S2000 Talk Discussions related to the S2000, its ownership and enthusiasm for it.

The "right way" to take corners

Thread Tools
 
Old Jul 26, 2002 | 11:00 AM
  #11  
Tedow's Avatar
Former Moderator
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,751
Likes: 1
From: Arlington, VA
Default

Just to throw a monkey-wrench into the discussion, I'll add this: It all depends on what's coming up AFTER the turn. If it's a straightaway, then the out-in-out/apex discussion above is correct. If it's another turn, then all of that goes to hell .
Reply
Old Jul 26, 2002 | 11:02 AM
  #12  
chroot's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
From: Santa Clara
Default

tedow:

Right. I was trying to boil it down to the simplest possible situation: a sweeper with no apex, straights before and after.

The physicist in me always says: "First, assume a spherical chicken."

- Warren
Reply
Old Jul 26, 2002 | 11:42 AM
  #13  
Tedster's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,144
Likes: 0
From: Seattle
Default

And I was trying to give the simplest possible answer (in three words)!

A sweeper may not have an apex, you make one. It's still 'out, in, out', but you have to choose where the 'in' is (and how far out the 'outs' are, and how far in the 'in' is). There are lots of factors that will affect those choices.
Reply
Old Jul 26, 2002 | 12:08 PM
  #14  
Jstyle's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: Fairfax
Default

^ werd
Reply
Old Jul 26, 2002 | 12:12 PM
  #15  
smyroad's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,004
Likes: 0
From: Bowie
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chroot
[B]Yeah, what if you're in one of those helical ramps into a parking garage?
Reply
Old Jul 26, 2002 | 12:26 PM
  #16  
pll's Avatar
pll
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Default

Warren - this is an excellent book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/083...9286856-5836862

They do a good job explaining how to drive quickly around the track. Physics included (there is some math, but no calculus ).
Reply
Old Jul 26, 2002 | 12:31 PM
  #17  
chroot's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
From: Santa Clara
Default

Bring on the calculus, baby.

- Warren
Reply
Old Jul 26, 2002 | 01:13 PM
  #18  
schwett's Avatar
Registered User
Member (Premium)
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 458
Likes: 1
From: San Francisco
Default

i always kinda assumed the highly simplified goal was the shortest distance between two points and the shallowest curve?

Reply
Old Jul 26, 2002 | 01:13 PM
  #19  
mccallis500's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
From: Cary
Default

Wow, this sounds like my senior project in engineering school. We did a study on building a race car... One of the things that we studied was setting a car up for turns.

While there are many factors to determine the fastest path through a turn, the key is tire grip and not producing more force (in any direction) than the tires can endure. This means a wider turn radius when decelerating and accelerating and the smallest turn radius when the car is balanced at a steady speed (at the apex). This keeps the force on the tires the most constant.

This subject could be discussed for pages, I am trying to hold back... Just remember to be smooth and make no sudden changes.
Reply
Old Jul 26, 2002 | 01:21 PM
  #20  
pll's Avatar
pll
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Default

Originally posted by schwett
i always kinda assumed the highly simplified goal was the shortest distance between two points and the shallowest curve?

Actually, the one of the right, you would probably compromise the first turn by hugging the right side after the exit in order to get a good apex (wide arc) on the second turn. That's assuming that the second turn is right before a long straight.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:31 PM.