I have derived the function of geometric(normal) apex racing line. Car racing: How to calculate the radius of the racing line through a turn of varying lengthBut it only ensure the maximum corner speed during racing. How can I prove late apex racing line will lead to a shorter overall turning time compared to the geometric apex racing line by building a mathematical model? I'm still in high school, so don't go into too deep. I'm hoping to use differential calculus or multivariable calculus to tackle the problem.
-
In general, it doesn’t. Both the geometrical apex line and late apex line attempt to optimize corner exit speed with the important assumption that the following straight is long enough to more than make up for the loss of time in the corner. The advantage of a late apex, variable-radius line over a constant-radius line is that you rotate the car sooner and can thus start adding speed sooner, but to do that you give up more speed in the beginning of the turn, so it’s not at all clear that this should result in spending less time overall in the turn. – amd Sep 04 '16 at 17:25
-
1See Physics For Gearheads by Randy Beikmann for detailed discussion and simulation of these questions. – amd Sep 04 '16 at 17:26
-
1Note also that in real life, the path through a corner, even if you’re using the geometric apex, is almost never a simple circular arc. You start unwinding the steering and feeding in throttle as soon as you can, so the radius is constantly increasing once you’re past the apex. A circular arc is a reasonable place to start for simulation, however. – amd Sep 04 '16 at 17:29
-
An excellent link, @amd! I was going to comment on how the sudden large changes in sideways jerk (change in acceleration) causes issues with traction, and because of that, the optimum path is not a simple circular arc, but more a high-degree polynomial curve. Consider modern elevators as an analog: they don't just start and stop with maximum acceleration, as that causes unpleasant feelings in some people; instead, they decrease and increase the acceleration smoothly. Essentially, instead of $$y(t) = \Delta h;(3t^2-2t^3)$$ they use something like $$y(t) = \Delta h;(6 t^5 - 15 t^4 + 10 t^3)$$ – Nominal Animal Sep 04 '16 at 18:17
-
Railway curves are an additional example -- and there is lots of research and papers done on those. Of course, the focus there is not so much maximum speed through the curve, but the evolution (of how we construct high-speed railway curves) shows interesting points of consideration -- including things like the amount of tilt towards the inside of the curve. (I do believe that railway curves are designed for some optimum speed.) – Nominal Animal Sep 04 '16 at 18:22
-
You should start assuming a maximum centripetal acceleration, to evaluate at what speed you can travel for each radius. – N74 Sep 04 '16 at 18:37
-
@amd I think I should keep the number variables down, otherwise I cannot build the model. Now I have four variables: the radius of the outer circle, the radius of the inner circle, the angle of the turn, the radius of the racing line. Is there something I can do to keep the number of variable under two so I can either evaluate these two situations either geometrically or statistically? – aff0gato Sep 06 '16 at 01:12
-
I think I should consider this problem ideally(assume the path as a circular arc), otherwise it is too difficult to model this.@NominalAnimal – aff0gato Sep 06 '16 at 01:16
-
The late-apex line you’re trying to model isn’t a simple circular arc. However, let’s suppose that you model it as two constant-radius arcs with the change of radius (and instantaneous change of speed) at the apex. You’ve still got to nail down what you mean by “the corner” since moving the apex also moves the turn-in and track-out points. The length of the straight segments before and after the corner will skew the results. On the other hand, you’ll also get an unrealistic result since this simple model delays acceleration until track-out, which gets farther out with a later apex. – amd Sep 06 '16 at 06:53
-
@amd What steps should I take specifically to model this? Or is it undoable? – aff0gato Sep 06 '16 at 11:49
-
@amd Here the link I found which proves that late-apex turn is faster. http://phors.locost7.info/phors17.htm – aff0gato Sep 07 '16 at 02:19
-
Yeah, I’ve seen that before. It’s not clear what, if anything, Beckman actually proves in that paper. The result depends on what it is you measure. If you look at the segment time up to “corner exit” (which he seems to define as the point at which you can accelerate again), an apex about 50° past the center is optimal. If you look at the total time, though, the geometric apex wins on time: exit speed dominates because of the long straight. These results are also very sensitive to the conditions. For example, dropping the approach speed to 80 fps moves the optimal apex back by a lot. – amd Sep 07 '16 at 10:10
-
I suggest that you examine the assumptions and conditions in Beckman’s model carefully and think about what effect they might have on those results. What exactly is he measuring? Is it sensible? What does changing the approach speed or chute length do? What effect does the track geometry have (100' is unrealistic—most of Laguna Seca is 30'-40' wide, for instance). What if the turn is tighter? How much do the car’s performance characteristics affect the results? And so on. Having said all that, Beckman’s old papers make a good starting point for your own investigations. – amd Sep 07 '16 at 10:14
-
@amd How can I get free access to Beckman's book? – aff0gato Sep 08 '16 at 01:42
-
Beckman and Beikmann are different people. Beckman’s old papers are freely available. Beikmann’s book is pricey, but I’m not going to help you steal someone’s hard work. – amd Sep 08 '16 at 02:00
-
@amd What's the site that I can find Beckman's paper? – aff0gato Sep 08 '16 at 02:51
-
You’ve already found one of them yourself: http://phors.locost7.info/phors17.htm. If you follow the navigation links at the top of that page, you can find the others. For what you’re trying to do, part 18 is the most immediately relevant because he starts working with non-circular paths and combination acceleration/turning in that one, which is what you’ll need to be able to do justice to a study of late apexing. I’ll write up a summary of this thread with suggestions, things to watch out for and some hints as an answer tomorrow. – amd Sep 08 '16 at 07:26
1 Answers
This is an interesting, though somewhat vague, claim. I find it interesting for a couple of reasons. First of all, in my motorsport experience (autocross, track, instructing both car control and autocross) I’ve never come across it. The two main benefits of a later apex that I’ve heard over and over are safety and improved exit speed, neither of which is a decrease in the overall turning time.
Second, there’s no immediately obvious reason to believe it. Quite the opposite, I’d say. For a given lateral (centripetal) acceleration $a_{lat}$, speed and turn radius are related by $a_{lat}=v^2/r$, i.e., maximum speed is proportional to the square root of the radius. On the other hand, the distance traveled is directly proportional to the radius ($s=r\theta$). The time it takes to traverse that arc is of course $$\frac s v={r\theta\over\sqrt{ra_{lat}}}=\sqrt{r\over a_{lat}}\theta,$$ so the larger-radius turn takes more time despite allowing a greater speed. These relationships hold even when the radius, speed and lateral acceleration aren’t constant. The elapsed time along an arbitrary path $\Gamma$ is no longer a simple formula and in general is given by the line integral $\int_\Gamma ds/v(s)$. The reciprocal of speed that appears in this integral is an important quantity in these sorts of calculations. It has dimensions of time over distance, so gives the rate at which you’re using up the clock as you travel. Some authors dub this quantity “slowness.”
Now, in what’s commonly understood to be a late-apex line, you gradually add throttle (and unwind the steering) after some point, so the path is no longer a simple circular arc. This addition of longitudinal acceleration reduces the available lateral acceleration (the “traction budget” $a_{lat}^2+a_{long}^2\le a_{max}^2$). Even assuming that the driver always manages to use all available grip, this will tend to increase the time that it takes to complete the turn instead of reducing it. On the other hand, before that point the turn radius will be smaller than that of the geometric line, which will save time. On the other other hand, the car will go deeper into the corner during that phase, which will add time...
It’s common driving wisdom that as the corner angle increases, the apex tends to be later, so at the very least the correct apex for a turn will depend on the turn’s geometry. The car’s performance characteristics may also come into play: for high-horsepower cars, a “point and shoot” line that takes advantage of the longitudinal acceleration is often best, but that requires a lot of slowing on entry, which would be disastrous for lap times for a “momentum” car. Given all of that, it seems that this claim is at best an “it depends.” Rather than going in trying to prove it, I’d suggest that you instead explore the question of whether or not a late apex is more efficient in the sense that you defined, and if not, what its benefits are.
Brian Beckman’s old “Physics of Racing” series, which you’ve already found, is a good starting point this investigation. In parts 17 and 18, he explores the effects on total elapsed segment time of moving the apex around and adding throttle before the turn is finished. Be sure that you read both parts, since the first is only the setup for what he does in the second. Note carefully the results that he gets in the first part: Total segment time is dominated by corner exit speed, which in his setup is attained with the earliest apex.
The time spent turning is, not surprisingly, a monotonic function of the turn radius, exactly as predicted above. On the other hand, the total segment time up to the point that the turn is finished appears have some interesting behavior: it has a minimum at around 50° apex. This minimum moves depending on the approach speed. This behavior turns out to be an artifact of the setup. If you change things so that the apex is always at the geometric center of the turn and vary the turn radius (and change the approach line to correspond), this minimum goes away and the segment time becomes monotonic with turn radius.
Unfortunately, once you start adding acceleration while still in the turn, the number of parameters proliferates quickly. Besides the location of the apex, there’s at least the rate at which you add throttle, the point at which you begin adding throttle, and the point and rate at which you unwind the steering. It’s going to get messy fast, which is one reason Beckmann switches from an analytic approach to an exploratory simulation. I suggest going that route yourself. You can use a spreadsheet as Beckmann did, or mock up the model in one of the excellent interactive tools that are available now, such as GeoGebra. Once you’ve gotten a feel for what’s going on, then you’ll be better able to tackle the problem analytically without following a lot of dead ends first.
Good luck!
- 53,693
-
1This points out a fundamental flaw in the way the question was presented: in racing, the goal is not to minimize the amount of time spent on curved segments of your path, it's to get to the finish line sooner. If "overall turning time" just means the time elapsed from when you first turn the wheel until you finally straighten it out, it's a relatively useless criterion. – David K Aug 24 '18 at 12:33
-
Randy Beikmann, author of Physics for Gearheads, wrote a couple of columns in Ross Bentley’s Speed Secrets series late in 2018 in which he explores a more sophisticated, but still fairly simple, model of cornering than Beckman’s. Unfortunately, the only copies of those articles that I can find right now are not freely available. – amd Feb 15 '19 at 20:48
-
Perhaps "radius" is throwing the math off? Your $$s = r\theta$$ and $$velocity \propto \sqrt{r}$$ is correct for the radial constraint, but the racers follow a more piece-wise linear trajectory with exreme g deceleration and turns...? – Kiers Oct 28 '23 at 00:27