Cornering - road car v F1 car

Another little exercise born of idle curiosity. I've calculated the
cornering speeds of a decent average modern road car and an F1 car round
bends of various radii. I've assumed the road car can generate 0.9g force
which is quite do-able on good tyres for an average modern car like my
Focus. 1g or even a tad over is possible for sports cars. For the F1 car
I've assumed 1.3g static grip on the sticky rubber plus downforce of 1200kg
at 200 mph. The main effect of downforce is it varies with the square of
speed so it has little effect at low speeds and then very rapidly builds up.
This means the F1 car struggles in tight radius bends and then abruptly
reaches a point at which cornering speeds go off the scale as downforce
glues it to the track. The bend radii are in feet and the speeds in mph.

Radius..Road..F1
100.......37......46
200.......52......69
400.......73.....113
600.......90.....167
700.......97.....206 (Flat out)
1000....116....Flat
1250....130....Flat
1500....142....Flat

What this shows is how a track suitable to give a normal racing car a wide
range of cornering speeds is not suitable for an F1 car. At anything over a
bend radius of 700 ft the F1 car is flat out whereas you need bends, kinks
really, of twice that to give the non-downforce car challenging high speed
corners.

Relating this to normal roads, you'd not be that far behind the F1 car in
mph terms round a small roundabout, 400 ft is about the bend radius of a
motorway slip road by which time the F1 car is pulling 40 mph on you and on
an A road where you'd be sucking your breath in at close to 100 mph as the
road turned the F1 car would be flat everywhere.

Most indicative is how the road car only goes from 73 to 97 mph whereas the
F1 car goes from 113 mph to flat out over the same increase in bend radius.
This shows why over recent years tracks that were designed for tin tops have
had their corners reshaped and chicanes put in to slow F1 cars down. The
critical point is at about the 500 ft radius mark, below which is a slow
speed corner and above which can suddenly become a very high speed one with
the potential for a huge crash.

Maybe this will also give you an idea of how hard it is to drive an F1 car
where a small increase in bend radius which wouldn't make much difference to
the speed of a road car can see an F1 car going from slow to flat out
without very much in the way of visual cues to signal it.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines

On 2008-04-29, Dave Baker <Null@null . com > wrote:

> Another little exercise born of idle curiosity. I've calculated the
> cornering speeds of a decent average modern road car and an F1 car round
> bends of various radii. I've assumed the road car can generate 0.9g force
> which is quite do-able on good tyres for an average modern car like my
> Focus. 1g or even a tad over is possible for sports cars.

I found a table on the Ultima Sports website taken from Road & Track
Magazine, here's a copy, the figures are lateral G recorded around a
200ft circle;

Ultima GTR 1.176
Porsche 911 GT1 1.07
Porsche 911 GT2 1.02
Ferrari Enzo 1.01
Porsche Carrera GT 0.99
Saleen S7 0.99
Ford GT40 0.99
Lotus Elise 0.98
Porsche Ruf R Turbo 0.97
Porsche 996 Turbo 0.96
Porsche Boxster S 0.95
Lamborghini Gallardo 0.95
Corvette Z06 0.94
Ferrari 360 0.93
Porsche 911 GT3 0.92
Honda NSX 0.91
Lamborghini Murcielago 0.90
McLaren F1 0.86

Page it was taken from is here;

* w w w .ultimasports.co.uk/records/part4.html

I assume the ultima was their own addition and wasn't in the original
magazine's table.

Not sure if your Focus can out-corner a McLaren F1 but I've not driven
either ;-)

The lack of variable data is of course an issue, e.g. fuel, fat
drivers, tyres, model year etc.

However it looks like 0.9G for a standard road car is a tad
optimistic, whether that makes sod-all difference to your calculations
is something for your spreadsheet to tell you of course.

I was quite surprised to see a Ford and a Corvette in the table, and
quite impressed at the Elise too. Quite surprised at the Porsches as
well.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
* youtube . com /user/tarcus69
* w w w .flickr . com /photos/tarcus/sets/

Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> writes
>Ultima GTR 1.176
>Porsche 911 GT1 1.07
>Porsche 911 GT2 1.02
>Ferrari Enzo 1.01
>Porsche Carrera GT 0.99
>Saleen S7 0.99
>Ford GT40 0.99
>Lotus Elise 0.98
>Porsche Ruf R Turbo 0.97
>Porsche 996 Turbo 0.96
>Porsche Boxster S 0.95
>Lamborghini Gallardo 0.95
>Corvette Z06 0.94
>Ferrari 360 0.93
>Porsche 911 GT3 0.92
>Honda NSX 0.91
>Lamborghini Murcielago 0.90
>McLaren F1 0.86


>The lack of variable data is of course an issue, e.g. fuel, fat
>drivers, tyres, model year etc.

Indeed...without using standardised tyres the result table is
speculative at best
An M3 CSL would be near the top of the above table on its Michelin pilot
cup tyres (Sports Auto's results placed it above the Porsche Carrera GT)
but near the bottom on standard road tyres.
--
Peter

On 2008-04-29, peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:

> Indeed...without using standardised tyres the result table is
> speculative at best

The speculative nature of the table is speculative as we don't know if
they used standardised tyres, or have made adjustments, or did the
tests all in one go etc etc, if anyone has any details on the tables
I'd like to hear them to find out how representative the results are.
It may be the case that they tested the vehicles as shipped from the
factory, i.e. the factory's choice of tyres, which has some
legitimacy. It'd be nice to know of course. Perhaps I'll extend to
using google later, but I'm busy now (as you can tell from me typing
stuff into a news reader!).

> An M3 CSL would be near the top of the above table on its Michelin pilot
> cup tyres (Sports Auto's results placed it above the Porsche Carrera GT)
> but near the bottom on standard road tyres.

I think the table was on road tyres, the Ultima was on road tyres and
I'd have expected them to comment on other vehicles being on race
tyres if that was the case, after all they were using it as a selling
point for their car.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
* youtube . com /user/tarcus69
* w w w .flickr . com /photos/tarcus/sets/

Ian Rawlings <news06@tarcus.org.uk> writes
>> An M3 CSL would be near the top of the above table on its Michelin pilot
>> cup tyres (Sports Auto's results placed it above the Porsche Carrera GT)
>> but near the bottom on standard road tyres.
>
>I think the table was on road tyres, the Ultima was on road tyres and
>I'd have expected them to comment on other vehicles being on race
>tyres if that was the case, after all they were using it as a selling
>point for their car.
>
The Enzo runs on custom Bridgestone Potenza RE050 Scuderia tyres which
AIUI are essentially lightly cut slicks similar in concept to the
Michelin Cup tyres.
Most of the Porsches (including the Carrera GT) and BMWs run on Michelin
Pilot Sport PS2 tyres which are more of a generic design.
--
Peter

"Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrng1djhn.oja.news06@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
> On 2008-04-29, Dave Baker <Null@null . com > wrote:
>
>> Another little exercise born of idle curiosity. I've calculated the
>> cornering speeds of a decent average modern road car and an F1 car round
>> bends of various radii. I've assumed the road car can generate 0.9g force
>> which is quite do-able on good tyres for an average modern car like my
>> Focus. 1g or even a tad over is possible for sports cars.
>
> I found a table on the Ultima Sports website taken from Road & Track
> Magazine, here's a copy, the figures are lateral G recorded around a
> 200ft circle;

> Page it was taken from is here;
>
> * w w w .ultimasports.co.uk/records/part4.html
>
> I assume the ultima was their own addition and wasn't in the original
> magazine's table.
>
> Not sure if your Focus can out-corner a McLaren F1 but I've not driven
> either ;-)

The McLaren was tested in the wet or I'm a Dutchman

>
> The lack of variable data is of course an issue, e.g. fuel, fat
> drivers, tyres, model year etc.
>
> However it looks like 0.9G for a standard road car is a tad
> optimistic, whether that makes sod-all difference to your calculations
> is something for your spreadsheet to tell you of course.

The data I use is taken from the Tire Rack tests which use the same vehicles
on the same track all the time. BMW 325i and Porsche Cayennes.

For example on the best modern tyres like Goodyear Eagle F1, G force is
approaching 1 g now. ).9g is commonplace.

* w w w .tirerack . com /tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=101

You can work back from that link no doubt to the other tests.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines

On 2008-04-29, Dave Baker <Null@null . com > wrote:

>> Not sure if your Focus can out-corner a McLaren F1 but I've not driven
>> either ;-)
>
> The McLaren was tested in the wet or I'm a Dutchman

Well I do hope so, as I rather like them.. Of course if I owned one
there's sod all chance of me taking it to a track and putting it
through its paces, which is hardly relevant as there's also sod all
chance of me owning one!

I only ever saw one once, driving past me on the road, almost
unscrewed my head looking at it. The Bugatti Veyron doesn't have as
much road presence IMHO despite the halfords paint job. I've seen one
of those on the road, almost running a friend of mine over.

> The data I use is taken from the Tire Rack tests which use the same vehicles
> on the same track all the time. BMW 325i and Porsche Cayennes.

OK, sounds more consistent, so should be more reliable.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
* youtube . com /user/tarcus69
* w w w .flickr . com /photos/tarcus/sets/

Ian Rawlings wrote:

> I found a table on the Ultima Sports website taken from Road & Track
> Magazine, here's a copy, the figures are lateral G recorded around a
> 200ft circle;
> Ultima GTR 1.176
> Porsche 911 GT1 1.07
> Porsche 911 GT2 1.02
> Ferrari Enzo 1.01
> Porsche Carrera GT 0.99
> Saleen S7 0.99

This is quite puzzling. Why do you suppose they didn't include the
Scion xB?

Clyde Penquin wrote:
> Ian Rawlings wrote:
>
>> I found a table on the Ultima Sports website taken from Road & Track
>> Magazine, here's a copy, the figures are lateral G recorded around a
>> 200ft circle;
>> Ultima GTR 1.176
>> Porsche 911 GT1 1.07
>> Porsche 911 GT2 1.02
>> Ferrari Enzo 1.01
>> Porsche Carrera GT 0.99
>> Saleen S7 0.99
>
>
> This is quite puzzling. Why do you suppose they didn't include the
> Scion xB?
>


Indeed, the 2CV as well. On bias ply tires.

"Dave Baker" <Null@null . com > wrote ..
> Another little exercise born of idle curiosity. I've calculated the
> cornering speeds of a decent average modern road car and an F1 car round
> bends of various radii. I've assumed the road car can generate 0.9g force
> which is quite do-able on good tyres for an average modern car like my
> Focus. 1g or even a tad over is possible for sports cars. For the F1 car
> I've assumed 1.3g static grip on the sticky rubber plus downforce of
1200kg
> at 200 mph. The main effect of downforce is it varies with the square of
> speed so it has little effect at low speeds and then very rapidly builds
up.
> This means the F1 car struggles in tight radius bends and then abruptly
> reaches a point at which cornering speeds go off the scale as downforce
> glues it to the track. The bend radii are in feet and the speeds in mph.
> Radius..Road..F1
> 100.......37......46
> 200.......52......69
> 400.......73.....113
> 600.......90.....167
> 700.......97.....206 (Flat out)
> 1000....116....Flat
> 1250....130....Flat
> 1500....142....Flat

What!?
Someone wanting to add information and valid
ideas here!?

- in other words, what a commendable exercise Mr. Baker.

If it is of interest to you
(perhaps to refine some of your very validly
based "assumptions"):
In the book "Going Faster, Mastering the Art of Race Driving",
put out by the Skip Barber Racing School.
They use figures (probably based on a Formula Ford??):

radius speed
100 ft 38.7 mph
increase to 39.7 mph, creates car going a radius of
105 feet.

In another section of book:
(seems to match with when specifying 1G cornering)
103' 39.3 mph
130' 44.1
195' 54.0
300' 67
and another:
205' 55mph
also,
151 47.5
163ft 49.4mph
206ft. 55.6mph
404' 77 mph

But later, in another section, adding confusion,
talking about a corner where grip varies
in different parts,
1G ---195' 54 mph,
2G ---150' 67
--- ahh I'll skip this ----

> What this shows is how a track suitable to give a normal racing car
> a wide range of cornering speeds is not suitable for an F1 car.

Very correct!
And as I've commented on/about before,
the "Tilkie-dromes" are just as much 'artificial purpose built
race tracks', as some alledge other series have.

>At anything over a
> bend radius of 700 ft the F1 car is flat out whereas you need bends, kinks
> really, of twice that to give the non-downforce car challenging high speed
> corners.
>
> Relating this to normal roads, you'd not be that far behind the F1 car in
> mph terms round a small roundabout, 400 ft is about the bend radius of a
> motorway slip road by which time the F1 car is pulling 40 mph on you and
on
> an A road where you'd be sucking your breath in at close to 100 mph as the
> road turned the F1 car would be flat everywhere.
>
> Most indicative is how the road car only goes from 73 to 97 mph whereas
the
> F1 car goes from 113 mph to flat out over the same increase in bend
radius.
> This shows why over recent years tracks that were designed for tin tops
have
> had their corners reshaped and chicanes put in to slow F1 cars down. The
> critical point is at about the 500 ft radius mark, below which is a slow
> speed corner and above which can suddenly become a very high speed one
with
> the potential for a huge crash.

Valid.

> Maybe this will also give you an idea of how hard it is to drive an F1 car
> where a small increase in bend radius which wouldn't make much difference
to
> the speed of a road car can see an F1 car going from slow to flat out
> without very much in the way of visual cues to signal it.
> Dave Baker Puma Race Engines

Thank you, (and I'm sorry, obviously I've not recovered
well enough from the week end to make a lot of sense here).

"Dave Baker" <Null@null . com > wrote in message
news:fv6dn8$n1i$1@news.datemas.de...
> Another little exercise born of idle curiosity. I've calculated the
> cornering speeds of a decent average modern road car and an F1 car round
> bends of various radii. I've assumed the road car can generate 0.9g force
> which is quite do-able on good tyres for an average modern car like my
> Focus. 1g or even a tad over is possible for sports cars. For the F1 car
> I've assumed 1.3g static grip on the sticky rubber plus downforce of
> 1200kg at 200 mph. The main effect of downforce is it varies with the
> square of speed so it has little effect at low speeds and then very
> rapidly builds up. This means the F1 car struggles in tight radius bends
> and then abruptly reaches a point at which cornering speeds go off the
> scale as downforce glues it to the track. The bend radii are in feet and
> the speeds in mph.
>
> Radius..Road..F1
> 100.......37......46
> 200.......52......69
> 400.......73.....113
> 600.......90.....167
> 700.......97.....206 (Flat out)
> 1000....116....Flat
> 1250....130....Flat
> 1500....142....Flat
>
> What this shows is how a track suitable to give a normal racing car a wide
> range of cornering speeds is not suitable for an F1 car. At anything over
> a bend radius of 700 ft the F1 car is flat out whereas you need bends,
> kinks really, of twice that to give the non-downforce car challenging high
> speed corners.
>
> Relating this to normal roads, you'd not be that far behind the F1 car in
> mph terms round a small roundabout, 400 ft is about the bend radius of a
> motorway slip road by which time the F1 car is pulling 40 mph on you and
> on an A road where you'd be sucking your breath in at close to 100 mph as
> the road turned the F1 car would be flat everywhere.
>
> Most indicative is how the road car only goes from 73 to 97 mph whereas
> the F1 car goes from 113 mph to flat out over the same increase in bend
> radius. This shows why over recent years tracks that were designed for tin
> tops have had their corners reshaped and chicanes put in to slow F1 cars
> down. The critical point is at about the 500 ft radius mark, below which
> is a slow speed corner and above which can suddenly become a very high
> speed one with the potential for a huge crash.
>
> Maybe this will also give you an idea of how hard it is to drive an F1 car
> where a small increase in bend radius which wouldn't make much difference
> to the speed of a road car can see an F1 car going from slow to flat out
> without very much in the way of visual cues to signal it.
> --
> Dave Baker
> Puma Race Engines
>

As I understand it, the g-force of a parked road car, of any immobile
object, is 1g. A sneeze is 2.9g. A cough 3.5g (citations required). I
don't know how this stationary 1g applies to lateral load. I also
understand that it's not the g-load that matters much but the time while
under this load, and why many people, most of them in car racing, have
survived extraordinary abuse because it was so quick.

A few years ago at F1 events an F1 car competed in a handicapped sprint race
against a touring car and I think a GT. The slower cars started earlier and
the F1 handily caught and beat both. Even a mid field F1 absolutely blows
away even the best road car in every category, anywhere.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:15:47 -0400, "Agent 86" <agent86@control.org>
wrote:


>A few years ago at F1 events an F1 car competed in a handicapped sprint race
>against a touring car and I think a GT. The slower cars started earlier and
>the F1 handily caught and beat both. Even a mid field F1 absolutely blows
>away even the best road car in every category, anywhere.

Yeah, but you can't get much flat-pack furniture or groceries into
one.

"Plant a tree" <plantatree@doppeltrippel.news.uk> wrote in message
news:48191dad.22985390@A_TREE...
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:15:47 -0400, "Agent 86" <agent86@control.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>>A few years ago at F1 events an F1 car competed in a handicapped sprint
>>race
>>against a touring car and I think a GT. The slower cars started earlier
>>and
>>the F1 handily caught and beat both. Even a mid field F1 absolutely blows
>>away even the best road car in every category, anywhere.
>
> Yeah, but you can't get much flat-pack furniture or groceries into
> one.
>

Then how would you explain Ralf Schumacher's career? :-)

"Dave Baker" <Null@null . com > wrote in message
news:fv6dn8$n1i$1@news.datemas.de...
> Another little exercise born of idle curiosity. I've calculated the
> cornering speeds of a decent average modern road car and an F1 car round
> bends of various radii. I've assumed the road car can generate 0.9g force
> which is quite do-able on good tyres for an average modern car like my
> Focus. 1g or even a tad over is possible for sports cars. For the F1 car
> I've assumed 1.3g static grip on the sticky rubber plus downforce of
> 1200kg at 200 mph. The main effect of downforce is it varies with the
> square of speed so it has little effect at low speeds and then very
> rapidly builds up. This means the F1 car struggles in tight radius bends
> and then abruptly reaches a point at which cornering speeds go off the
> scale as downforce glues it to the track. The bend radii are in feet and
> the speeds in mph.
>
> Radius..Road..F1
> 100.......37......46
> 200.......52......69
> 400.......73.....113
> 600.......90.....167
> 700.......97.....206 (Flat out)
> 1000....116....Flat
> 1250....130....Flat
> 1500....142....Flat
>
> What this shows is how a track suitable to give a normal racing car a wide
> range of cornering speeds is not suitable for an F1 car. At anything over
> a bend radius of 700 ft the F1 car is flat out whereas you need bends,
> kinks really, of twice that to give the non-downforce car challenging high
> speed corners.
>
> Relating this to normal roads, you'd not be that far behind the F1 car in
> mph terms round a small roundabout, 400 ft is about the bend radius of a
> motorway slip road by which time the F1 car is pulling 40 mph on you and
> on an A road where you'd be sucking your breath in at close to 100 mph as
> the road turned the F1 car would be flat everywhere.
>
> Most indicative is how the road car only goes from 73 to 97 mph whereas
> the F1 car goes from 113 mph to flat out over the same increase in bend
> radius. This shows why over recent years tracks that were designed for tin
> tops have had their corners reshaped and chicanes put in to slow F1 cars
> down. The critical point is at about the 500 ft radius mark, below which
> is a slow speed corner and above which can suddenly become a very high
> speed one with the potential for a huge crash.
>
> Maybe this will also give you an idea of how hard it is to drive an F1 car
> where a small increase in bend radius which wouldn't make much difference
> to the speed of a road car can see an F1 car going from slow to flat out
> without very much in the way of visual cues to signal it.
> --
> Dave Baker
> Puma Race Engines
>

Just wishing I had something useful to add........

AC

"Dave Baker" <Null@null . com > wrote in news:fv6dn8$n1i$1@news.datemas.de:

> Another little exercise born of idle curiosity. I've calculated the
> cornering speeds of a decent average modern road car and an F1 car
> round bends of various radii. I've assumed the road car can generate
> 0.9g force which is quite do-able on good tyres for an average modern
> car like my Focus. 1g or even a tad over is possible for sports cars.
> For the F1 car I've assumed 1.3g static grip on the sticky rubber plus
> downforce of 1200kg at 200 mph. The main effect of downforce is it
> varies with the square of speed so it has little effect at low speeds
> and then very rapidly builds up. This means the F1 car struggles in
> tight radius bends and then abruptly reaches a point at which
> cornering speeds go off the scale as downforce glues it to the track.
> The bend radii are in feet and the speeds in mph.
>
According to a first year university physics prof I had years ago,
downforce adds nothing to grip, neither does tire width. There *may* be
a connection with making the rubber more sticky by compression, but
that's it. He had no explanation why downforce was needed or useful, but
it must be something along those lines. There would then be a point at
which it reaches a maximum - sometime before the tire would be punctured
by force, one would hope. The below example would of course require the
necessary oversteer and reflexes. In addition, remember that you're not
travelling in a centrifugal motion, but changing direction and hence
thereby needing constant acceleration to mantain the same relative
forward speed.

> Radius..Road..F1
> 100.......37......46
> 200.......52......69
> 400.......73.....113
> 600.......90.....167
> 700.......97.....206 (Flat out)
> 1000....116....Flat
> 1250....130....Flat
> 1500....142....Flat
>
> What this shows is how a track suitable to give a normal racing car a
> wide range of cornering speeds is not suitable for an F1 car. At
> anything over a bend radius of 700 ft the F1 car is flat out whereas
> you need bends, kinks really, of twice that to give the non-downforce
> car challenging high speed corners.
>
> Relating this to normal roads, you'd not be that far behind the F1 car
> in mph terms round a small roundabout, 400 ft is about the bend radius
> of a motorway slip road by which time the F1 car is pulling 40 mph on
> you and on an A road where you'd be sucking your breath in at close to
> 100 mph as the road turned the F1 car would be flat everywhere.
>
> Most indicative is how the road car only goes from 73 to 97 mph
> whereas the F1 car goes from 113 mph to flat out over the same
> increase in bend radius. This shows why over recent years tracks that
> were designed for tin tops have had their corners reshaped and
> chicanes put in to slow F1 cars down. The critical point is at about
> the 500 ft radius mark, below which is a slow speed corner and above
> which can suddenly become a very high speed one with the potential for
> a huge crash.
>
> Maybe this will also give you an idea of how hard it is to drive an F1
> car where a small increase in bend radius which wouldn't make much
> difference to the speed of a road car can see an F1 car going from
> slow to flat out without very much in the way of visual cues to signal
> it.