Seeing lots of questions in here about the normal load sensitivity of the tyres, there's a brief discussion of that here: th-cam.com/video/y5Y-w4zGW00/w-d-xo.html at 8:20 for those interested. There's also a degree of chemical adhesion between the surfaces, particularly on stickier tyres (try poking a warm slick and see what happens). Thanks for watching!
I would really like to hear your opinion about active or semi-active aero as well. I think with those, downforce increase can be greater than velocity squared. Usually AERO has to be fixed, but with like a speed controlled F-duct, or with planned bending of spoilers to change AOA even racecars could use it. I haven't heard about any concepts or working solutions though.
@@TheWiniarss My question is really about making not active aero components work differently in different speed ranges, leaving the downforce is proportional to v squared principle. I think it is more useful to make your spoilers "cut off" at high speed straights, so you have less drag and just enough downforce, but you could do the other way around if it is useful on a course. With active aero you could do whatever is best on each part of a track, I don't know why it is banned usually.
I thought the whole myth about "needing to drive faster because me car has the big aero s u c c", is more about needing to drive past that initial threshold of what you think is the maximum, and knowing the car has more to offer once you drive fast enough to put it in that region of the car's preferred operating conditions relative to a car without downforce. ie car A has enough downforce it can brake from 200mph down to the upcoming corner's apex speed of 40mph in just 60m, but you have to be brave and confident enough you can arrive at the 60m mark at 200mph, rather than approaching at the 100m mark, realised you've went 150m deeper than the 250m breaking point for car B, a regular 1g road car and bottle it and lift off a bit, so you now reach the 60m marker at only 170mph, and at that speed you haven't got enough grip to deaccelerate to 40mph within that 60mph space and instead only able to break down to 65mph and then overshoot the corner? Of course assuming the complex black magic of the tyre is fairly constant and is assumed to be operating at its optimal chemical composition at the contact patch and things like the stiffness coefficient as a function of the normal load is already accounted for etc.
THIS is the stuff we need! The physics behind it. Speaking for myself, not an engineer, so I wouldn't mind (like others no doubt) if you would make these longer and elaborate. Such a source of knowledge.
I think the Clarkson statement was ad-libbing a quote from Alan Jones when the ground effects cars started. I suspect it was a perceptual shift that Jones was going through when dealing with high levels of downforce, rather than an engineering reality. However, the corner entrance speeds may be a closer match to this quote and may be what Jones was referring too.
9:00 that's actually something you can see by eye in multi class racing with GT3 or GTE against LMPs in very tight corners. even with the added weight of the GT car, they usually look less on edge, and sometimes are a tiny bit faster through those really tight sections
Funnily enough LMP cars can have relatively similar springs to GT3 at low speeds nowadays. It's pretty nuanced why but the gist of it could be noted to pitch sensitivity. LMPs have much longer wheelbase so they don't need as much spring to keep pitch in check compared to GT3. What you see in tight corners is also mostly down to wheelbase differences - LMPs or F1 etc are too long to optimally use all the grip.
@@derblaue True! But also the effects of springs are summed up (roll bars+heave+springs+second spring). Just 4 springs and roll bars can achieve same wheel rates as suspension with heave. The real advantage of heave is in more direct control ride height without throwing everything else off and packaging. Having heave unfortunately does not mean we can have soft suspension for bumps and stiff for aero, if that was the case they would be as prevalent as roll bars (including all street cars, as baggage works like aero for them).
Love the graphical representation here! How about a video on improving aero on 1/2mile and roll racing cars. Especially for classic cars and nontraditional body type vehicles... 1,000-2,000hp trucks and SUVS are becoming shockingly common at these events in the US
Also, the idea that you have to go faster is based on balance; it means more that you can't slow down but need to keep the speed constant, even when it scares the living daylight out of you... There are also corners like Albert Park turns 9-10 where you need to straighten the car to get maximum acceleration.. which makes you point straight to a wall, you can't turn for a while, you can't lift cause it unsettles the rear and you just hope the whole aero gains enough downforce that it balances the car.. and then you can feel the grip just magically return. If you don't accelerate fast enough, you have to lift a bit to get more grip to the front, slowing you down before a straight and possibly unsettling the car.
one point that comes to mind you dont have to drive faster, but you can drive tighter edit: this video is actually almost the perfect answer to a problem ive had for many years, something even a bit of googling could t solve "whats better, a car that drives tightly but slowly around a corner, or wide and fast ?" there are so many physical problems in one simple question...
@@noncog1 why doubt it when thats the fact of the problem ? runner 1 runs 1 m/s on a 1 meter circumference while runner 2 runs 5 m/s on a 5 meter circumference. now tell me who finishes first.
@@DarkIzo that's a rather small house mate. Point of the matter is you'll always have to go farther to take the outside line, and itll never equal out. Do as tight a loop around a light pole in a parking lot as you can without turning it into donuts, and have your buddy drive in a circle just inside the lot. I bet he'll be driving a lot faster. I bet you do 5 circles well before him.
Hi Kyle, I've got a completely free 4WD Electric Formula Student Driver-in-the-Loop Simulink model in Cruden Panthera which could be a playground for you to illustrate different aero-concepts. A few key features are: a semi-validated aero-model (with various ClA and CdA at different ride heights, gained from Star-CCM+ CFD simulations at 5 degrees of yaw angle @60 km/h) from our OBR20 Formula Student car and dynamic Fz-loading based off the aero load, weight transfer and so on with a non-linear tyre-model of our Hoosier tyres. It runs at 1 kHz so you've got plenty of resolution for pressure tabs or any other aero-wizardry that's not my forte. The model outputs every single parameter which it calculates, slip angles, Fz, Fy, Fx, pitch, accelerations, loads and so on to MATLAB for data-analysis - and the car produces around 2.5 lateral G with peak downforce of 2300N at 106 km/h (keep in mind we have not been able to validate this due to the pandemic!). If you're interested throw me a reply here, and I will email it to you. Let me know! -Some Danish F1 engineer at an Italian car company
Child kart driver make way. But no seriously having to drive an aero car faster comes from racing. And the video does cover this but another take. Stock drivers believe many silly things, so let's ignore that. The secret is - aero race cars have race tyres. You must push a race tire hard before it starts to stick. Then for an aero car, driving a car to its normal mechanical limits may not be sufficient to warm the tires. The car is built to come alive when pushed to its limits, not your limits. This is most severe in extreme aero formats like Formula 1. Even on a video game simulation, if it has decent physics, driving the car how you might expect on mechanical grip could be 20s off pace. The tires are cold, the thing handles like garbage. Your normal senses just aren't ready for the jump to a true aero car. And it is a jump. So you swallow your pride, hang it out on the ragged edge in a corner so that only the aero is saving you from crashing, and all of a sudden the tires get warm and start to stick, and you shave off 10s. You get into the flow where you're driving the car on aero, every single curve seems like you will die and only the aero can save you, and the other 10s fall off. This is TERRIFYING the first time you notice it. Eventually you develop a feel for this. But there is always a gap. When F1 drivers are complaining the track is too cold, the safety car is going too slow, and their tires are going off... That is a BIG DEAL at that level. It could easily mean that last lap your car was on the same pace as the leader, and now your tires cross a coldness threshold, and you drop 5+s the next lap. It's like driving with a light frost on the track. And it keeps getting worse until you can build heat. ...just as a reminder, street car tires do not have any warmup window. Even high end semi-slick Pirelli street tires generally don't respond much different when warm. Because that would be unsafe. Only purpose-built race tires do this. And if some moron is running race tires on street. Not only is that dangerous and likely illegal, but you can see the crash dents on the car because he failed to get up to temp driving on the street and already hit someone.
Great video super interesting! As a Ph.D. candidate and avid racer I can't get enough! I do think though that you have to inherently set up a high downforce car differently stiffer spring etc. This will usually make the car more unstable at low speed. So while you do not decrease your turning radius by going faster, the car will usually feel more stable. This is not a problem for f1 drivers since they have impeccable car control and can wrestle it at any speed, but your average weekend warrior (Jeremy Clarkson) would actually probably have better control of an F3 level car at high speed than they would at low speed. So while they don't HAVE to go faster through the corner, the car would be more stable and "safer" if they did. Or at least thats what I would say to the police officer as they take me to jail. ;) I'd be interested to hear your take!
I think what is different between high df and low df is how you approach a corner. The relative entry speed to apex speed should be faster in high df cars since you don't have such a huge corner radius penalty. But you have be harder on the brake later because you will lose grip faster. Basically think of the grip as a function of corner radius. If you have a higher entry speed the corner radius will also decrease faster requiering a lower speed. For low df the corner radius decreases more slowly because of the lower corner entry. You thus don't need (rather can't) brake as hard.
I assume that one of the goals is to get max downforce without compromising mu of the tyre. Question: how do you model your tyre data? Do you use (for example) Pacejka model? Can you make a video about tyre data analysis? It's good to have you back on youtube, your content is brilliant :)
The way I’ve seen this presented in the past was in regards to dealing with stone cold tires on a formula car, that it could be tricky because you had to take great care at slow speeds but push harder than your “non aero dependent car” instincts say is safe at higher speeds.
Quick couple points: > it’s a nice model, but 10 minutes of looking at excel is not fun > I know that values of parameters are super secret IP, but it wouldn’t hurt to use Miata with spoiler as an example > On the iPad, I can’t see the axes nor axis titles and it looks messy > structure the knowledge for less advanced viewers, explain the equations > improve the script a lil bit, intro> main content> outro ( thermal loading can be a whole different video) > It may be interesting to see a coherent (theme driven) season of these videos > I know you run consultancy and you target your potential clients with these videos. It it even more important to consider the above.
Yeah the difference there is that F1 tyres deliver their top coefficient of fiction when they reach operating temp. So unless you work them enough (corner speed & braking), you don't reach the operating grip. Hence its fair to say that if you don't have the temp, not a lot of this video applies. For the average road tyre though, which delivers peak grip basically at ambient temp, most of this video applies.
Maybe a small suggestion on the model/graph you made. It would be easier to visualize if you could enter two values that you were comparing in the model and the graph would show both so you could see the difference directly.
@@onehundredpicks5531 i'm no expert in excel or simulations, but you start by figuring out the formulas you'll need for said simulation (you can sometimes combine multiple formulas into really large formulas that have like 15 different variables), then then you load up a bunch of cells in the spreadsheet with the relevant variables, and then you start a cell with = and then put your formula in there, referencing the other cells with your variables.
But what if your corner has negative camber? Or if your race track is upside down? How much negative camber would you need to get this principle to work?
What about the car balance? My car is definitely not a race car but 66% of the 3384 lbs with me in it is in the front. My car is a FWD hatchback. I believe I need to get negative camber in front to help from the understeer push on track. I'm glad to see you back 👍
I can justify this myth... Please tell me if I'm wrong because I use crude physics games as my basis (though backed up by real world) with a mid engine car, you'll need quite narrow front tires (like an old Countach), unless you start adding downforce with extra going to the rear. This will help curtail oversteer caused by having too much grip in the front, but if you add really wide front tires, then you'll need to generate more downforce on the rear. This means at low speeds the car may be a little skiddish, until you start going above 80kmh (approximated off of my game only based experience) ipso facto car is uncontrollable until you go fast enough? For the top gear episodes they may have exaggerated this?
That spreadsheet alone was worth watching for. I'm trying to make a very similar one for my team's F3 car (just running in a regional British championship). However I don't know Co Efficient of grip and a couple of other constants, makes for an interesting challenge to work them out. Loved the video Kyle, so informative, to the point as always.
Quite obvious. The downforce grows with velocity squared and the corner radius for given acceleration also grows with velocity squared. So you can have a constant corner radius across the speed range at best when the weight of the car (normal force) is negligible compared to the aerodynamic downforce - as shown in the last example.
I'm building a drag racer and its a classic as well so I'm well aware of the fact that I'm going to be racing more aerodynamic cars I loved this video and would like to know if you could cover improving straight line drag some time thanks mate!
Kyle I would love to see a quick explanation video on the relationship between coefficient of friction and tire load. You have like 15 tire videos and I don’t see that topic covered generally. Could someone link maybe?
I would very much like to see the theoretical gain in laptime for a track car with realistic low-medium downforce. For non professional race teams like us i think it's interesting to see if the (extra) investments in aero are worth it. I understand that it's very dependable of the track you're driving.
Yes Id like to see this simulation as well. From what I have read in books, aero is almost always worth it. You get the effect of aero allowing you to go faster, which further enhances the downforce, allowing you to go faster.
If you want to do your own simulations you can use this free program to do some basic vehicle dynamics sims: optimumg.com/product/optimumlap/ You can compare laptimes, cornerspeed, control the downforce, normalized non-dymensoinal tyre data, everything you need to get basic insight in vehicle dynamics. We used it for orientation for our formula student race car.
The easy way would be using a simulator software (some may call it a game hehe) where you can change a car's setup and have a good feel about the changes on dynamic and gains or losses.
@@bingoberra18 Unfortunately we did not. With formula student, Time is almost always the limiting factor of evaluation. And optimumlap is mostly only usable to get a basic understanding of a car's behavior. To do some actual modeling of the car and evaluate the results, a more accurate model is needed. One that for example takes into account the springs, dampers and roll-center.
For the graphs used at 4:40 : please use the same scale for the Y-axis next time, at first the radius line was really confusing when comparing the different configurations
The only way i can imaginge the radius curve to drop away in that way is if you add in really stiff suspension. The speed ypu can carry threw a corner deminishes while being slow because your car jumps around on top of the preload of your springs. Only with increased aero+weight load you get into a usable window of your spring/damper combination and can effectively corner. Maybe thats wrong to, but i just recently watched Dori Dori Tsuchiya drive his McLaren F1 and he said that the front suspension had to be sor hard, in order to maintain splitter to ground clearance, thatit was useless in lowspeed corners. Only with speed it got less and less bumpy and performed good in medium and highspeed corners.
A bit different from the point you were making, but it would have been interesting to see the load vs cornering speed plots overlaid on the same scale to see the additional speed downforce allows a car to carry through a given radius corner.
Does this take into account if the setup of the car is designed to take corners when suspension is loaded. If the suspension is not loaded due to lack of speed wouldn't it negatively effect handling? Take a rookie in a winged sprint car entering the corner too slow for instance, they will find the car is too tight but as they increase in confidence the handling improves as they have suspension loaded by the downforce.
short and informative, with examples that exaggerate to easier show the point, this is a quality video i would love to see an analysis on the Red Bull X-cars by Adrian Newey
it think the only other thing that effects the car would be the tire and brake temp but that is only just at first and more of before you get to the turn.
Kyle, I have a perspective, What if you put the Cornering Radius of the car without downforce and with downforce on the same plot (with the same scale), I'm sure that u will see that for a given corner radius , you can go faster with the downforce package above a certain small velocity ( 50kmph ) .
Tyres like that could lead into some scary setup tweaks to maximize grip. Currently you want to keep the load on all four tyres as much as possible, because any load you lose on the inside tyres costs you more grip than the increased load on your outside tyres gets you. With tyres like that you'd effectively always want to get your car on two wheels through all corners... :D
@@jubuttib it was just an exploit of formula and theoretical "possibility" :D for those the ultra stiff sway bar wold work best :). the tendency today everyone has as "but then there is no roll" logic
4 ปีที่แล้ว
and that's why you need active suspensions so slow corners aren't compromised
I can see another nugget of truth to this, namely that it could be possible if your downforce production completely stalls at low speeds, which would result in a really odd cornering radius graph
Jeremy probably felt purely by driving the car that at high speed you cannot unsettle a balanced car (and the aero platform) by lifting the throttle abruptly (effectively trying to slow down), that moves the aero balance forwards and causes oversteer. Could you explain how is the mu curve used there is concave down? Mu times normal load (side force) would be concave down but shouldn't mu versus load be concave up?
Was kinda hoping for tie-in at the end about line selection. We've all seen F1 cars take wider lines around tight corners than a slower car would take at certain tracks. I'm guessing this is due to them not being setup for slow speeds like you mentioned, but I'm curious about whether that's the only reason or if there's actually an appreciable difference in downforce generated between an outside and an inside line.
With all the muddy pictures of turkish gp maybe you could explain the different approaches that teams take in their design? Thanks for all the great content!
What he's saying is his dampers adjust to the load the tires are seeing, keeping them closer to optimal range for the load. Unfortunately this does nothing to help the still very important spring rate being optimized for 1 specific load
It's an effect of tire load sensitivity, not just downforce, but any extra force on the tires reduces their grip. I've heard it attributed to compression of the rubber making it stiffer, and surface shearing, I personally cant tell you which if either is true. Just like poloyfill in an acoustic enclosure, I dont know how it works, but I know it does.
Just a thought, the only case where this would make sense, if the car (no traction control) and driver combo was such that forward traction was too hard to control unless downforce was present but was good at taking this corner at any speed (a car such as an F1 with tc turned off?), the increased traction on the back wheels when taking the corner faster could result in less wheel spin thus supporting the title of this video. :D
@KYLE.ENGINEERS is it possible to generate downforce by positioning a turbocharger’s compressor inlet pipe at the back end of the car’s floor? How much downforce would that generate? Also can the compressed air be used to artificially increase downforce by blowing it at the rear wing or floor? If an F1 team were to ramp up their MGU-K regen braking, charge up the battery, ramp up the MGU-H, use the H to spool up the turbo, could that be a way to use electrical power to generate downforce? Is there a provision in the F1 regulations that would allow such a loophole?
Thanks again for that perfect debunking 😁👍 (everyone knows that Clarkson never exagerate !!) I started a project and I thought you could maybe give me a little advice. (If you don't mind 😃). I built a wind tunnel for 24th scale cars, because after seeing all your videos, I wanted to test myself the things that could be efficient on my trackday car (m3 E36). And I have 2 problems... 1 - Is there a ratio for the wind speed to apply, so I could get the 1/1 equivalent in regard of the scale I use ? 2 - Is 1/24 scale too small to generate realistic aero effects ? (I guess there is a minimal area of the aero part to be considered...) Being french, I apologize for my english ! 😅 Thanks again for your fantastic videos !!!! Cheers 🍻
To get equivalent results, you need the Reynolds numbers for the model and the full scale to be in the same ball park. But 1:24 is extremely small scale, so to get a somewhat similar Reynolds number, you have to have the air moving at a very high speed in the tunnel, which is probably not practical (you would need a speed of probably at least 5x higher than real life for an acceptable Reynolds matching). Also, the cross-sectional area of the model must be no more than about 4% of the test chamber's, or interference with the tunnel walls will render the results useless. There's always some interference with the walls, and in a real tunnel usually a correction needs to be applied for accurate results. If you just want to play around rather than get accurate results, than of course non of this matters.
@@ASJC27 that's correct. Dimensional analysis and similarity laws... We don't want the air speed in the tunnel too high until compressibility effects come into play. Because our actual car is just running incompressible flow.
@@ASJC27 It is a very big help 😃👍 Thanks you very much for your time and knowledge !! So I need a bigger volume (now I take 40% of the test chamber, i guess the walls have massiv effects ) The speed is the biggest issue... I don't think I can generate that with my computer fans 😅 Thanks again Cheers 🍻
Hi Kyle! I study automotive engineering and your videos have been really helpful (actually your Ackerman video saved me to pass a class) I’d love a recommendation of any applied aerodynamics book, or even better if you helped us making videos about how to make these analyses and designs. Thumbs up if you are interested too!
I think the myth comes more from people who have had a crack at a formula 2 or formula 3 car and, as you said, aren't running the tyres at temp and full slick full race tyres HAVE to be at temperature. I see all the time in track sprints 2 drivers running the car and the slower driver runs out of traction and spins at a lower speed than the faster driver regularly takes a given corner. Because heat in tyres in generated by tyre flex (not by sliding the tyre around, as most people believe) and a car with huge aero will use a stiff tyre to avoid overheating, you need to move faster and generate more tyre temp to get through a corner. I do wonder however, if there is a stall speed to race car aero or possibly air detachment at low speed? Would be an interesting experiment
No stall speed in cars. Stall occurs above a certain angle of attack. The reason that airplanes have a stall speed is not the speed itself, but rather the fact that they have to increase their AoA as they slow down, to have the same level of lift, so at some point they are slow enough to need the highest possible AoA before separation. Race cars aero is at a nearly constant AoA. Kyle also mentioned this in his previous video.
Hey Kyle, while you may have maximum tyre grip, it has happened to me before that when I approach a corner slower than normal I for example spin the car, probably because of the balance, maybe that's what happened to Clarkson?
Should not have a significant affect on steady state grip. There are hundreds of variables, but unless your car has negative mass, or your down force curve somehow has an offset x intercept, the basic laws of math and physics define the traits
Do you think Clarkson was more referring to the lack of energy put through the tyres at normal road speeds and hence the lack of grip due to the tyres not being in the proper operating temp
If we got a brief description of how the graphs work in each video that'll make a huge difference in understanding the info. Cuz the entire video I'm just trying to figure out how turning radius is represented on a line graph.
i am following you until the calculation of the "Mu, dropoff corrected calculation". how do you get from -0.00001 tyre mu dropoff to 0.999997164 "Mu, dropoff corrected "? and would you not start with "1" at zero speed and not 1 km/h? i understand that it is a crude calculation and should not give the number much meaning, want to understand what i am doing.
Well, my car has negative mass, not only do I have to go faster to go through corners, but I have to anchor the car when parked else it floats away, towards the emptiest part of space its near
I don’t understand. If you can take a tighter radius at a given speed that means for a given radius you can take a higher speed. Therefore, you go faster through the same corner
If a car is set up to go round a track fast (race).... that is how it should be driven,(hard, *around a track* ) , it will most likely feel like shit on the street (but still "outperform" a street setup in pure pace... but then there is the question of how much you hate your kidneys?..)... if it is setup to street... it *won't* go round a track as fast....🤷♂️
I think that this mith came in late 90's as Mclaren struglled low speed corners and Murray explained that suspesion didnt work at low speed so they had to raly on aero. As engineering student i have come across few casuses like this, especially with modified Skoda 120L for touring. You calculation does not show how the load reacts to suspension and how it will behave at different speed. So aero is only part of the car behivior.
If your suspension has a large impact of your steady state max g, start racing on pavement. If the issue persists, fire your suspension guy and hire at least a grad student.
@@noncog1 We were the students back then, but yep. Original suspesnion of the Skoda was reworked, later rear as well - so we cleared much of the aero. Even had ourself a class victory even our driver was stuupid
What is "a point" of downforce. I often hear a driver say "that damage cost me 15 points of downforce". Surely they aren't talking percents as the numbers we hear would be absurd amounts to lose in a race.
A point probably means something different to each team. It's a vague term for a reason so that competitors can't get a good idea of how much downforce it is. They could probably figure it out though based on laptimes
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Seeing lots of questions in here about the normal load sensitivity of the tyres, there's a brief discussion of that here: th-cam.com/video/y5Y-w4zGW00/w-d-xo.html at 8:20 for those interested. There's also a degree of chemical adhesion between the surfaces, particularly on stickier tyres (try poking a warm slick and see what happens). Thanks for watching!
I would really like to hear your opinion about active or semi-active aero as well. I think with those, downforce increase can be greater than velocity squared. Usually AERO has to be fixed, but with like a speed controlled F-duct, or with planned bending of spoilers to change AOA even racecars could use it. I haven't heard about any concepts or working solutions though.
@@schipe You are basically asking about subtracting downforce from your car intentionally, so to make cornering at lower speeds harder.
@@TheWiniarss My question is really about making not active aero components work differently in different speed ranges, leaving the downforce is proportional to v squared principle. I think it is more useful to make your spoilers "cut off" at high speed straights, so you have less drag and just enough downforce, but you could do the other way around if it is useful on a course. With active aero you could do whatever is best on each part of a track, I don't know why it is banned usually.
Hey Kyle, would you be willing to share this spreadsheet? Id like to test it out to see what it looks like on our FSAE car!
I thought the whole myth about "needing to drive faster because me car has the big aero s u c c", is more about needing to drive past that initial threshold of what you think is the maximum, and knowing the car has more to offer once you drive fast enough to put it in that region of the car's preferred operating conditions relative to a car without downforce. ie car A has enough downforce it can brake from 200mph down to the upcoming corner's apex speed of 40mph in just 60m, but you have to be brave and confident enough you can arrive at the 60m mark at 200mph, rather than approaching at the 100m mark, realised you've went 150m deeper than the 250m breaking point for car B, a regular 1g road car and bottle it and lift off a bit, so you now reach the 60m marker at only 170mph, and at that speed you haven't got enough grip to deaccelerate to 40mph within that 60mph space and instead only able to break down to 65mph and then overshoot the corner?
Of course assuming the complex black magic of the tyre is fairly constant and is assumed to be operating at its optimal chemical composition at the contact patch and things like the stiffness coefficient as a function of the normal load is already accounted for etc.
One of the rare YT channels that produces information. Everyone else just produces noise.
Well said.
with the exception of engineering explained and savagegeese
Exactly spreading knowledge that otherwise is not accessible
Edit: Without doing the math yourself
There is a LOT of very informative YT channels, I don't understand the need to trash channels you don't even know just to praise this one...
@@OdamaKamayuka not the only, one of the rare
"We're well into the millions of G's up here, so this car is getting pretty ridiculous at this point."
Lol!
sneak peak of next years' mercedes
@@zacharyeichenberger4929 Ain't that the truth
THIS is the stuff we need! The physics behind it. Speaking for myself, not an engineer, so I wouldn't mind (like others no doubt) if you would make these longer and elaborate. Such a source of knowledge.
I think the Clarkson statement was ad-libbing a quote from Alan Jones when the ground effects cars started. I suspect it was a perceptual shift that Jones was going through when dealing with high levels of downforce, rather than an engineering reality. However, the corner entrance speeds may be a closer match to this quote and may be what Jones was referring too.
9:00 that's actually something you can see by eye in multi class racing with GT3 or GTE against LMPs in very tight corners. even with the added weight of the GT car, they usually look less on edge, and sometimes are a tiny bit faster through those really tight sections
Funnily enough LMP cars can have relatively similar springs to GT3 at low speeds nowadays. It's pretty nuanced why but the gist of it could be noted to pitch sensitivity. LMPs have much longer wheelbase so they don't need as much spring to keep pitch in check compared to GT3.
What you see in tight corners is also mostly down to wheelbase differences - LMPs or F1 etc are too long to optimally use all the grip.
@@lingSpeed LMPs also have heave springs which allows for softer "normal" springs
@@derblaue True! But also the effects of springs are summed up (roll bars+heave+springs+second spring). Just 4 springs and roll bars can achieve same wheel rates as suspension with heave. The real advantage of heave is in more direct control ride height without throwing everything else off and packaging.
Having heave unfortunately does not mean we can have soft suspension for bumps and stiff for aero, if that was the case they would be as prevalent as roll bars (including all street cars, as baggage works like aero for them).
goddam ... its so good to have you back mate!
I could never wrap my head around that claim. Thank you for debunking it so we are more informed and I feel less stupid for not grasping that myth.
FWIW This myth existed way before Jeremy ever said anything about it. I've heard it at least since Group B rally days in the 80s.
Love the graphical representation here! How about a video on improving aero on 1/2mile and roll racing cars. Especially for classic cars and nontraditional body type vehicles... 1,000-2,000hp trucks and SUVS are becoming shockingly common at these events in the US
Hey, Kyle could you upload the link to the spreadsheet somewhere. I wanted to see your calculations :) Love your vids
Its good to have you back on YT. Missed your content.
Also, the idea that you have to go faster is based on balance; it means more that you can't slow down but need to keep the speed constant, even when it scares the living daylight out of you... There are also corners like Albert Park turns 9-10 where you need to straighten the car to get maximum acceleration.. which makes you point straight to a wall, you can't turn for a while, you can't lift cause it unsettles the rear and you just hope the whole aero gains enough downforce that it balances the car.. and then you can feel the grip just magically return. If you don't accelerate fast enough, you have to lift a bit to get more grip to the front, slowing you down before a straight and possibly unsettling the car.
one point that comes to mind
you dont have to drive faster, but you can drive tighter
edit: this video is actually almost the perfect answer to a problem ive had for many years, something even a bit of googling could t solve
"whats better, a car that drives tightly but slowly around a corner, or wide and fast ?"
there are so many physical problems in one simple question...
Walk in a circle around your dining room table while your mate tries to run around your house, who finishes first?
@@noncog1 we both finish at the same time, what now ?
@@DarkIzo doubt that
@@noncog1 why doubt it when thats the fact of the problem ? runner 1 runs 1 m/s on a 1 meter circumference while runner 2 runs 5 m/s on a 5 meter circumference. now tell me who finishes first.
@@DarkIzo that's a rather small house mate. Point of the matter is you'll always have to go farther to take the outside line, and itll never equal out. Do as tight a loop around a light pole in a parking lot as you can without turning it into donuts, and have your buddy drive in a circle just inside the lot. I bet he'll be driving a lot faster. I bet you do 5 circles well before him.
Hi Kyle, I've got a completely free 4WD Electric Formula Student Driver-in-the-Loop Simulink model in Cruden Panthera which could be a playground for you to illustrate different aero-concepts. A few key features are: a semi-validated aero-model (with various ClA and CdA at different ride heights, gained from Star-CCM+ CFD simulations at 5 degrees of yaw angle @60 km/h) from our OBR20 Formula Student car and dynamic Fz-loading based off the aero load, weight transfer and so on with a non-linear tyre-model of our Hoosier tyres. It runs at 1 kHz so you've got plenty of resolution for pressure tabs or any other aero-wizardry that's not my forte. The model outputs every single parameter which it calculates, slip angles, Fz, Fy, Fx, pitch, accelerations, loads and so on to MATLAB for data-analysis - and the car produces around 2.5 lateral G with peak downforce of 2300N at 106 km/h (keep in mind we have not been able to validate this due to the pandemic!). If you're interested throw me a reply here, and I will email it to you. Let me know! -Some Danish F1 engineer at an Italian car company
The fact that you can't take a corner faster than a speed at wich you coudn't make it in the first place makes sense to me. Great explanation 👍
You’re back on youtube? Omg one of the best motorsport engineering related channel on YT.
I thought so too
Child kart driver make way. But no seriously having to drive an aero car faster comes from racing. And the video does cover this but another take. Stock drivers believe many silly things, so let's ignore that. The secret is - aero race cars have race tyres. You must push a race tire hard before it starts to stick. Then for an aero car, driving a car to its normal mechanical limits may not be sufficient to warm the tires. The car is built to come alive when pushed to its limits, not your limits.
This is most severe in extreme aero formats like Formula 1. Even on a video game simulation, if it has decent physics, driving the car how you might expect on mechanical grip could be 20s off pace. The tires are cold, the thing handles like garbage. Your normal senses just aren't ready for the jump to a true aero car. And it is a jump.
So you swallow your pride, hang it out on the ragged edge in a corner so that only the aero is saving you from crashing, and all of a sudden the tires get warm and start to stick, and you shave off 10s. You get into the flow where you're driving the car on aero, every single curve seems like you will die and only the aero can save you, and the other 10s fall off. This is TERRIFYING the first time you notice it.
Eventually you develop a feel for this. But there is always a gap. When F1 drivers are complaining the track is too cold, the safety car is going too slow, and their tires are going off... That is a BIG DEAL at that level. It could easily mean that last lap your car was on the same pace as the leader, and now your tires cross a coldness threshold, and you drop 5+s the next lap. It's like driving with a light frost on the track. And it keeps getting worse until you can build heat.
...just as a reminder, street car tires do not have any warmup window. Even high end semi-slick Pirelli street tires generally don't respond much different when warm. Because that would be unsafe. Only purpose-built race tires do this. And if some moron is running race tires on street. Not only is that dangerous and likely illegal, but you can see the crash dents on the car because he failed to get up to temp driving on the street and already hit someone.
Thank you for coming back. I love these videos
Great video super interesting! As a Ph.D. candidate and avid racer I can't get enough!
I do think though that you have to inherently set up a high downforce car differently stiffer spring etc. This will usually make the car more unstable at low speed. So while you do not decrease your turning radius by going faster, the car will usually feel more stable. This is not a problem for f1 drivers since they have impeccable car control and can wrestle it at any speed, but your average weekend warrior (Jeremy Clarkson) would actually probably have better control of an F3 level car at high speed than they would at low speed. So while they don't HAVE to go faster through the corner, the car would be more stable and "safer" if they did. Or at least thats what I would say to the police officer as they take me to jail. ;)
I'd be interested to hear your take!
It's possible that the misconception grew from the "fan car" from 1978, where more throttle would drive the fan harder and result in more downforce.
I think what is different between high df and low df is how you approach a corner. The relative entry speed to apex speed should be faster in high df cars since you don't have such a huge corner radius penalty. But you have be harder on the brake later because you will lose grip faster. Basically think of the grip as a function of corner radius. If you have a higher entry speed the corner radius will also decrease faster requiering a lower speed. For low df the corner radius decreases more slowly because of the lower corner entry. You thus don't need (rather can't) brake as hard.
I assume that one of the goals is to get max downforce without compromising mu of the tyre.
Question:
how do you model your tyre data? Do you use (for example) Pacejka model? Can you make a video about tyre data analysis?
It's good to have you back on youtube, your content is brilliant :)
So glad you're back. The detail is fantastic. I use your data to appear as a know-it-all at car meets.
Was literally waiting for someone to talk about this topic
I second this.
The way I’ve seen this presented in the past was in regards to dealing with stone cold tires on a formula car, that it could be tricky because you had to take great care at slow speeds but push harder than your “non aero dependent car” instincts say is safe at higher speeds.
Glad you’re back!! Been starting to add aero to my focus RS, need to rewatch all your older vids again
Didn't realize you were back onto TH-cam. Glad to see your videos again. Hope everything is well!
Quick couple points:
> it’s a nice model, but 10 minutes of looking at excel is not fun
> I know that values of parameters are super secret IP, but it wouldn’t hurt to use Miata with spoiler as an example
> On the iPad, I can’t see the axes nor axis titles and it looks messy
> structure the knowledge for less advanced viewers, explain the equations
> improve the script a lil bit, intro> main content> outro ( thermal loading can be a whole different video)
> It may be interesting to see a coherent (theme driven) season of these videos
> I know you run consultancy and you target your potential clients with these videos. It it even more important to consider the above.
I think the myth came from the episode where richard hammond drove the renault f1 car from 2006. He cites tire temperatures though as the reason.
Yeah the difference there is that F1 tyres deliver their top coefficient of fiction when they reach operating temp. So unless you work them enough (corner speed & braking), you don't reach the operating grip. Hence its fair to say that if you don't have the temp, not a lot of this video applies. For the average road tyre though, which delivers peak grip basically at ambient temp, most of this video applies.
Someone who really knows what they are talking about. Rare these days. That was great.
That last case is “Big Rigs” when you drive in reverse.
or we call it, an airplane....
well, if talking about the airplane's turn radius, there is a best speed for small turn then.
@@umi3017 In big rigs, the trucks have uncapped speed in reverse and always have the same turning radius
Maybe a small suggestion on the model/graph you made. It would be easier to visualize if you could enter two values that you were comparing in the model and the graph would show both so you could see the difference directly.
Ah, excel simulators. I love how easily excel can be used to run simulations.
How do I do this lol
@@onehundredpicks5531 i'm no expert in excel or simulations, but you start by figuring out the formulas you'll need for said simulation (you can sometimes combine multiple formulas into really large formulas that have like 15 different variables), then then you load up a bunch of cells in the spreadsheet with the relevant variables, and then you start a cell with = and then put your formula in there, referencing the other cells with your variables.
Awesome video once again!! For the next time you show plots side-by-side, could you make them have the same y-axis for easier comparison?
But what if your corner has negative camber? Or if your race track is upside down? How much negative camber would you need to get this principle to work?
Thanks. I would like to see more aero builds so you show real world results with those charts. 👍
Time for a Kyle Engineers, AJ Hartman and Engineering Explained team video!
Gonna share this with my fsae aeroteam. Hello from UTD
What about the car balance? My car is definitely not a race car but 66% of the 3384 lbs with me in it is in the front. My car is a FWD hatchback. I believe I need to get negative camber in front to help from the understeer push on track.
I'm glad to see you back 👍
He did some video's about fwd setups years ago, should be worth watching if you haven't already seen them
Video about 3rd spring? That's very good aero aid.
god, ive missed your vids kyle
Brilliantly explained, thank you!
I can justify this myth... Please tell me if I'm wrong because I use crude physics games as my basis (though backed up by real world)
with a mid engine car, you'll need quite narrow front tires (like an old Countach), unless you start adding downforce with extra going to the rear. This will help curtail oversteer caused by having too much grip in the front, but if you add really wide front tires, then you'll need to generate more downforce on the rear. This means at low speeds the car may be a little skiddish, until you start going above 80kmh (approximated off of my game only based experience)
ipso facto car is uncontrollable until you go fast enough? For the top gear episodes they may have exaggerated this?
That spreadsheet alone was worth watching for. I'm trying to make a very similar one for my team's F3 car (just running in a regional British championship). However I don't know Co Efficient of grip and a couple of other constants, makes for an interesting challenge to work them out.
Loved the video Kyle, so informative, to the point as always.
You should be able to get the data from the tire Manufacters
And if you know enough, work backwards
Quite obvious. The downforce grows with velocity squared and the corner radius for given acceleration also grows with velocity squared. So you can have a constant corner radius across the speed range at best when the weight of the car (normal force) is negligible compared to the aerodynamic downforce - as shown in the last example.
Great video as always, glad to have you back.
This guy is the chrisFix of aero. If you know you know. Great info.
I'm building a drag racer and its a classic as well so I'm well aware of the fact that I'm going to be racing more aerodynamic cars I loved this video and would like to know if you could cover improving straight line drag some time thanks mate!
Kyle I would love to see a quick explanation video on the relationship between coefficient of friction and tire load. You have like 15 tire videos and I don’t see that topic covered generally. Could someone link maybe?
We got that same mercedes car drawing at work. Think it was a present from then to the company
I would very much like to see the theoretical gain in laptime for a track car with realistic low-medium downforce. For non professional race teams like us i think it's interesting to see if the (extra) investments in aero are worth it.
I understand that it's very dependable of the track you're driving.
Yes Id like to see this simulation as well. From what I have read in books, aero is almost always worth it. You get the effect of aero allowing you to go faster, which further enhances the downforce, allowing you to go faster.
If you want to do your own simulations you can use this free program to do some basic vehicle dynamics sims: optimumg.com/product/optimumlap/
You can compare laptimes, cornerspeed, control the downforce, normalized non-dymensoinal tyre data, everything you need to get basic insight in vehicle dynamics.
We used it for orientation for our formula student race car.
The easy way would be using a simulator software (some may call it a game hehe) where you can change a car's setup and have a good feel about the changes on dynamic and gains or losses.
@@jetzereitsma1276 Cool I will have to try it out! Did you make any real life comparison with the finished car?
@@bingoberra18 Unfortunately we did not. With formula student, Time is almost always the limiting factor of evaluation. And optimumlap is mostly only usable to get a basic understanding of a car's behavior. To do some actual modeling of the car and evaluate the results, a more accurate model is needed. One that for example takes into account the springs, dampers and roll-center.
could you do specific vehicle aero analysis on race- and hypercars
For the graphs used at 4:40 : please use the same scale for the Y-axis next time, at first the radius line was really confusing when comparing the different configurations
what about getting more rotation through light oversteer? That should get you through corners faster/easier, only if you drive harder, right?
Thanks for your channel...one of the few genuinely interesting ones on yt
I would love to see your take on some of the popular drift aero mods. Big wings and side plates, raised rear bonnets, canards, cut out guards etc.
Don't forget zip tie bumpers
The only way i can imaginge the radius curve to drop away in that way is if you add in really stiff suspension. The speed ypu can carry threw a corner deminishes while being slow because your car jumps around on top of the preload of your springs. Only with increased aero+weight load you get into a usable window of your spring/damper combination and can effectively corner.
Maybe thats wrong to, but i just recently watched Dori Dori Tsuchiya drive his McLaren F1 and he said that the front suspension had to be sor hard, in order to maintain splitter to ground clearance, thatit was useless in lowspeed corners. Only with speed it got less and less bumpy and performed good in medium and highspeed corners.
A bit different from the point you were making, but it would have been interesting to see the load vs cornering speed plots overlaid on the same scale to see the additional speed downforce allows a car to carry through a given radius corner.
Does this take into account if the setup of the car is designed to take corners when suspension is loaded. If the suspension is not loaded due to lack of speed wouldn't it negatively effect handling? Take a rookie in a winged sprint car entering the corner too slow for instance, they will find the car is too tight but as they increase in confidence the handling improves as they have suspension loaded by the downforce.
short and informative, with examples that exaggerate to easier show the point, this is a quality video
i would love to see an analysis on the Red Bull X-cars by Adrian Newey
Great channel. You answered a question I never asked but always wanted to know and you did that very well and clear!
it think the only other thing that effects the car would be the tire and brake temp but that is only just at first and more of before you get to the turn.
Kyle, I have a perspective, What if you put the Cornering Radius of the car without downforce and with downforce on the same plot (with the same scale), I'm sure that u will see that for a given corner radius , you can go faster with the downforce package above a certain small velocity ( 50kmph ) .
The second scenario of turning radius decreasing would be to have a tire whose mu number increases slightly as the load (normal) increases :)
Tyres like that could lead into some scary setup tweaks to maximize grip. Currently you want to keep the load on all four tyres as much as possible, because any load you lose on the inside tyres costs you more grip than the increased load on your outside tyres gets you. With tyres like that you'd effectively always want to get your car on two wheels through all corners... :D
@@jubuttib it was just an exploit of formula and theoretical "possibility" :D for those the ultra stiff sway bar wold work best :). the tendency today everyone has as "but then there is no roll" logic
and that's why you need active suspensions so slow corners aren't compromised
Perhaps a few too many significant digits displayed in the spreadsheet. I love seeing proper engineers do TH-cam
I can see another nugget of truth to this, namely that it could be possible if your downforce production completely stalls at low speeds, which would result in a really odd cornering radius graph
What about a blowing exhaust diffuser
Jeremy probably felt purely by driving the car that at high speed you cannot unsettle a balanced car (and the aero platform) by lifting the throttle abruptly (effectively trying to slow down), that moves the aero balance forwards and causes oversteer. Could you explain how is the mu curve used there is concave down? Mu times normal load (side force) would be concave down but shouldn't mu versus load be concave up?
Kyle - good to enjoy your videos again ...but allow yourself some rest, mate.
What if you had a blown diffuser without the cylinder cut air pump nonsense they did? Would that do the trick ?
Was kinda hoping for tie-in at the end about line selection. We've all seen F1 cars take wider lines around tight corners than a slower car would take at certain tracks. I'm guessing this is due to them not being setup for slow speeds like you mentioned, but I'm curious about whether that's the only reason or if there's actually an appreciable difference in downforce generated between an outside and an inside line.
With all the muddy pictures of turkish gp maybe you could explain the different approaches that teams take in their design?
Thanks for all the great content!
I run speed sensitive compression dampening on my radical (like everyone else) so speed doesn't comprise cornering grip with high downforce.
Turbo Sam of course it does
@@suneborgstergaard7331 it adjusts for cornering, braking and acceleration G's too. My gtr do these 3 but not for speed/downforce.
What he's saying is his dampers adjust to the load the tires are seeing, keeping them closer to optimal range for the load. Unfortunately this does nothing to help the still very important spring rate being optimized for 1 specific load
Why do tyres lost friction at more downforce? Is that coz rubber is flexible/elastic?
It's an effect of tire load sensitivity, not just downforce, but any extra force on the tires reduces their grip. I've heard it attributed to compression of the rubber making it stiffer, and surface shearing, I personally cant tell you which if either is true. Just like poloyfill in an acoustic enclosure, I dont know how it works, but I know it does.
Just a thought, the only case where this would make sense, if the car (no traction control) and driver combo was such that forward traction was too hard to control unless downforce was present but was good at taking this corner at any speed (a car such as an F1 with tc turned off?), the increased traction on the back wheels when taking the corner faster could result in less wheel spin thus supporting the title of this video. :D
Coast through the corner
@KYLE.ENGINEERS is it possible to generate downforce by positioning a turbocharger’s compressor inlet pipe at the back end of the car’s floor? How much downforce would that generate? Also can the compressed air be used to artificially increase downforce by blowing it at the rear wing or floor? If an F1 team were to ramp up their MGU-K regen braking, charge up the battery, ramp up the MGU-H, use the H to spool up the turbo, could that be a way to use electrical power to generate downforce? Is there a provision in the F1 regulations that would allow such a loophole?
Thanks again for that perfect debunking 😁👍 (everyone knows that Clarkson never exagerate !!)
I started a project and I thought you could maybe give me a little advice. (If you don't mind 😃).
I built a wind tunnel for 24th scale cars, because after seeing all your videos, I wanted to test myself the things that could be efficient on my trackday car (m3 E36). And I have 2 problems...
1 - Is there a ratio for the wind speed to apply, so I could get the 1/1 equivalent in regard of the scale I use ?
2 - Is 1/24 scale too small to generate realistic aero effects ? (I guess there is a minimal area of the aero part to be considered...)
Being french, I apologize for my english ! 😅
Thanks again for your fantastic videos !!!!
Cheers 🍻
To get equivalent results, you need the Reynolds numbers for the model and the full scale to be in the same ball park. But 1:24 is extremely small scale, so to get a somewhat similar Reynolds number, you have to have the air moving at a very high speed in the tunnel, which is probably not practical (you would need a speed of probably at least 5x higher than real life for an acceptable Reynolds matching).
Also, the cross-sectional area of the model must be no more than about 4% of the test chamber's, or interference with the tunnel walls will render the results useless.
There's always some interference with the walls, and in a real tunnel usually a correction needs to be applied for accurate results.
If you just want to play around rather than get accurate results, than of course non of this matters.
@@ASJC27 that's correct. Dimensional analysis and similarity laws... We don't want the air speed in the tunnel too high until compressibility effects come into play. Because our actual car is just running incompressible flow.
@@ASJC27 It is a very big help 😃👍
Thanks you very much for your time and knowledge !!
So I need a bigger volume (now I take 40% of the test chamber, i guess the walls have massiv effects )
The speed is the biggest issue... I don't think I can generate that with my computer fans 😅
Thanks again
Cheers 🍻
Hi Kyle! I study automotive engineering and your videos have been really helpful (actually your Ackerman video saved me to pass a class) I’d love a recommendation of any applied aerodynamics book, or even better if you helped us making videos about how to make these analyses and designs.
Thumbs up if you are interested too!
Can you do a video explaining Naca ducts ?
I think the myth comes more from people who have had a crack at a formula 2 or formula 3 car and, as you said, aren't running the tyres at temp and full slick full race tyres HAVE to be at temperature.
I see all the time in track sprints 2 drivers running the car and the slower driver runs out of traction and spins at a lower speed than the faster driver regularly takes a given corner.
Because heat in tyres in generated by tyre flex (not by sliding the tyre around, as most people believe) and a car with huge aero will use a stiff tyre to avoid overheating, you need to move faster and generate more tyre temp to get through a corner.
I do wonder however, if there is a stall speed to race car aero or possibly air detachment at low speed? Would be an interesting experiment
No stall speed in cars. Stall occurs above a certain angle of attack. The reason that airplanes have a stall speed is not the speed itself, but rather the fact that they have to increase their AoA as they slow down, to have the same level of lift, so at some point they are slow enough to need the highest possible AoA before separation.
Race cars aero is at a nearly constant AoA.
Kyle also mentioned this in his previous video.
@@ASJC27 but if a splitter hits the ground, you instantly lose all downforce
This was very interesting! Thanks!
Great video! 🏎
Hey Kyle, while you may have maximum tyre grip, it has happened to me before that when I approach a corner slower than normal I for example spin the car, probably because of the balance, maybe that's what happened to Clarkson?
i think this whole thing started from the feel of the lateral G increasing.
next video on the ecuations running the simulation on excel!
What about the affect of suspension loading and weight transfer being affected by the down force and the suspension compression that is resultant?
Should not have a significant affect on steady state grip. There are hundreds of variables, but unless your car has negative mass, or your down force curve somehow has an offset x intercept, the basic laws of math and physics define the traits
I was always wondering how much lateral G-force can racing gokart pulls, because it seems and feels, that it can go much over 1G even without aero
Some top level racing karts can approach 1.5g sustained. Google is your friend
Do you think Clarkson was more referring to the lack of energy put through the tyres at normal road speeds and hence the lack of grip due to the tyres not being in the proper operating temp
If we got a brief description of how the graphs work in each video that'll make a huge difference in understanding the info.
Cuz the entire video I'm just trying to figure out how turning radius is represented on a line graph.
X is speed, y is size of corner. The line isnt showing a corner, it's part of a graph, pause the video and look at where the line falls on both axes
@@noncog1 I'm well aware the shape of the line has nothing to do with the shape of the turn...
i am following you until the calculation of the "Mu, dropoff corrected calculation". how do you get from -0.00001 tyre mu dropoff to 0.999997164 "Mu, dropoff corrected "? and would you not start with "1" at zero speed and not 1 km/h? i understand that it is a crude calculation and should not give the number much meaning, want to understand what i am doing.
Have you ever heard of simscale? It's a free cfd simulation tool for many different things.
What's your opinion on it?
Well, my car has negative mass, not only do I have to go faster to go through corners, but I have to anchor the car when parked else it floats away, towards the emptiest part of space its near
@@AzathothsAlarmClock nah, I mean mass bruh, re-read it, I think you missed the point
This was a great video
Spreadsheets!
I don’t understand. If you can take a tighter radius at a given speed that means for a given radius you can take a higher speed. Therefore, you go faster through the same corner
If a car is set up to go round a track fast (race).... that is how it should be driven,(hard, *around a track* ) , it will most likely feel like shit on the street (but still "outperform" a street setup in pure pace... but then there is the question of how much you hate your kidneys?..)... if it is setup to street... it *won't* go round a track as fast....🤷♂️
I think that this mith came in late 90's as Mclaren struglled low speed corners and Murray explained that suspesion didnt work at low speed so they had to raly on aero. As engineering student i have come across few casuses like this, especially with modified Skoda 120L for touring. You calculation does not show how the load reacts to suspension and how it will behave at different speed. So aero is only part of the car behivior.
If your suspension has a large impact of your steady state max g, start racing on pavement. If the issue persists, fire your suspension guy and hire at least a grad student.
@@noncog1 We were the students back then, but yep. Original suspesnion of the Skoda was reworked, later rear as well - so we cleared much of the aero. Even had ourself a class victory even our driver was stuupid
What is "a point" of downforce. I often hear a driver say "that damage cost me 15 points of downforce". Surely they aren't talking percents as the numbers we hear would be absurd amounts to lose in a race.
A point probably means something different to each team. It's a vague term for a reason so that competitors can't get a good idea of how much downforce it is. They could probably figure it out though based on laptimes
awesome content