Byron Short has mathematically figured it all out,
including the snap change in lateral acceleration
between cones, measured via G-analyst.
Narrow car - faster (elapsed time)
Close to cones - faster (on the order of .0 to .2 per
cone per foot of additional distance)
Faster 'snap' speed - faster (elapsed time)
There was also something about all cars go frome cone
to cone at the same speed or in the same amount of
time, but it's a little foggy right now.
Some of this was in NAP, some was on the net.
South course this year would have been a good test of
this!
Stan Whitney
--- Craig Blome <cblome@yahoo.com> 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
>
>
>
=====
|