Neil deGrasse Tyson on the Science Behind NASCAR
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 09. 2024
- On this episode of 'StarTalk on 'Mashable' Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about the science behind NASCAR and racing.
Check out the full StarTalk podcast featuring clips about NASCAR here: www.startalkra...
Check out more StarTalk podcasts here: www.startalkra...
StarTalk on Mashable is a video series, produced by Mashable and StarTalk Radio. StarTalk Radio is a podcast and radio program hosted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson.
StarTalk Radio on Twitter: / startalkradio
StarTalk Radio on CZcams: / startalkradio
READ MORE: mashable.com/
FACEBOOK: / mashable
TWITTER: / mashable
INSTAGRAM: / mashable - Věda a technologie
Looks like Neil got into Jay Leno’s closet.
Fact: Indy cars and Formula 1 cars have been able to technically drive on inverted surfaces for years. It deals with the amount of downforce the cars able capable of generating once they reach a specific speed.
I grew up in a family of engineers and other math nerds. The only reason that we would watch NASCAR is to calculate shit like this. The physics of NASCAR is actually intense, and the amount of pressure that put on the driver's body over their careers, is far overlooked.
Neil is so good at these type of videos because he is very good at explaining things in layman’s terms, something that people in his position generally don’t do.
NASCAR is actually awesome IN person......nothing like a Muli-million dollar stadium getting rumbled like an earthquake....the noise is SO insane, you feel part of the race.
2 things on the first tweet: 1: NASCAR race cars actually have a lot of downforce, increasing thay cornering speed. 2. The race cars don't have speedometers in them
Anybody remember the "wall of death?" Motorcycles used to run inside a vertical barrel...same principle that they're discussing here...the speed of the bikes kept them stuck to the walls of the barrel
NASCAR = 200 mph more of the time than F-1,
and once in a while they rock a road course too
these are outstanding vehicles
That interview looks like an OREO
The speed and inertia when the car first hits the turn changes dramatically because the cars weight is pressed into the turn of the road. Depending on the stiffness of the shocks some of the energy is converted into the compression. So the car will slow unless the driver applies more power to counter the energy lost through traction and overpowering the extra friction caused by the car pressing into the curve of the track. So at some point the amount of power needed to overcome the angle at maximum speed isnt worth it because your giving up agility, fuel, tire wear so that you have to pit stop more. At least I imagine so.
It really is a science. There was an F1 race there where one tire company was basically out of the running because they weren't allowed to test on certain tracks and the engineers at the tire company failed to realize that the track had been resurfaced and then diamond ground. That leave little grooves on the track. When a car turns, your tire walls slightly bend and flex.....add the grooves, and you get a surface with more bite....that made it so that certain tires were failing on the banked turn due to that little lack of track info.
Racing is all about science. When you steer on a circle track, you want to come into the turn at a fast speed, then try to drive down the turn. Also, drafting and using drafting to slow an opponent so you can pass them.
Drag racing, for example, some cars actually shift with such force, the clutch and transmission melts together (for lack of more intellectually accurate words), and they have to be replaced after each race.
I met a big shot engineer from Bell Helicopter who was definitely smarter than I am but was absolutely convinced that it was impossible for a car to accelerate at 1G or more regardless of the type of tire. He even “proved” it on paper with equations. Then I showed him a video of a top fuel dragster reaching 500 km/hr in under 5 seconds. End of conversation. So-called engineers who are not into racing don’t have a clue about the capabilities of modern race cars.
The comments about NASCAR being related to stock car racing are 100% true, yet they don't quite hit the nail on the head why Americans always liked NA V8s in sedans. In the late 50's, car manufacturing jobs were all the rage in the working class. The engine set up in your average car was either V8 or inline 6; a single over head cam, carburetor and a 3 speed gear box. The cheapest power gain was always to modify the engine's displacement by switching to larger crank bearings and shorter connecting rods, effectively gaining displacement for the price of piston speed. The technological progress is easily traceable with (and deeply connected to) the history of Chevy&Hot Rodding in the US.
So Drag racing, the NHRA and NASCAR have always been deeply integrated communities within the car manufacturing working class culture. These cars on the race track were an extra gear, engine stroker kit, bigger carburetor fuel jets and slick tires away from the showroom floor. That was their appeal to a blue collar worker: A car he could understand in it's entirety, repair everything on the side of the road with band aids and coaxing.
You may have guessed: F1 cars are almost the total opposite. Except for the designs by Bugatti from the early 40's, the amount of detail in these cars needed the professional abilities of a huge team. Bugatti built a car weighing roughly 1900 lbs = 900kg, supercharged inline 8, variable valve timing, dry sump, 4 speed, drum brake, cambered front tires (first of it's kind), 55-45 % weight distribution race car you could buy from his factory to win races and drive on the street. And those were the specs on a car from the early 40's. Mind blown first time i saw it drive and in detail.
The current F1 sport's spirit is as much a mixture of it's regulatory history as it's controlled by the financially dominant teams. The infrastructures of support behind the teams vary greatly, as anyone following McLaren Honda, Toro Rosso or anyone else using Renault engines. To people unfamiliar with F1, this may seem strange: Some of the teams supply each other with engines! So Mercedes powers the Force India Team next to it's own, Ferrari powers the American Team of Eugene Haas next to it's own 'Scuderia' and the Red Bull and Toro Rosso Teams are supplied by Renault engines, which have had clear and obvious problems all season.
So F1 and NASCAR's main difference is the fact F1 has jettisoned the thought of the cars being something the common man could aspire to own.
Derp Herbert
Good point. F1 is more cutting edge even though both are high tech with NASCAR having at least a visual nod to the typical car
Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday.
Even in Australia with our V8 Supercars and the older Touring Car Masters, They were all production vehicles you could buy from the factory
12:11 This is just golden
I drove from Chicago to Atlanta in a marketed 36mpg car, going as much time possible behind trucks around a speed of 70mph and at the end of the trip calculated the actual mileage to be 41mpg, it comes to about 12 percent increased efficiency, or 12% gas economy.
I went to a live talk and Neil is hilarious
but did you learn anything?
Neil is actually correct about the science of the bank. I drove a car at Charlotte at a driving school. This is deceiving but the front stretch is a tr-oval. However, there is subtle banking in the tri-oval part of the front stretch. As you drive and look ahead your mind tells you that you need to steer through the tri-oval but you do not. If you hold the steering wheel straight, you will go right through the tri-oval perfectly.
interesting f1 fact, the spoilers can actually create more downforce than the weight of the vehicle. They could drive upsidedown at full speed.
They are grounded airplanes. I love the condensation trails off the spoilers on humid tracks
Also... Every time you double your speed, your downforce multiplies 4 times.
So if a car is setup to generate 300lbs of down force at 100mph, it would generate 1200lbs at 200mph.
Wild, right?
But no one has tried yet. That I know of lol
Jon Davis ?
2:00 | I Go 200mph Through Turn One And Two In Iracing, I Spin Out Alot In Turn Two
FYI, racing slicks generally have a higher coefficient than 1, depending on the compound.When they are at the proper temperature, they can almost meld to the track surface. Which is why they exceed speeds of 165 at Charlotte in the banking.
I feel that nascar has two main factors for its watching. F1 has too many rules, anytime someone gets an edge or has an iffy pass, they get struck down. NASCAR practically just gives the drivers the same tools (sorta) and the drivers battle it out with allotment of contact. This makes for riskier moves, it’s tense when you see 3 wide for more than an entire lap. Another major difference is the length of turn. One turn can take up 1/4 of the track itself, that’s a ton of time that can be made or lost if you don’t have your braking accelerating spots right as well as turn in and turn out.
The other main part is in person nascar would be easier to spectate as in most spots, you see all the track, vs f1 you see a small spot and just see where people are when they come by. The same issue is there for motocross vs super cross.
I love f1 and knowing the tech and I find it fun to watch on tv, but seeing some guys hang 3 wide through some corners for a couple laps is awesome as well. All I’m saying is, don’t discount it unless you’ve seen it and understand some of what’s really going on.
one of the funniest 'startalk' clips.
Did he just say, “back in the day when you had rear wheel traction”.
All of these people saying he's wrong and should study up but do they not realize that he is an astrophysicist? I don't expect him to know everything about NASCAR. I just like hearing him talk
Neil !!... do an episode on NHRA top fuel cars!!... start out explaining CH3NO2...or nitromethane to us rednex..
I don’t want to argue with an astrophysicist, but I have driven that track in my 200 HP car. First, my car topped out around 120mph in the turns, 45mph slower than your calculations. My argument is, you said the car would turn itself at 200mph on a 31* bank. But my car never turned itself on the 25* bank going 45mph slower than your top speed for that bank, and I was never pulled to the bottom of the bank despite going slow. I have video, and you can see me clearly turning into and throughout the turn.
Nascar is great and the only racing I watch simply because it is so scientific and you can use science to get ahead. Drafting and passing is like nothing else. Timing, when to do it, etc. Bump drafting you don't see anywhere else, creating a faster freight train and then breaking off. Amazing
Neil deGrasse Tyson schooled these guys, respect to all
17:20 have done this. I would drive from Edmonton to Calgary on ten bucks by drafting on a semi. Just have to stay alert, and keep your foot on the brake, because plowing into the back of a semi in a sports car is not pretty.
where is the full original video? i only see the podcast
You talk about F1 or Nascar, while here i think dirt rally is the most fun to watch. Both live and on TV, the skills going around a corner sideways inches from trees etc.
Also, as you're banking, the normal force increases, but the Cf drops. Overall, the traction increases, but not exactly proportional to the increase in weight on the tires.
Spoilers actually don't increase a cars mass (because that would be impossible un less you add parts) but they do increase relative weight, which affects the driving characteristics of a car (except moment conservation) making it behave as if it was indeed heavier, Ventury tunnels however, rely on vacuum to create a downward (relative to the car) force vector that increases traction but doesn't increase its relative weight, so ventury tunnels are much more efficient that spoilers.
Yeah.... He already said this at 15:00
"And Neil drove all the way to Florida and he was only going to the store for some bread!" LOL
Neil, you missed the whole dynamic vs static coefficients of friction. A tire that is not spinning (not slipping) has a much greater frictional coefficient and can provide much greater acceleration (and deceleration!) than one that is sliding / spinning out against the road surface. A fact that anyone who has driven on ice will attest when mistakenly overly applies the brakes, stops the wheels, which can practically feel like the car accelerates off the road (it doesn't, but it doesn't decelerate much). By keeping the tires turning, thereby maintaining static contact, the turn can be safely navigated at a higher velocity (within the bounds of the static coefficient, of course). The other example is 'burning doughnuts'... try not giving the wheels quite enough power to 'break them loose' from the surface and see how quickly our NASCAR driver puts it into the infield or the wall when 'celebrating' the victory with a doughnut or two! The peak velocity for the turns and 'pushing the envelope' as you were talking about all boils down to the static coefficient of friction not being exceeded... turning into a skid is all about reestablishing static contact from the low dynamic contact of the skid. Fun talk though! :)
These are the simple things that matter with four wheel vehicles. I used to have an off road motorcycle and the dynamics are very different. On a dirt track with a motorcycle, even a flat one, the trick for staying with the curvature of the dirt track is to turn that rubber tire in the back into a rocket. What do I mean?
The weight of a well balanced motorcycle is variable, where it is not in a car. more to the point, the traction with each wheel can be very different. Whereas a car needs to stay as flat as possible to the road surface to have maximum traction in corners a motorcycle can hang that rear wheel out with its body pointed more into the center of the curve and the motorcycle rear wheel can spit out a lot of dirt at an angle to the direction of travel to help it stay within the boundaries of the course beyond ordinary traction. It doesn't hurt that the competition gets to eat that dirt either.
The spinning rear tire is making the bike turn on dirt as it does on asphalt. It's geometry.
Nascar drivers drive inches from each other and occassionally make contact purposefully... That's alot of the attraction.
They only make contact in purpose in the slower ovals and the fastest ones. Around the slower ones they do it so to move the competition away, which is much needed in those ovals since they are so small that making a clean overtake is next to impossible. Around the fastest ones (Daytona & Talladega) they use it so the car in front gets a speed boost since in those ovals the NASCAR cars are air-restricted and have a lot less power. When you have so little power and are running behind someone the guy in front is cutting the air for you and it is easier to move forward, you push him so he gets faster and you can maybe even try to run away from the rest of the pack.
High velocity air flow under the car produces a pressure difference and holds the car down against the road with an effect greater than the spoilers without the drag force cased by the friction between air and the spoilers.
Build a track with a corkscrew shortcut. The drivers would have a choice of the shortcut or a much longer normal track bypass. Make it through the corkscrew and you jump ahead.
Hay Tab, thank you. Just thank you.
NASCAR is about endurance.. and driving in the red zone for hours without messing up.
I think NASCAR is more popular in America simply because of the cultural history (bootleggers modifying their cars to run from the police) which started NASCAR racing, and the subsequent generations of people who grew up watching it. Otherwise Formula 1 is surely more interesting in almost any regard
Andrew Clark yep. Has nothing to do with language. It’s the roots of how NASCAR was formed.
Well there is that but also any teenager can make his car look like a NASCAR race car but you can't make it look like a Formula 1 car. That makes a connection that is unbeatable. I started my life as a racing fan watching Indy cars until I saw my first NASCAR race and thought "this is better because their cars look like the ones I see on the road every day".
Thank you for explaining that. I had virtually no regard.. no, strike that, I had absolutely no regard for NASCAR until you shared that history. Kinda reminds me of how Clyde Barrow stole 8 cylinder cars and used BAR weapons and virtually out-ran and out-gunned most of the local police until Frank Hamer, the Texas Ranger out gunned him - and tricked him rather than out-run him - which they couldn't before, so i guess same thing w/ the bootleggers trying to outrun the police. NASCAR is more interesting to me now. Formula 1 for some reason always naturally did. Thanks for sharing that! 😄
True especially if you grow up driving Chevy and Ford it would be fun to try and replicate what the pros do which is nearly impossible to do the same thing with formula 1
140 characters... Thank you.
This is what I learn in freshman physics and these old guys are like woah!!
Neil "The Grass" Tyson is an all around good guy. Love him. Love me some Grass.
I'm with Neil on this one.
When I want to watch racing, like ACTUALLY racing, I watch formula one.
What? Single file riding? Go to a short track that's real racing.
One thing they didn't mention is why the tires of race cares have no tread - its because thread eliminates traction so the less tread the more traction your tires get, hence you car goes faster.
I get what he is saying you can do 165 around the track but they do go faster around the track but the cars are just sliding I'm a huge nascar fan and always wondered why I had to argue this and now I understand
Ha! The whole sledding conversation had me howling in laughter! XD
I love Neil's excitement.
NASCAR is like space exploration. You are only watching to see something crash or blowup.
Do one where he breaks down the sciencd of Formula 1 and Formula E.
F1 is a technical giant, their achievements and abilities are absolutely astonishing. The performance achieved from their restrictions (formula) is insane. I love watching F1, 5g braking force, 1.8g through a fast bend, god damn they demand respect.
NASCAR is fun to watch because it's more accessible, you usually end up liking or hating a few drivers or teams and watch them battle it out. Performance is nowhere near F1, but it isn't designed to be, it's about car to car combat, logistical team strategy and good old fashioned white knuckle driving. NASCAR drives along the BLURRED line between control and out of control and F1 bumps up against the WELL DEFINED line of control and out of control.
Not to mention the driver skill that goes into F1 is absolutely insane the mental fortitude it must take to calculate and react to a 50ft braking distance at 150+ mph into a 90 degree turn while maintaining throttle control is quite intense especially if you start factoring in chicanes.
12:02 I can confirm as a NASCAR fan myself that this is why we like NASCAR lmfao
10:25
I liked that model in the back. Would love to run a few laps in that.
Decibels are important too.
Is there only one Mic on? I can barely hear anything and volume is all the way up 😕
Nascar used to be more attainable to get into. When anyone could build their own car and get it into a race. It has carried itself up from that late 50s early 60s standard. But if it just started as it is now, the team owners, the sponsors the money involved, it never would be near as popular. Nascar is riding on it's past appeal.
It hasn't been like that since 1957 lol
NASCAR is one of those things that gets more interesting the more you know about it. In most forms of motorsports the vehicles are very good, they're way above average of what you can buy. NASCAR does not work that way, the racecars are limited by the regulations, they are actually rather awful so that even driving around an oval is a challenge.
You could buy a $100k muscle car, get some proper tyres and lap some of the NASCAR ovals FASTER than the actual racecars. The suspension, brakes and tyres anyone can buy are much better than what the NASCAR rulebook allows. It is the whole point of the rulebook, to make the cars bad and outdated so almost every oval is a proper challenge.
That is why you see the drivers struggle, that is why you see so many one-car crashes and spins, that is why they just cannot avoid driving into a crash when it happens. The cars are made to have a challenging good fight, not to be the fastest. We've seen NASCAR drivers jump to places like IMSA (endurance racing) and even the Race of Champions and they can surely drive at a high level. The challenge works the other way too, drivers coming from other better series have rarely won a race (Juan Pablo Montoya had 7 wins in less than 100 F1 races and 2 wins in 250+ NASCAR Cup races).
Honestly, I never had interest in NASCAR or Formula1, but after hearing this I have more respect for the people and machines involved in it.
I still think of South Park every time I hear about NASCAR.
Armani I don't think that's a good thing lol
Alpha Centauri you realize these guys are rich and team owners are billionaires, right?
You do realise that anyone who does anything with a lot of stupid people fits that profile, right? from warlords, to druglords or to church leaders :)
So con artists are stupid?
S14E8
8:08 using banking you could hypothetically set up a race where driving straight is the best way. and you could do all sorts of insane things like corkscrews.
Lmao the only thing that I can think about during this video is if the people walking by in the background know that Neil deGrasse FREAKING Tyson is literally in the room right next to them.
So, if you look at the reality of going through those corners, yes, scientifically, the most stable maximum mph through the apex of the corner is 165 mph, car with perfect grip and everything, when you see the driver's on TV, they have a camera radar calculator that's showing the mph, and they go well over 170 mph through those corners. So, Neil should do a video of the physics and the human abilities because the good drivers exceed the line of control more than people understand.
Audio level too low. Crank it up dude.
On the side note -- there's a lot of hot chicks at Mashable background
that's a harem
I was thinking that myself
I see em 👀👀
11:55 oh lawd
Of course you will see hot chicks. Journalism is one of the easiest professions anyone can do. Therefore your more likely to see hot chicks in the work place then probably any other profession. Therefore the market is more saturated and the boss is more likely to hire the cutest girl over the most skilled. I wish I would of got into journalism smh.
The Coefficient of Traction for a NASCAR tire is probably considerably higher than 1... like more than 1.5.
I mean: a high end sports tire pulls 1.2g on a car, with lateral load transfer, so maybe 1.3g is reasonable without load transfer, on a street tire.
so despite the downward pressure caused from the air flow around the car, a car cannot accelerate above the acceleration of gravity? i suppose that the acceleration limit would be gravity when the car is at zero mph, but when the car is at 60 or more, despite the fact that it is harder to accelerate due to air resistance, there should be a higher acceleration limit, right?
5hredder exactly. However, drag exists and you have to push through air which has mass itself.
Y'all complaining as if his job is to accurately calculate how a car moves under certain conditions and not to get common people thinking about the physics of every day life. In school when they teach you about gravity's acceletation they don't factor in air resistance, because it is about understanding some basic workings of the world, not making accurate predictions and observations to be used irl. Its the same thing.
@Andrew Clark Many people are unaware of NASCAR's origins and are fans. Or are aware, and are not. The answers to other questions will enlighten. Where do you like to eat? Ten buck gets you a decent burger? 50+ dollars gets you whatever it is, beautifully presented and if you're not home in time for a bowl of cereal, you have to go through the drive-thru. Do you grip your pint glass with your full hand or is your pinkie taking flight off of your wine glass? Most significantly, do you work on your own cars or do you hire it done? No value judgement here, just interesting indicators. NASCAR cars are more relate-able if you work on your own -- just recently adopting fuel injection -- they are way behind street cars in engine technology. And they go 200 mph. That's interesting. I enjoy watching either NASCAR or F1. But I do get frustrated that if the tire lettering of an F1 car touches the tire lettering of another, most likely they are done for the day. The sheer robustness of the NASCAR cars makes for better entertainment for my time-limited budget.
why the hell people place quite videos...have to turn up volume a lot.
Well I hope he calculated the racing line is a straighter curve and the cars has some aerodynamic downforce.
Its small but it plays a big factor in 160mph+
Thoughts on top fuel dragsters????
actually, with regard to the more weight over the rear wheels makes it more stable is only true in a straight line, down force is free of this factor, but knowing that you know physics, if the mass is much higher in the rear the mass wants to keep moving straight, so you turn in, the front follows the wheels, and the mass in the rear wants to keep going straight, so your tail kicks out, weight balance is always a big factor in how a vehicle behaves around corners. alot of MR cars use this to their advantage, with a good driver, that weight is used to get the car to turn in tighter around corners, while keeping it on the edge of sliding. but if you take it too far, the car will be more unpredictable. there's alot of suspension design, and other factors involved in this but weight balance in general is heavier in front slower turn in but much more stable, heavier in the rear, more tail happy, a 50/50 balance keeps a quick turn in and more cornering stability
Neil DeGrasse Tyson basically predicted the Atlanta repave from last year, such a smart dude
Edit: I know the exact reason why NASCAR is more popular than F1 in the US. There are twice as many drivers and therefore more competition.
DAAAAAAAMN look at that fine set of legs walk by at 10:24 quickly followed by an equally impressive set at 10:35.
Neil is actually incorrect here, newtonian laws of physics do not apply well to race-car tires, as their grip can actually exceed the normal bounds of friction, and do so on a regular basis. Here is an excerpt from Carroll Smith's "Tune to Win" which explains it in more detail: "When Issac Newton defined the laws of friction, the
pneumatic tire had not been invented. When it was invented everyone assumed that the tire would obey Newton's laws and that therefore no tire could develop a force, in any direction, that would exceed the load applied to it. You may recall that, for many years, the experts categorically declared that Drag Racing top speeds and elapsed times would be limited to those that could be produced by a constant acceleration of
one gravity-which would correspond to each tire of a four
wheel drive dragster transmitting an accelerative thrustequal to its share of the total weight of the vehicle. The experts forgot to tell the Drag Racers who just worked away at going faster and faster until they broke through the
"barrier" as if it weren't there. It wasn't.
The racing tire does not follow Newton's Laws of
Friction-which are for friction between smooth bodies. It
can, and does, generate forces greater than the loads applied to it. Further, it can develop an accelerative force, a
decelerative force, a side force or a combination of either an
accelerative force and a side force or a decelerative force and a side force. In the case of combined lateral and longitudinal
forces, the sum can be considerably greater than the maximum force that can be developed in anyone direction.
At the present state of the art a road racing tire on dry
concrete with a vertical load of 500 pounds can generate, under ideal conditions, a force of approximately 800 pounds.
The ratio of the force that the tire is capable of generating to
the vertical load applied to it is termed that tire's "coefficient
of friction." In this hypothetical case the 800-pound force divided by the 500 pound vertical load gives a coefficient of
1.6. This means that under ideal and steady conditions the
tire could accelerate or decelerate at the rate of 1.6 g or could develop a cornering force of 1.6 g-which is enough to make your neck sore
What and where is this place?
Neil is my hero
I'm a bit confused when you say a car can only accellerate with the same force as gravity.....how then do you explain top fuel dragsters doing 0-300mph in less than 4 seconds?
NASCAR is more popular in america because
-its an american sport, not international
-they drive coupes instead of racing machines so its more relatable to people
of course more weight on the rear wheels of a rear wheel drive vehicle gives you better traction. this is why people keep heavy bags of salt or sand in their trunk. the weight gives you more traction, and if you do get stuck, just throw some underneath your tires. 👌
There's virtually no F1 racing here in the US. How the hell do you expect it to have a larger following when people can't go watch it live but for once a year in Austin?
165mph, I'm wondering if tire size or contact patch is a variable in traction? Do drag racing cars accelerate at more than 1G? Surely a nascar with donut spare tires would slide off the track in the bank, but an F1 car could take that turn easily. Unless we aren't thinking about down force generated? I get the calculation, I'm just sceptical that all variables were considered... then again it's 2am...
To do a corkscrew, you would have to design a motor that doesn't stall when it goes upside down.
Quotes Andretti while talking about Nascar.
I'm curious about the g-forces drivers would experience on the 31-degree bank while going 200 mph.Could that be a reason there are no 31-degree banks?
What about a Top Fuel Dragster I’m pretty that accelerates faster than gravity.
Now the saying should be: If you're not in total control of the car, you're not Michael Schumacher
Check out nhra drag racing
15:28 This is one of the funniest things i’ve ever seen. His mind was blown on the simplest thing. Your 45/50 some old and you discover downforce for the first time?
“If everything seems under control, you’re just not going fast enough.”
Who is the woman eating in the background, behind Neil
They look like a start-up RnB group with those blue button up shirts on
The reason NASCAR will always be more popular here is because you have a few hundred laps to get drunk on but still keep up with a continuous left turn.
What you talkin bout Neil? First of all the coefficient of friction on racing slicks is waaay higher than 1. Consequently tires and other rubber things suffer from a property called viscoelasticity. As the weight on the tire increases its coefficient of friction actually decreases. Of course the grip will still be highest on the tire with the most load, however when you take cornering forces into account things get more complicated. Centripetal force increases perfectly 1:1 as mass increases, however due to viscoelasticity grip proportional to the centripetal force actually decreases. Chuck, if you were to actually fill your trunk with bodies you would be shifting the weight of the car to the rear tires decreasing the grip from the rear tires compared to those of the front. If your weight balance goes much past 50:50 you will find yourself in a puddle of brutal snap oversteer, the definition of instability. The main reason why a rear wing or spoiler improves stability is because of the drag it creates, like the fletching of an arrow. You can adjust this aero balance to change the cars tendencies toward oversteer or understeer. A stable system will see the center of pressure (most of the drag) behind the center of mass.
I would watch NASCAR if they added loops.
I would watch NASCAR if they added obstacles and vehicle mounted weaponry.
the angle of the dangle is directly proportional to the heat of the meat
The car couldn't take the turn without steering input, regardless of bank, because the car could never consistently hit the exact velocity needed, and maintain it through the arc, over 500 miles. Changing weight, tire degradation, and aero change, etc.
He's generally right, but there's some stuff he's glossing over for the sake of simplicity
The path around a curve isn't a geodesic as Neil seems to believe. A driver will have to turn his steering wheel left regardless of the speed of the car.
Hollister David at tracks like Daytona and and Charlotte very little if any steering input is used to get the car around the corner at Daytona for example drivers with turn more right around the embankment instead of left
devon falk No. That's not even close to true. First off, having to countersteer to the right, which does happen, is fucking steering input, so you contradicted yourself.
There is no banked oval racetrack on Earth in which the driver does not apply some steering input.
Please move the fuck on.
If you pass a little bank with a determinate speed actually the bank turn your wheels into the corner alone but obviously in a certain speed if you pass that speed are you going to do off road.
The audio isn't good, I need to keep adjusting the volume up and down several times!
They do over 175 at Charlotte on exit at the slowest lol. Average speed record without pits/cautions is 183 also
What about downforce from wings.