it ....... ie sliding is to be avoided or greatly minimised )
this still applies in design, setup, and driving
(and generally did since F1 started in 1948)

except that in slower corners apex speed is often sacrificed for exit acceleration
except that on current circuits more/most high-speed corners are power-limited not grip-limited

there never was a 'golden age' of tail-sliding cornering (generally)
'max cornering' slip angles are now so small that steady oversteer would show little opposite lock and be unimpressive
(despite all the above, temporary slides are still frequent today, are people complaining that's not enough ?)

a 185mm tyre width in 2013 F1 would have quite a small slip angle IMO (if the tyre didn't have to do a suspension job)
(modern tyre structural design would give a fraction of 50s tyre distortion ie let the rubber do its job of gripping)

Tommy Cookers wrote: there never was a 'golden age' of tail-sliding cornering (generally)
'max cornering' slip angles are now so small that steady oversteer would show little opposite lock and be unimpressive
(despite all the above, temporary slides are still frequent today, are people complaining that's not enough ?)

There was a time when drivers with better car control drove fast with the tail hung out. The early Mark Donahue comes to mind. His dominate Elva Courier would corner with what looked like 45 degrees tail out; but whether he was fast because of this or in spite of it is open to question. In any event as he and his equipment matured his driving style changed.

IMO the “golden age” was in large part driven by really lousy brakes and handling. Throwing the car sideways was an important part of slowing a vehicle. Also handling was rather poor. The car was again thrown to get it pointed in the desired direction and then caught. A really good driver could do this while the car’s net travel was more or less a constant arc and with only a modestly late apex.

The “golden age” differed in kind rather than degree from what we have today.