Track wetness indicators

[Hoffman900]

No it doesn’t- and a lot of highways in the Netherlands are proofing that every winter.

https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/strenge-vo ... ~acfb4498/

“ De schade ontstaat door water of gesmolten sneeuw dat in het asfalt sijpelt. Als het vocht uitzet ontstaan er scheuren in het wegdek.”

//

“The damage is caused by water or melted snow seeping into the asphalt. When the moisture expands, cracks appear in the road surface.”

The used asphalt is ‘ZOAB’ aka ‘very open asphalt’.

https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeer_open_asfalt

If you're going to tell me I'm wrong, at least know what you're talking about. I ran highway projects in excess of $130mil USD.

There are multiple designs for porous paving.

Some use a porous mix ontop of a well drained engineered base layer. That's what I was referencing. Those types are typical of parking lots and are load limited. They do not have the frost issues of that design or of regular asphalt pavement or concrete pavement.

On a highway project, the typical cross section of an interstate highway might be like:
1) compacted subgrade (has proctor requirements).
2) 2' (compacted in 1' lifts) of an engineered soil with lime. When wet and compacted, it's nearly as hard as certain concrete mixes
3) Multiple layers of asphalt, with more fines as it increases. Typically about 1 foot thick
4) A .75" wear / porous layer.

The porous layer drains out to the shoulder which isn't covered in that later. .75" lip is acceptable in US Highways. These types of highways work pretty great if the grades are spot on and the subbase is very stiff. The issue in the one above is that if it was a similar design, everything below it wasn't dense enough, so wheel tracks were able to compact the asphalt and create little gullies for water to hide in.

That said, I can find THOUSANDS of miles of roadways in the US that look that bad after winter, and all are traditional asphalt or concrete construction.

Just wondering. We’re now talking at road solutions translated to racetracks. Wouldn’t runway paving more applicable due to the very high shear forces caused by braking?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 1417300068

See the two links I posted above. The second has more mix information.

For the record, I don’t think there is a porous paving solution that would even come close to working.

[Edax]

See the two links I posted above. The second has more mix information.

For the record, I don’t think there is a porous paving solution that would even come close to working.

No indeed, that doesn’t seem a success.

The normal solution of grooving the asphalt I find interesting though. I knew it from cement concrete but I didn’t realize it was done for asphalt as well. This is also reported to significantly reduce spray.

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/tr ... 23-016.pdf

As compared with a smooth texture, a definite reduction of the fine water spray behind trucks is noticed.

[GOAT]

For the record, I don’t think there is a porous paving solution that would even come close to working.

I guess we agree al along; unless there is this ‘breakthrough’ in ‘bonding material’.

[Hoffman900]

For the record, I don’t think there is a porous paving solution that would even come close to working.

I guess we agree al along; unless there is this ‘breakthrough’ in ‘bonding material’.

For a race surface.

They work fine on a highway, if engineering / installed correctly.

[GOAT]

For the record, I don’t think there is a porous paving solution that would even come close to working.

I guess we agree al along; unless there is this ‘breakthrough’ in ‘bonding material’.

For a race surface.

They work fine on a highway, if engineering / installed correctly.

True.

.. and true, with that little bit of extra maintenance because of, but not limited to, frost related damages.

[Hoffman900]

I guess we agree al along; unless there is this ‘breakthrough’ in ‘bonding material’.

For a race surface.

They work fine on a highway, if engineering / installed correctly.

True.

.. and true, with that little bit of extra maintenance because of, but not limited to, frost related damages.

Better

Here is a European based presentation:
https://www.soci.org/-/media/Files/Conf ... ashx?la=en

To go along with the two links I posted earlier:
I did find this:
https://www.rmaces.org/docs/highperform ... rowell.pdf

And
https://www.il-asphalt.org/files/5414/4 ... llenge.pdf

[mzso]

The normal solution of grooving the asphalt I find interesting though. I knew it from cement concrete but I didn’t realize it was done for asphalt as well. This is also reported to significantly reduce spray.

I can't imagine it lasting for any length of time. Tarmac is soft compared to concrete (quite literally in a hot-spell) and the bitumen is actually a liquid.

I remember watching videos about earth being mixed with some polimer as a road surface. I wonder what happened to that idea. I can still find videos: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... lymer+road

I also remember reading about India making roads out of reprocessed plastic bottles that were supposed to be longer lasting than tarmac. I didn't hear about that since then either.

[Airshifter]

They already have track wetness indicators in F1. It's called driver feedback.

I'll all behind useful tech, but sensors in a track isn't the way to go. With the monster budgets in F1 they could easily have a number of rain intensity stations around the track, and use them to determine if the drivers can race. If they can race, use the SC, then transition to the VSC for higher speeds, and allow them to bunch back up for the start.

The current wet tires aren't the greatest, but I think there would be little room to use tire design to clear the water to a specific area (side) more. The more the water was cleared to the side, the less traction the tire would likely offer.

Just mount a bell without a clanger on the front, it it rings its too wet

A hollow bell, at the front, filled with liquid, as a rain indicator!

NOT a mass damper.... a rain indicator.





Yeah the cars and tires have changed, but it seems like they aren't even trying hard when it's wet these days.

[Edax]

The normal solution of grooving the asphalt I find interesting though. I knew it from cement concrete but I didn’t realize it was done for asphalt as well. This is also reported to significantly reduce spray.

I can't imagine it lasting for any length of time. Tarmac is soft compared to concrete (quite literally in a hot-spell) and the bitumen is actually a liquid.

I remember watching videos about earth being mixed with some polimer as a road surface. I wonder what happened to that idea. I can still find videos: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... lymer+road

I also remember reading about India making roads out of reprocessed plastic bottles that were supposed to be longer lasting than tarmac. I didn't hear about that since then either.

Yeah… I was surprised as well. But as far as I can see it is really done on asphalt mixes. And if it can deal with daily abuse of high loaders like A350’s and 777’s it should not be a problem to get longevity on a racetrack.

Airfield grooving is used to increase the friction of a wet surface by removing surface water. Jointline have many years experience at the installation of anti-skid grooving to asphalt and concrete runways at airfields both in the UK and Worldwide. It is also possible to install antiskid grooving on highways to give additional surface grip.

https://jointline.co.uk/services/line-m ... -grooving/

[PlatinumZealot]

How about another wheel scraper? Like the 2022 "fin" that goes over top of the tyre, but at the 5 o'clock position so the rear of the tyre can't launch the spray upward?

There is an old thread exploring this Idea. It's out there if you can find it.

The problem identified was that the water will get streamed back onto the track, potentially causing more aquaplaning.

[mzso]

How about another wheel scraper? Like the 2022 "fin" that goes over top of the tyre, but at the 5 o'clock position so the rear of the tyre can't launch the spray upward?

There is an old thread exploring this Idea. It's out there if you can find it.

The problem identified was that the water will get streamed back onto the track, potentially causing more aquaplaning.

Aquaplaning is more manageable than driving with inadequate visibility. Just don't accelerate when the grip is starting to fall away.

[PlatinumZealot]

If the deflector points two streams of water infront of another can in the braking zone... That's aquaplaning. Then a big shunt.

You will take water off the road to place it back there again. You see what is wrong?

So any deflector used should not direct water back onto the track.

A good illustration is the bristle trucks that they used to sweep water off the track. Notice the slanted angle of the brush. It can steer left or right. It is too heavy to have similar device on an F1 car not to mention how can you stop it from being used maliciously.

[mzso]

You will take water off the road to place it back there again. You see what is wrong?

Yes, nothing whatsoever. I won't make the track wetter.

If the deflector points two streams of water infront of another can in the braking zone... That's aquaplaning. Then a big shunt.

That's an exaggerated concern. Especially since it would only put back what it picked up.
Also why would they design them to expel the water directly behind instead of to the sides which would clear the racing line. And outside the racing line its always expected to be wetter.

[Hoffman900]

Tires are designed to displace water out, they're designed to evacuate the water. Fender cars don't create their own aquaplaning.

The racing line in the wet is one car length off the usual racing line (at least in the brake zone) anyway due to asphalt polishing / rubber on the actual racing line.

[PlatinumZealot]

You will take water off the road to place it back there again. You see what is wrong?

Yes, nothing whatsoever. I won't make the track wetter.

If the deflector points two streams of water infront of another can in the braking zone... That's aquaplaning. Then a big shunt.

That's an exaggerated concern. Especially since it would only put back what it picked up.
Also why would they design them to expel the water directly behind instead of to the sides which would clear the racing line. And outside the racing line its always expected to be wetter.

Because cars overtake from the side, a sudden stream of water in front of another car would be like a driver brakes into a puddle. So the direction you direct the stream, doing it behind is not a bad idea. It has to be evaluated. But i rememeber putting the difflector idea already in a thread. And it was argued.

The other thing is the tyres displace at ground level and because of the velocity of the car the angle of the spray is low, so the deflector has to be very low. In the video below these LMP1 cars already had "blockers" or mudgaurd looking objects behind the rear wheels but the spray still rooster tails similar to F1.