Puzzle for the weekend
#1
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Puzzle for the weekend
I found this to be very fascinating. I think this got missed in another thread, so I thought I would post a new thread.
An Indy car in T1 at Indy has the following ride heights:
F 0.875" R 0.125" down the straight which provides lowest drag. But in T1
F 1.250 R 1.875 for good downforce. Realize this car is now seeing 2+ g's straight down just from the banking, plus the aero downforce.
This car would show the same characteristics on a flat corner as well. There is no active suspension and things like shocks and heim joints are pretty normal stuff.
So how in the world can it raise the ride height under far greater downward forces?
An Indy car in T1 at Indy has the following ride heights:
F 0.875" R 0.125" down the straight which provides lowest drag. But in T1
F 1.250 R 1.875 for good downforce. Realize this car is now seeing 2+ g's straight down just from the banking, plus the aero downforce.
This car would show the same characteristics on a flat corner as well. There is no active suspension and things like shocks and heim joints are pretty normal stuff.
So how in the world can it raise the ride height under far greater downward forces?
#4
Rennlist Member
The driver had burritos for lunch?
#7
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Geoffrey
Mark, I know...
Nice meeting you this week. Has your head exploded yet from all the new information?
Trending Topics
#9
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Bull
Speed....and the Bernoulli Effect applied to the inverted wing shape of the chassis, lower the car on the straights.
#10
Race Director
I suspect is has something to do with the centripital forces that are acting upon the car. Part of the 2-g's of force is 'lost' in the energy that the car is using to keep turning. IE: The car wants to go off on a tanget - by keeping the car in a circle pattern, all that potential downforce goes off to the side, and can't keep the car as planted as on the straights.
If that is correct, my high school physics teach would be so proud...
-Z-man.
If that is correct, my high school physics teach would be so proud...
-Z-man.
#11
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Z-man
I suspect is has something to do with the centripital forces that are acting upon the car. Part of the 2-g's of force is 'lost' in the energy that the car is using to keep turning. IE: The car wants to go off on a tanget - by keeping the car in a circle pattern, all that potential downforce goes off to the side, and can't keep the car as planted as on the straights.
If that is correct, my high school physics teach would be so proud...
-Z-man.
If that is correct, my high school physics teach would be so proud...
-Z-man.
#13
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by shiners780
Chassis flex?
Where exactly on the chassis are the ride heights being measured?
Where exactly on the chassis are the ride heights being measured?
Height, I am sure, was accurately measured with laser ride height sensors.
I am about to get on a plane so am away from the puzzle for a while.
Hint - It is very intentional in the design of the suspension.
#14
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by SundayDriver
Nope. Not that either. The speed on the straight vs. corner is not that much different and Indy cars run huge spring rates.
#15
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by SundayDriver
It is not chassis flex (that would not raise all four corners of the car).
Height, I am sure, was accurately measured with laser ride height sensors.
I am about to get on a plane so am away from the puzzle for a while.
Hint - It is very intentional in the design of the suspension.
Height, I am sure, was accurately measured with laser ride height sensors.
I am about to get on a plane so am away from the puzzle for a while.
Hint - It is very intentional in the design of the suspension.
Last edited by Bull; 12-16-2006 at 03:57 PM.