|
Title: Car v. motorcycle tracks Post by: Spidey on May 17, 2011, 11:04:37 AM I need sum lurnin.' What are the design differences between car & motorcycle tracks? I keep hearing about how the compromises they need to make with tracks that service both cars and motorcycles (like run-off, for example), but I don't understand why. FWIW, I don't follow 4 wheel racing at all. And never have. So use simple words. ;D
Title: Re: Car v. motorcycle tracks Post by: derby on May 17, 2011, 11:11:16 AM well, you can stop a car with less runoff if you use a wall/armco. with motorcycles, you pretty much have to build in lots of runoff.
there can also differences in the type of runoff (rippled/smooth/shallow/deep/paved/etc). Title: Re: Car v. motorcycle tracks Post by: avizpls on May 17, 2011, 11:26:35 AM Are there considerations for the track layout itself?
Ive raced cars and now bikes, but have never thought much about that one. Title: Re: Car v. motorcycle tracks Post by: Spidey on May 17, 2011, 11:40:31 AM Layout is kinda what I was askin' about. It came to mind when they were talkin' about the chicane at Monza (WSBK just released a letter explaining Biaggi's ride-through penalty for blowing the chicane). And then again when they were talkin' about the new track in Austin.
BTW, derb, "armco" ain't the simple words I requested. I had to google that shit. Damn near sprained a finger doin' it, too. ;D Title: Re: Car v. motorcycle tracks Post by: zooom on May 17, 2011, 11:53:00 AM Are there considerations for the track layout itself? Ive raced cars and now bikes, but have never thought much about that one. I would think so, as in you can't run the track inside of itself with 2 corners that might face each other and have the possibility ( no matter how remote) for 2 vehicles in those opposing corners collide with another, so you have to account for that kind of run-off....you also have to consider the worst case scenario's of collateral damage of any vehicle for those designs....think of an F1 car that got too much lift from a crosswind or a 150+ MPH highside of a MotoGP machine and so forth...so the topography has to coincide with the general weather patterns as well... Title: Re: Car v. motorcycle tracks Post by: Cider on May 17, 2011, 12:14:45 PM I'm ignorant on this subject as well, but I got the impression that the current philosophy for F1 tracks is long straights & slow corners to promote passing on the brakes.
Title: Re: Car v. motorcycle tracks Post by: gm2 on May 17, 2011, 01:18:57 PM I would think so, as in you can't run the track inside of itself with 2 corners that might face each other and have the possibility ( no matter how remote) for 2 vehicles in those opposing corners collide with another, so you have to account for that kind of run-off....you also have to consider the worst case scenario's of collateral damage of any vehicle for those designs....think of an F1 car that got too much lift from a crosswind or a 150+ MPH highside of a MotoGP machine and so forth...so the topography has to coincide with the general weather patterns as well... what? ;D Title: Re: Car v. motorcycle tracks Post by: zooom on May 18, 2011, 03:05:13 AM Title: Re: Car v. motorcycle tracks Post by: Greg on May 20, 2011, 03:47:55 AM Also remember that the gentler chicanes that would force a car to slow down substantially, can almost be straight lined by a bike.
Title: Re: Car v. motorcycle tracks Post by: OT on May 20, 2011, 11:45:42 AM I'm ignorant on this subject as well, but I got the impression that the current philosophy for F1 tracks is long straights & slow corners to promote passing on the brakes. Current philosophy seems to be to use walled-off city streets |