that is actually really interesting. I would have condsidered the path a
series of ellipses. But, a sin function seems to make more sense.
Nathan (you meen wider isn't better?? <G>)
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Craig Blome wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I've been trying to figure something out about slaloms
> and getting myself confused. All of the stuff on
> course design I've seen (e.g. RHJ's notes) treat a
> car's path though a slalom as a series of semicircular
> arcs connected together, presumably with the car
> traveling at a constant speed.
>
> Problem is this: At the junctions between arcs, the
> car would have to have an instantaneous change in
> lateral acceleration from full-left to full-right in
> order to make this work. That obviously isn't
> possible. The only way to get smooth changes in
> lateral acceleration would be to have the car take a
> sinusoidal path through the slalom, which looks a bit
> different. Is this a better model of the car's path?
>
> Reason I'm asking is, I'm attempting to work out a
> physical explanation for whether a narrow car is
> faster through a slalom than a wide one. I know
> empirically that tends to be true, but I'm thinking it
> might not be solely due to the smaller side-to-side
> distance traveled. I tried using the semicircle
> assumption and the math got WAY ugly.
>
> Anyway, TIA for any help or references y'all can give
> me.
>
> Craig "yeah, I KNOW I should get out more" Blome
>
87 GT 5spd
SCCA E-SP
http://www.nmt.edu/~nberg/mustang.html
|