Solo Is
by Warren Leveque
ARTICLES ON THIS PAGE. [click on subject to Jump to the article]
The "Death" of Prepared Classes
Fc =m(v)(v)/r. F sub c =mv squared/r. That’s it, the whole cornering game for slow speed racing. the cornering force F (centripetal acceleration) equals the mass (weight) m of the car times v (velocity-speed) squared, divided by the radius r. In autocrossing (Solo II), the radius is very small thereby making the cornering force F very large in comparison to road racing which has a very large radius. The cornering velocity in autocrossing even though being squared is still very small; therefore the product of mass times acceleration MA, the momentum has very little effect on an autocross car. This is the same force which forces a fast front heavy road racer to understeer off of the outside of a turn.
In slow speed racing, this reduced momentum actually favors a front heavy car. this is because the only other major factor left in the equation is m- the weight which creates all of the Normal (downward) force on the tires (friction) to develop all of the cornering force. Since the momentum is so small, we can use as much front weight as possible for good "turn in". Camber, springs, anti roll bars, etc. do nothing until a cornering force and a roll is initiated. Mass that is cantilevered out past the wheelbase contributes less to cornering power because it is not weight ( without a downward -normal component) as much as centripetal acceleration developing mass. Obviously, fast course approaching road racing radaii revert to road racing formulas and set-ups.
So empirically, how do we know this? Has anyone put sand bags in the light end of their car in slippery weather? Has anyone ever gone faster while carrying a passenger? Have you ever noticed how fast some front mid engined cars have gone? Or how about the speed of totally front heavy ,front drive cars, without compensating power,polar moment, or traction? To prove this I adapted my Formula car to carry varying amounts of front barbell weight. It seemed that no matter how ridiculously heavy the front got, the car went faster. Why weren’t they designed that way? The were designed for high speed courses. Besides with the driver in them, how much did they really weigh on the front?
So how do we drive our huge ,front- light cars so fast on slow tight courses? When we apply the above formula to the rear of the car and if the velocity is great enough the product of mv produces enough momentum to overcome the cornering power of the tires and oversteer or rotate the car into the turn. Basically, this is what makes a Corvair or Porsche a good racer; this plus power-on understeer. After we have rotated the car enough, we apply more power which squats the rear of the car, increasing the normal force, which increases the available rear traction and stops the rotation. Since the available power isn’t enough to overcome the increased traction, the straight-away acceleration has already begun earlier than the rear light cars. If the power is greater than the traction the car understeers and goes straight because of the reduced normal force at the front ( no sand bags on the ice.).
On some of our slower courses this doesn’t work well enough. The choices are to slow down or force the situation. This is done by decelerating briskly with little braking which pitches the nose of the car down to increase the available front traction and to decrease the rear traction, then reaccelerate as above .All fast drivers use this maneuver, however subtly.
On a down force vs cornering power tire graph, the front of a Corvair works below the peak friction and the rear works over the peak. All of the above discussion is attempts to bring both end neared the peak.
So; besides changes to your driving style you should:
Move accessory weight to the front.
Decrease rear cantilevered weight.
Transfer by rear to front downward inclination, which also improves the roll axis.
Softer front spring and/or anti roll bars.
Stiffer rear springs and/or anti roll bars.
Softer front than rear tires.
You know what to do.
E=W(v)(v)/2g The energy required to change velocity in a rotating mass. We all know about the energy required to move the mass of the entire car by it’s tiny engine; less mass = more movement. the above formula is for the energy required to accelerate a flywheel. Your car has five of them. One on the crankshaft and four on the axles. Yes the non-driven wheels count for they have to be decelerated-same energy.
E = energy to change velocity in ft. lbs.
W = weight of flywheel rim
V = velocity of mean radius in ft./sec.
G = acceleration due to gravity, 32.16, a constant
Let’s compare two typical tire-wheel combinations; such as a 13" and a15" diameter. We’re no physicists, so we’ll simplify and make assumptions. Assuming mean diameters of 10" and 12" respectively ( using 1/2 of the dia. of the tire section) and weights of 30 and 40 lbs. For simplification we’ll accelerate or decelerate from 1000 to 7000 rpm and assume a 3:1 axle ratio.
E = W/64 (6000 rpm/3 x 3.14 dia/rev x 1 min./60 sec.) squared
For 15" (12" mean) E = 40/64 = .625(10948) = 6842 ft. lbs.
For 13" (10" mean) E = 30/64 = .468(7597.4) = 3561 ft. lbs.
The difference in energy required is 3281 ft. lbs.
This is an increase of 47% in energy required to accelerate ONE 15" wheel over ONE 13" wheel. This 3000 ft. lbs. of energy has to be supplied by an engine producing about 170 ft. lbs of torque and accelerating a 2500# car.
Using this same formula on the flywheel/clutch mass and deleting the 3:1 axle:
E = 20/64( 6000/1 x 3.14D/60) squared = .3125(9859) = 3081 ft.lbs
The TOTAL energy in the flywheel is less than the DIFFERENCE between ONE 13" and ONE 15" wheel, now multiply this by four. This is one way to significantly and legally improve your performance in a stock class; aftermarket light wheels and short, light tires.
Your brakes are flywheels also. Road racing disc brakes weight 12# per wheel more than the drums and the mean rotating mass diameter is greater.
We’re only stopping from 40-50 mph with brakes designed for a 3700 # Chevelle. With the discs you must use 15" wheels for clearance thereby increasing the flywheel effect and the torque arm.
I proved this empirically by using heavy 15 x 7" Camaro wheels and 23 x 10" cantilever slicks at the Mid-Ohio Racers’ Reunion. The car felt severely underbraked at 120 mph. The following year at Lime Rock, I used light Duralite 13 x 10" racing wheels and 22 x 10" formula car slicks. The braking was tremendously improved at the same speeds.
I recently heard from a drag racer who discovered that his car was faster with 3.89 gears and shorter tires than with 4.11 gears and taller tires, the overall width and ratios being the same. I recently did the same thing by using the Yenko gearbox, 3.55, and 20" tires versus standard box, 3.27, and 22" tires. The overall ratio was the same. The short tires were faster. You cannot compare any of this to traction limited cars with excess horsepower. The results would be the same but way out of scale.
The argument is often used that the taller wheel with the shorter tire has a squattier section height; baloney, a 225-45-13 tire has exactly the same section as a 225-45-15 tire: 225/25.4 x .45 = 3.98" -both cases. The larger circumference MAY give a slightly larger contact patch, but remember most patches are shaped like a 1" by 10" rectangle. The largest gain in contact area is made by tall section height tires with low pressures, braced by either a very wide rim or a cantilevered sidewall.
when selecting wheel/tire combinations on the basis of flywheel energy, a cantilevered tire: i.e. a 9" tire designed for a 7" rim is much heavier than a 9" tire designed for a 9" rim. Also a radial tire is almost twice as heavy as a bias tire. A performance ® radial is radial in name only ( so they can sell on Monday). The beads and sidewalls have been stiffened to act just like a bias tire. The little radial effect left just makes the suspension hard to tune; look at the front of Indy cars. Radial race tires were designed for suspensions with lousy camber gain such as MacPherson struts.
Don’t be afraid to use smaller tires if you’re restricted to narrow rims. A 175 to 185 section is plenty for slow speed racing . Tire warm -up and lbs/sq. in. down force is what’s important. If you spread the tire tight on the rim, lower pressures (larger footprint) can be used.
The only disadvantages of the above combination is the appearance of the small tire in the large fender opening; no argument. Set your trophy in front of the wheelwell, no one will even notice!
The death of prepared classes?
The argument goes: You should run Stock instead of Prepared of Modified because; You can drive your car every day and get used to it. You can use your race car for practical things (grocery-getter classes, sport ute classes). You don't have to invest in a trailer, tow vehicle, or storage space. You can drive it to town between heats. You don’t HAVE to work on all of the time to repair it or improve it. The better Stocks are nearly as fast as the Prepareds if using the special ® tires and are much faster in the rain. You don’t need roll cages or safety harnesses. It can be sold as a used car or traded in. You get more practice because it always run. You don’t need race fuel. It’s comfortable in bad weather.
These are all valid arguments. In support of this, I interviewed some very successful Stock drivers a few years ago and wrote an article about it. the gist of it was that they cared nothing about any particular car-no marque worship here. the car were considered temporary disposable tools. Trades were the method of performance improvement. The people who had marque worship didn’t seem to be among the winners.
In the beginning of popular autocrossing in the sixties, the cars and the tires weren’t very good-actually downright awful. Except for the expensive Loti, Porsches, and such, if you wanted your daily drive to be fast and handle well , you HAD to modify it. Therefore, Prepareds and Modifieds were plentiful. The tires were as bad as the cars, so slicks were necessary. A good driver on street tires looked like a Pro-Rally driver. Since road race cars were prepared production cars, not tube frame GTs, there was a natural interchange and crossover and the dual purpose cars eased the expense.
In the eighties and nineties, stock cars became very good. Tires became excellent-better than slicks in many cases. The stock cars became so good that some prepared classes diminished almost to extinction. the VW GTI, Omni GLH, and Neons made grocery getters, fast ,fun, and competitive. Corvettes and Miatas were incredibly fast. Prepareds and Modifieds virtually disappeared in Pro
Solo because contingency sponsors were only interested in Stocks.
Having known and experienced the pitfalls of Prepareds/Modifieds, and having experienced a health/financial reversal, I decided to take part in the stock movement. In my stable was a 1988 Fiero GT 5 speed. It was not as good as a Miata perhaps, but a proper car none-the less. I don’t know if I remembered what a stock Corvair looked like. This Fiero was an extra car, not at all practical as a grocery getter or a tire hauler. It was necessary to acquire an extra set of wheels, special DOT racing tires, jack, air tank, impact wrench, etc. Then a trailer was built for the afore mentioned items and a hitch installed. It was nice to travel comfortably to an event at 28 mpg. and at 70+ mph. However no one waved to me or asked questions at stops.
I had to actually arrive earlier. It takes more time and energy to change tires than to drop a car off of a trailer. You would also have to include in alignment changes if the distance was great. I was very nice to meet a new group of competitors and friends. This is where most new people are introduced to the sport. You don’t meet many people with your feet sticking out from under a broken prepared car.
The tires were so good that the clutch started slipping. I had to upgrade it.
The tires are so good that the brakes seem inadequate. I got better linings. I broke the tilt wheel mechanism because the stock seat won’t hold this narrow body against the higher G forces. I installed a racing harness. I don’t like the understeer and there is nothing to adjust, so I’d better order a set of expensive externally adjustable shocks. The very best tires last about three events. and act just like slicks in the rain. Hmmmmm, maybe I’m getting too deep into this stock thing. Driving it every day at 5/10th doesn’t seem to prepare me for10/10ths driving.
I’ve noticed some of the taller stock sedans getting on their tops. Are the tires so good that open stock cars are going to need roll bars? Is lowering going to become mandatory for stock sedans? I’ve noticed a lot of broken differentials, clutches transaxles, etc. A lot of successful stock racers are trailering their cars and carrying extra parts. Are we entering a stock/prepared area? One glance at Street Prepared tells you that is the most expensive class of all to prepare for. The people at the top of stock classes are willing to trade to stay competitive. This could be viewed as a $20,000 to $40,000 preparation expense.
Another thing noticed at the National level is the amount of protests in stock classes. this is a lot of pressure for the sin of going too fast.
While working course as a stock entrant, I got to watch the overpowered, evil handling Prepared cars run. People lined to fences to watch. It’s like Nascar on a road course or Sprints on dirt. I wasted my time grousing about the troubles involved in running a prepared car. the stock entrant worker said" but you do get to drive a prepared or modified car." A funny thing is happening at the large events, while some prepared classes are in trouble, some are growing by leaps and bounds.
Classes like C/M, F/M, and especially C/Prepared are experiencing a renaissance. Field of 40 and 50 are occuring at the Nationals. The attraction of the lesser powered light formula car is obvious. The engines are nearly stock and run on pump gas. tires last a whole year on these light cars. The trailers can be towed with your grocery-getter. You have something to impress you neighbors with other than magnetic decals. Racing sedans are harder to explain. They are heavy, expensive to tow, need face fuel and eat tires like candy. When you hear one start up, you begin to understand. The high compression, over cammed, over rich, open header sound, and race fuel aroma is intoxicating. The whapp, whapp, romp, romp, vroom, vroom comes from the ground up through your feet. The handling on the course is not neat and tidy. It is barely contained fury! The driver/owners can’t explain why they do it, they’re addicted. The don’t HAVE to work on their cars, they GET to work on them. they don’t even think of trading to become competitive. They go to bed dreaming of the nest mechanical improvement o their existing car. I’ve spent fun winters building some outrageous change and didn’t even car if I got to drive it. The engineering was the thing.
The C/P class has been referred to as the "Latin" class as in dead and unchanging rules. There is no yearly obsolescence, it was obsolete as conceived. compared to S/P, the preparation is cheap. $ 300 mandated carburetors, vs $3000 injectors.Reducing weight is the cheapest preparation of all. Sway bars and springs are cheaper than shocks. Racing slicks aren’t so bad if you look for one session take- offs or last years compounds . Race fuel is pittance compared to any kind of towing cost.
The nostalgia movement is no doubt partially responsible. The race cars in the Vintage race that I ran at Mid Ohio looked just like the C/P grid at the Solo II Nationals-60s and 70s Trans- Am and AS-except that the tires were covered.
There is a fear that the current GT-1 and Trans Am cars could obsolete the C/P class. It’s unlikely, the high tech changes don’t really suit our sport. they must carry a weight penalty, they’re huge, and they don’t look like cars.
You would think that only old vintage guys would be attracted to our heavy metal cars. This is largely true but a lot of young gays and gals seem to be attracted to barely contained fury. The camaraderie among this group is exceptional. Perhaps people with the same genetic defect subconsciously recognize one another. The unreasonable marque worship may be the main identifying factor.
You can’t ever have too much fun,
My attraction to the early sports car movement was mainly due to the increase in suspension sophistication. This was really no accident. I grew up reading my fathers collection of books about old and antique cars. Cars at first were nothing more than buggies, with engines, for years. About the first great advancement was the underslung chassis; for significant lowering. Well into the forties, most cars (like ë48 Fords) still had transverse buggy springs, beam axles, and mechanical brakes.
There were some significant early developments; 1934 Chevrolets had independent a-arm front suspension-called "Knee Action", 1937 Buicks had front and rear anti-roll bars ( so that they could further soften the ride). the 1949 Chevrolet had "Torque Tube Drive". The 1955 Chevrolet worsened with ëHotchiss" suspension(longitudinal buggy springs) but improved with front ball joints and this half century’s most significant engine.
Mid engined race car developed in the 30’s in Germany, made our Indy cars look like tractors. When Lotus came to the Indy 500 with light, mid-engined, independently sprung cars, I was mesmerized. the first sports car to arrive here were in the same category; small, light, low, well suspended, and responsive to drive. The first modern American sports cars were the 1963 Corvette and the 1965 Corvair ( which shared the same suspension geometry).
Since then, I have read every handling and suspension book available and many SAE papers. Every one of these articles say that camber gain should equal body roll, and that springs should be the softest that will prevent bottoming, that shocks should be just stiff enough to stop bounce, and that anti-roll bars are used just to adjust front to rear roll stiffness. For a while suspension development seem to have no limits. Of course there were aberrations in history: the old Bugattis and Auto Unions used great amounts of positive front camber to insure the front washing out before the rear. Rear suspension development came much later. This same oversteer fix was used on Fiat 850s, VW Beetles, early Porsches, and BMWs.
Some very good attempts were made to locate solid axles; like the DeDion tubes used on some Alfas, Ferraris, all sprint cars, and the Chaparral 2H.
When building my own cars, I made full size cardboard templates to understand camber gain, roll centers, anti-dive, anti-squat, roll steer and such. I made a model car to try to understand roll axes. This was long before Cad-Cam.
Then radial tires happened!
It seemed that radial tires were so forgiving that nearly any suspension could be used successfully. The (Shudder) Macpherson struts appeared everywhere, even on cars that previously had good suspension. The cost savings was just too good to pass up. Radials even allowed things like twin I beams to appear. Then radials became shorter in aspect ratio to get crisp turn-in and became so bias ply in nature that twin a-arms began to come back. In the meantime, racing "street" tires came with built in camber and strut towers became highly adjustable. Luxury sports cars limited the suspensions behavior electronically with ABS, traction control, and spin and yaw control. Driver input, feedback, and driving fun became redundant.
On the cover of a recent issue of Sports Car is a picture of a very successful and well driven Neon. This car is cornering on three wheels and the outside front and the only real cornering wheel has maybe 3 degrees of positive camber in that attitude. It sort of reminds one of the 30s Bugatti. Cars like this Neon require front toe-out and rear toe-in to correct improperly designed ackerman and roll steer. this is a very common sight. I know of an A-Mod designer who purposely designed his car to operate in this three wheeled manner. Some competitors have made their suspensions so stiff with springs, anti-roll bars, or shocks(in stock car) , to cover unwanted movement in camber, dive, squat, roll, or toe change, that the tires have virtually become the suspension. The chassis became the fifth spring after the suspension stiffening. After the chassis was stiffened with a cage, the tires became the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th springs. When we adjust tire pressures are we adjusting the only compliant suspension component?
I recently had the unwelcome opportunity to drive my fairly powerful formula car after someone wrapped it around a light pole. The wheels were pointed in all directions and I went faster than ever. Other than getting the power down, what really works?
There have been discussions in North American Pylon about using taller section tires on stiffly sprung cars to absorb the shock induced breakaway of the contact patch. Have you noticed the section height of the F1 tires?
Maybe the argument about Go Karts is moot. They’re all becoming Go Karts. I asked a renown Mod car builder about the current stiff trend, He said" Small go Karts work, why not big ones?"
This brings us to what I believe are the real laws of suspensions:
Ockhams’s Razor-The simplest solution is the best one.
Law of Parsimony-Go with the simplest and cheapest.
Look no Further
What works is right
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it
If you cain’t prove It, you ain’t-Richard Petty
Obsolete cars win-McLaren
If the theory disagrees with the results, go with the results,
make a new theory.
Sooo here’s the new theory: Protect the drive wheel.
In motorcycle racing school, they tell you that the corner is only for positioning for the straight. Sprint cars and Midgets let the inside front dangle and roll over on the ultra soft right rear, protecting the drive wheel. It’s a fact of life that most of our autocross courses don’t have sweeping turns. Usually it’s just rapid transitions which reward stiff suspensions or tight little turns followed by short straights which reward instant acceleration.
If it’s drag racing out of tight turns, protect the drive wheel. Front drive cars with the inside rear wheel up are protecting the inside front drive wheel. 911 Porsches with the inside front up are protecting the rear drive wheel. Camaros with beam rear drive axles and huge tires are protecting the wide flat drive wheels by eliminating camber change under squat. Formula Vees with full trailing front suspension with zero camber gain and zero roll rear suspension are protecting the drive wheel. About the only cars which don’t follow this rule are low powered cars with excellent suspensions like Miatas and Formula Fords.
I thought that I’d never say it; " Screw the suspension, next year I’m building more power and protecting the drive wheel".
Turbo charged engines can work well in autocrosses if very well developed and if the characteristics are understood. Al of the sanctioning bodies require a single turbo in the stock location, so that is what we will discuss. While I agree with the theories of why a “blow-through” system should be better, I could not find any discernible performance difference in practice. My system had all of the features: flow back loops, compressor butterfly, and vent whistles. The response may be theoretically better, but it is minor compared to lag in all systems. Without building a fire in the exhaust housing there is no “ no-lag” system. The lag or “horsepower change is always there to some degree, the driver’s internal computer just adapts.
To match a 180 to 200 hp naturally aspirated autocross engine, a Turbo must have at least 250 to 275 hp to have an average of 180 to 200 hp over the course. Most tight turns are exited with about 100 hp and the peak of up to 300 hp is reached upon braking for the next turn. Driver-wise the Turbo requires much more attention. Reducing lag and total commitment to a turn is the name of the game. Backing out of the throttle for mid-turn adjustments is self defeating. When you get off of the throttle, you have to start over developing boost. However, once you’re used to it , you’re addicted.
Preparation wise Turbos are great. the base engine is best absolutely stock, but must be in perfect condition. There is no milling, no race cams, no expensive rocker arms or pushrod geometry changes, no intake manifolds or headers. Just balance the rods, use good rings and pistons. Use oil pan and push rod tube baffling and all of the additional crankcase baffling that you can manage. You are stuffing 2 atmospheres into a 1 atmosphere case. Stock intake manifolds are best due to the small volume. There can be NO exhaust leaks. Check the vertical pipe often. Usually no muffler at all is needed. The cooling system must be stock and perfect.
High rpms aren’t necessary or desired except to avoid a shift. Shift up at 5000 rpm and LOAD the engine, that’s how boost is made. 140 hp heads make slightly better response, no more boost and failures easily offset any gains. 95 hp heads with turbo valves and guides relieves some detonation tendency.
The power is all bolted on. Use a large compressor, a small exhaust turbine, and a large variable carburetor . Your turbo engine will vary from 300 to 600 cfm.
A throttle body with a feed back loop will work. A good inexpensive combination is an early model exh. turbine and a late model compressor with a large carburetor- this will double the stock boost to about 18 psi guage. The stock boost control IS the carburetor. Even with a Crown scroll and an E flow compressor, the stock carb limit is about 10 psi and goes dead rich at the top, limiting rpm. Other wise the E flow and Crown can produce 30 psi and over 300 hp. 15 psi is a practical limit and requires a large element waste gate to control it. If using a small Weber (40 DCOE) good response can be obtained by using 26 mm chokes(venturies) however boost is limited to 10 to 12 and goes rich at high rpms. A 2” SU or a Predator should give good response and power. A large ( 45 DCOE ) can be made progressive using large chokes to get both response and power. A good cheap alternative is a small Rochester Q-Jet.
If running a Turbo, the Corvair is probably the best possible car to do it in. The long wheel base, large polar moment, and excellent traction mitigates the large horsepower changes which occur. If you are fast in your Turbo, your lines will be different than most. Pay attention to timers, not critics.
If you are running 15 psi or more boost, then you are going to have ignition problems-missing out or backfiring. The stock ignition system does well if absolutely perfect. I have tried most of the after marker ignition systems. They all work well at high rpms but not high boost. I can only suppose that it is a matter of ignition current not voltage. The Perlux works right up to 15 psi. The GM HEI system seems to be only one to go above that. Use a 95 hp manual trans distributor with a full advance of 32 degrees, with a high output coil. Use Mag Wire type plug wires and platinum plugs gapped at .022. The only problem with the Turbo distributor is that at these boost levels, it will be retarded all of the time.
Detonation must be guarded against. Water injection works well on the street where detonation ca be listened for. A simple system can be made from a RV water pump, a pressure sensor, and copper tubing with a .030” orifice. An even simpler system can be made by bleeding off some boost and pressuring an injection bottle. Inject about 3 or 4 psi before detonation starts. When injecting too much water, miss out similar to over richness occurs. Use race fuel when racing-you won’t hear detonation when excited. There are several useful electronic products available such as ignition retard system and knock sensors or eliminators which work well. Remember retard equals power loss. You can pirate some water injection to spray into the cooling system if needed. Also, a huge oil cooler helps if racing.
Intercoolers do produce more power before detonation but significantly increase lag in an autocross. Also they do not work well with draw -through systems as they are cooling a gas/air mixture. Use rich mixtures and water injection as your intercooler.
A disavantage to a turbocharge car is that once experienced , you can’t go back.
Or lack of understeer. Understeer is a less than desired direction change from a steering input. Oversteer is a greater than desired direction change from a steering input. If a car is understeering, the only significant correcting action is to reduce the speed until it equals the available turning traction, increase the traction by increasing the downward force ( Fc=mvv/r), or increasing the turn radius; which is not posssible on a tight autocross course.
Reducing speed equals time lost as does braking to increase normal (downward) force. Hah, you say, we’ll just set the car up neutral on a skid pad. If we had nice 200 ft. dia. gentle entry constant radius turns in our autocrosses that would be fine. Most course have no turns at all, just corners. It is more common to find corners that if taken with a constant speed or radius leave orange marks on the rear half of anything other than a Formula car.
In order to go quickly around small radius turns sans door marks and pylon count, we need to make the car turn a shorter radius without slowing - something akin to rear wheel steering-something like oversteer. Being able to rotate the car in a turn allows a straighter entry which permits carrying the straight-a-way speed farther into the turn. The rotation also permits starting the following straight sooner.
The understeer line into a pear shaped turn-a 180 around a single cone with entry and exit gates- would be the largest possible circle. The over steer line would be to drive through the entry gate as fast and as far as possible, rotate around the cone by decelerating, forcing weight onto the front tires and off of the rear, and reaccelerate after you have rotated far enough.
I would appear that we would have to cope with an oversteering, out of control vehicle all of the time is it is set up as above. The right amount of oversteer is no understeer-which is hard to obtain for all conditions- so we’ll have to err on the oversteer side. Today’s tires are so sticky that this maneuver can not be accomplished with out an oversteer set-up. No road racing high speed set-ups here.
Control can be regained by gently applying power-remembering the tire force diagram- we don’t want to go over the peak. Accelerating increases the down force; therefore the cornering power of the rear tires, stopping the lateral rotation. Accelerating also reduces the cornering power of the front tires. This is all opposite of the manner in which this corner was entered. So basically, we got into the corner by increasing front traction and decreasing rear traction and got out by increasing rear traction and decreasing front traction.
Oversteer can be obtained by:
Smaller front anti-roll bar, larger rear anti-roll bar.
Softer front springs, larger rear springs.
Softer front shocks, stiffer rear shocks.
Roll axis inclination downward toward the front,
Weight relocation to the front.
Driving style.