Past and last F1 - telemetry on tracks

[ricardo-rs]

Hello, guys.

Do you know the "new" angular speed (in °/s) for telemetry?

We know - faster angular speed = more G-Force.

-- the division of "length's speed" by "angular's speed" is the result is higher value > 0
high value means the loosened (fast) curve - eg: ~6 or higher
low value means the tight (slow) curve - eg: ~3 or lower

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--> Tracks:

-- Spa, Belgium
turn 10 - (~75°) - length's speed/angular's speed = 8.2
angular speed (°/s) / time (s) / km/h avg ////// pilot's names
36.8 ////////////// 2.04 //// 300 (flat) ////// Hamilton Q2 - 2018


-- Barcelona, Spain
turn 9 - (~87°) = 7.5
35.4 ////////////// 2.46 //// 264 /////////// Hamilton pole Q3 - 2018 on track repaved
34.1 ////////////// 2.55 //// 254 /////////// Alonso pole Q3 - 2006

last turn - (~90° until 2006) = 7.9
36.0 ////////////// 2.50 //// 283(likely flat) / pilot simulated - 2018 car on repaved
34.6 ////////////// 2.60 //// 272(likely flat) / Alonso pole Q3 - 2006


-- Melbourne, Australia
turn 14 - (83°) = 5.7 (5.6 in 1997)
29.6 ////////////// 2.80 //// 166 /////////// Villeneuve pole - 1997
39.5 ////////////// 2.10 //// 224 /////////// Hamilton pole Q3 - 2017
41.4 ////////////// 2.00 //// 236 /////////// Verstappen P4 Q3 - 2018
40.9 ////////////// 2.03 //// 232 /////////// Hamilton pole Q3 - 2019


-- Hungaroring, Hungary
turn 4 (until 2002) and 5 (since 2003) - (57º) = 6.2
40.4 ////////////// 1.41 //// 250 /////////// Vettel pole Q3 - 2017


-- Siverstone, UK ("F1GP1" (1993) game but turn 1 projected wasn't real in 1991 but yes it seems to be real in 1990)
turn 1 - (~90°) = 7.9
39.6 ////////////// 2.27 //// 313 (flat) ///// I played to pilot by 1991 car on computer. lol xD

[ricardo-rs]

-- Barcelona, Spain
turn 9
35.8 ////////////// 2.43 //// 267 (flat) /////////// Bottas pole Q3 = Vettel P3 Q3 - 2019

[Greg Locock]

We usually call it yaw velocity. Angular speed is correct, but unusual. Typically drivers lose control when it exceeds 30 deg/s.

[ricardo-rs]

We usually call it yaw velocity. Angular speed is correct, but unusual. Typically drivers lose control when it exceeds 30 deg/s.

Between 2014 and 2016, F1 cars can't turn more than +/-30º/s at fast turns.

[henry]

We usually call it yaw velocity. Angular speed is correct, but unusual. Typically drivers lose control when it exceeds 30 deg/s.

What are the mechanisms that set a limit on drivers’ ability to maintain control at high yaw velocity? Is it like motion sickness where multiple senses get out of synch?

From the figures in the OP it’s clear that F1 drivers can overcome these limitations, I wonder how they train themselves to do that, in particular lateral accelerations are difficult to simulate outside the car.

[Greg Locock]

I don't know the reason, subjectively yes, I think the visual inputs were changing too rapidly. I'm not saying that you couldn't learn to cope, just that it seemed quite a general limit across various drivers. It's not much if you think about it, given that a second is a very long time.

[ricardo-rs]

I don't know the reason, subjectively yes, I think the visual inputs were changing too rapidly. I'm not saying that you couldn't learn to cope, just that it seemed quite a general limit across various drivers. It's not much if you think about it, given that a second is a very long time.

New tyre for F1 cars in 2017 had wider for grip improved over "standard" tyres - https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/head ... tyres.html

[Just_a_fan]

Is that limit just in Formula cars?

Is it possibly a factor of how the tyres behave too?

[Tim.Wright]

Yawrate is highest on the low speed corners. Lowes at Monte Carlo is a 180 deg corner which takes about 3 seconds to pass through = 60 deg/s. La Source at Spa is 150 deg in about 3 sec = 50 deg/s. Rally drivers hit 40+deg/s almost every corner and are often around 50-60deg/s. If you turn a 90deg corner in 2 seconds in a carpark you are averaging 45deg/s.

So I'd question the 30 deg/s limit.

Why are you looking at yawrate in isolation anyway? Unless you also have the lateral acceleration, it doesn't really tell you anything useful about the handling.

[ricardo-rs]

Yawrate is highest on the low speed corners. Lowes at Monte Carlo is a 180 deg corner which takes about 3 seconds to pass through = 60 deg/s. La Source at Spa is 150 deg in about 3 sec = 50 deg/s. Rally drivers hit 40+deg/s almost every corner and are often around 50-60deg/s. If you turn a 90deg corner in 2 seconds in a carpark you are averaging 45deg/s.

+1. (NOTE: I can't vote "recommend" you because I haven't the number recommended of posts )

[bill shoe]

A comment about using internal balance vs visual guidance for high yaw-velocity situations. Many years ago I got a couple days of excellent drifting training on a skid pad where the yaw velocity was near 30 deg/s. The skip pad had wet Belgian cobblestones and the car was specifically chosen for awkward/abrupt yaw behavior.

My normal intuitive internal gyroscope (internal-balance/inner-ear) was completely inadequate, and I never got one complete circle in a drift. Then I used visual guidance only-- keep the a-pillar pointing at the painted circle where you want to go, etc. It was easy to see small deviations from the trend, and I could maintain very precise and consistent drifts like this. At one point I did 10 laps in a row and only stopped because I got bored and started 10 laps in the other direction.

So that's easy on a skidpad due to the steady-state cornering and convenient visual references. Much harder on a typical road course. The high yaw-velocity corners like Lowes hairpin are so tight that almost any car will understeer and little skill is required to control the simple tradeoff between translational velocity vs the line you're trying to follow.

I'm guessing the really good drivers can pick visual references on real road courses or maybe even create good mental visual lines that allow good visual guidance around turns. I think mega car control may be visual-based instead of balance-based, which somehow seems disappointing but I'm not sure why.

[Greg Locock]

It was an observation based on whether trained, but not expert, drivers could catch an oversteering RWD production car, on gravel as it happened. There's all sorts of ifs whens and buts, and Tim's post adds a lot of more relevant info for F1.

[Tim.Wright]

Interesting, how did the study conclude that the yawrate was the primary factor rather than ground speed?

[henry]

Yawrate is highest on the low speed corners. Lowes at Monte Carlo is a 180 deg corner which takes about 3 seconds to pass through = 60 deg/s. La Source at Spa is 150 deg in about 3 sec = 50 deg/s. Rally drivers hit 40+deg/s almost every corner and are often around 50-60deg/s. If you turn a 90deg corner in 2 seconds in a carpark you are averaging 45deg/s.

So I'd question the 30 deg/s limit.

Why are you looking at yawrate in isolation anyway? Unless you also have the lateral acceleration, it doesn't really tell you anything useful about the handling.

Some lateral accelerations, in “g”

Lowes. 1.1. (38kph)
La Source 1.5 (63kph)

Car park 1.25

I measured the turn radius on google maps satellite view. Assumed the widest constant radius turn .For the Car Park I assumed a 20m radius . The car park speed was 60kph (32mph), I hope it was empty.

I validated against a turn I used to negotiate every workday. A 270° pure circle join between 2 trunk roads, radius 75m, which memory tells me was negotiated at about 40mph. Yaw rate 14°/sec, 0.4g which is what it fealty like. A colleague assured me he and his Boxster negotiated it at 60mph, yaw rate 20°/sec, around 1g.

Given these numbers it seems to achieve these yaw rate takes a lot of grip. So I’m surprised at the rally numbers .

I might have a go at the OP’s numbers if I can find a moment, and also have a look at @juzh excellent onboard resources.

[Tommy Cookers]

doesn't the rallying technique involves freakishly high yaw rates ('throwing the car sideways') for a fraction of the bend ?

proprioception is the buzzword relating to physiological/sensory factors at high yaw rates
someone told me that (when racing a Porsche) he burst a front brake drum and spun like a top for 200 yds
(and then threw up with frightening violence and retired from racing)

it seems that an aerobatic plane can be spun at 400 deg/sec (that's less than 1 second per rev)
the pilot is expected to emerge from this on an exact heading
done it - but not the full 400 as that's too hard on a plane with a 2 blade prop

in an empty car park with packed snow - with a bit of speed flicking through 180 into going backwards might take about 1 sec