SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES 2002-01-2179

Handling Behavior of Racing Karts

T. Amato, F. Frendo and M. Guiggiani
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica, Nucleare e della Produzione, University of Pisa

Reprinted From: Proceedings of the 2002 SAE International Body Engineering Conference
and Automotive & Transportation Technology Conference on CD-ROM
(IBAT2002CD)

International Body Engineering Conference & Exhibition and

Automotive & Transportation Technology Conference
Paris, France
July 9–11, 2002

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations
Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or
108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for
general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for
resale.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 2002-01-2179

Handling Behavior of Racing Karts

T. Amato, F. Frendo and M. Guiggiani
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica, Nucleare e della Produzione, University of Pisa

Copyright © 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT model the vehicle steady state behaviour handling

diagram and stability are discussed.
A theoretical analysis of the cornering behaviour of vehicles
with locked differential is presented in this paper. In A LINEAR MODEL OF VEHICLES LACKING ANY
particular, attention is focused on karts, which, being DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEM
characterised by the lack of any differential and suspension
system, show a peculiar dynamic behaviour. A linear model The classical single track model, which is usually used to
for cornering dynamics is obtained in the first part of the study the cornering dynamics of passenger cars [2, 3, 4,
paper: the yaw equilibrium is affected by the absence of the 5, 9], becomes inadequate for karts.
differential, since the longitudinal forces acting on the rear
tyres are no longer equal. The steady state behaviour and δ
the handling stability are then investigated using the
developed model and discussed in comparison with those of
an ordinary vehicle. The understeer gradient is shown to be V1
a function of a steering parameter, such as, for example, the
longitudinal speed, in addition to the lateral acceleration; as
a consequence, the handling diagram is dependent on the
manoeuvres used to obtain it. Even if obtained by means of
a simple linear model, these results can give some VG
indications for racing vehicles, such as formula cars, whose a
differential is frequently completely or partially locked.
G r
INTRODUCTION
Fx
2

The kart is a peculiar racing vehicle because of its V2

b
constructive features such as the lack of any differential
and suspension systems, which yield a dynamic
behaviour quite different in comparison with most Fy
2
common vehicles. Typically, racing teams set the kart Mz
2

constructive parameters, in order to maximize their

performances, mainly according to their experience. Fig. 1 A new yaw moment Mz2 appears in to the single track model
owing to the lack of any differential system.
In a previous work, some of the dynamical properties of
karts were investigated, on the basis of a numerical
model, using data recorded by a on board acquisition
system [1].
In this conditions the longitudinal forces (tractive forces)
The effects of a solid differential are briefly treated in [2]; acting on each rear tyre are no longer equal and
however, the dependence of steady state equilibrium on therefore a new yaw moment, called M z2 , appears in
the manoeuvre and the vehicle stability are not
the yaw equilibrium of the vehicle (Fig. 1). M z2 can be
investigated. In this paper a detailed theoretical analysis
of the cornering behaviour of vehicles, with locked expressed as
differential or lacking of the differential like karts, is
presented. Due to the assumptions made, the model is
linear and results can be considered correct only for
(
M z2 = Fx22 − Fx21 ) t2 ,
2
(1)
small lateral accelerations. On the basis of the obtained
where (Fig. 2) Fx21 , Fx22 are the longitudinal forces, acceleration. As a matter of fact, the longitudinal force is
usually related to many factors, although it can be
acting respectively on the left and the right rear tyres,
reasonably assumed to be mainly a function of the
and t 2 is the rear track. longitudinal tyre slip and the vertical load. That is:

t1 Fx = f (σ x , Fz ) , (3)

δ where σx is the longitudinal tyre slip and Fz is the

δ vertical load. If the range of the operating model
Fx
Fx 12 conditions is restricted to low lateral acceleration levels,
a linear function can be assumed between Fx , σ x and
11

Fz . Accordingly, for the rear longitudinal force the

ui
a following equation holds:
Fy Fy
11 12

Fx
21
G
r
Fx
22
( )
Fx2 i = − C 20i ± K 2 ∆Fz2 σ x2 i , (4)

Fy vj b
21 Fy where: the subscript i indicates the generic rear wheel
22
0
(inside and outside); C 2i is the slip stiffness at static vertical
load Fz 0 , while K 2 is the load factor (load sensitivity); they
t2 are tyre parameters which depend on the compound,
inflation pressure, rubbing wear, etc. ∆Fz2 represents the
Fig. 2 Forces acting on the tyres in the planar kart model.
lateral load transfer. In equation (4) the plus and minus signs
hold for the outer and inner tyre respectively.

The analytical expressions of the rear longitudinal slips, can

be derived on the basis of plane kinematics, e.g. [2, 8]:
Consequently, the equilibrium equations become:
t2 t2
m(u! − vr ) = Fx 2 − Fy1δ − Fa , u−r u+r
σ = 2 − 1, σx = 2 − 1,
m(v! + ur ) = Fy1 + Fy 2 , (2) x 21
Ω 2 R021 22
Ω 2 R0 22
(5)

Jr! = Fy1 a − Fy 2 b + M z2 ,
where: u v and r are the longitudinal velocity, the
lateral velocity and the yaw rate respectively; m and J
are the vehicle-driver system mass and yaw moment of
inertia with respect to the center of mass G; Fx 2 is the
tractive force (the algebraic sum of the two longitudinal
forces acting on the rear tyres); F y1 and F y 2 are the
lateral forces on each axle; δ is the front wheel steer
angle; a and b are the in plane distance between the
front and rear axle from the centre of mass;
longitudinal component of the aerodynamic loads and will
be neglected in the following. Notation for tyre forces and
vehicle velocity components were indicated according to
automotive convention [2 - 4].
LONGITUDINAL FORCES
The difference between the two longitudinal forces
developed by the rear tyres in a curve is mainly caused
by the difference between the longitudinal slips of the
rear tyres and the lateral load transfer, due to the lateral
where Ω 2 is the actual angular velocity of the rear solid
2i
axle and R0 is the wheel rolling radius which, for simplicity,
is assumed to be constant (both rear wheels have the same
rolling radius R0 ). Substituting Eq.(4) and Eq.(5) into Eq.(1),
the following expression for M z2 is obtained:
 u  t 22 r
M z2 = K 2 t 2 ∆Fz2 1 −  − C2 , (6)
 Ω2 R0  4 Ω2 R0
Fa is the
0 0
where C 2 = C 21 + C 22 is the rear axle slip stiffness.
It can be observed that the influence of the load transfer
exclusively appears in the first term of Eq. (6), whereas
the second term is only related to the difference between
the two longitudinal slips. However, the first term in
Eq.(6) can be considered to be negligible for two main
reasons: the magnitude of the lateral load transfer
∆Fz2 reaches low values since a kart is characterized by
low mass and small height of the centre of mass;
moreover, the term inside the parenthesis is close to However, in generic conditions Eq.(9) must be employed
zero since u ≅ Ω 2 R0 in ordinary dynamic conditions, and the analytical expressions for the lateral forces
acting on each axle are given by:
because of the small longitudinal slips. With these
assumptions, which greatly simplify the problem, the
equation for M z2 becomes:   v + ra 
 Fy1 = −C1  δ − u ,
  
 (11)
M z2
t2 r t2 t2
≅ −C 2 2 = −C 2 2 = −C 2 2 2 a y , (7)
 F = −C v − rb .
4 u 4R 4u  y2 2
Ω 2 R0

where R = u / r is the distance between the STATE EQUATIONS

instantaneous centre of rotation and the longitudinal
vehicle axis (x-axis) (in steady-state conditions R is also The state equations for the kart dynamical system can
2 now be obtained by substituting Eqs. (4), (7) and (11)
the turning radius) and a y = u / R is the steady-state
into the equilibrium equations (2):
lateral acceleration. Note that a positive r yields a
negative M z2 . In Eq. (7), whose expression is 1  u  v + ra 

u! = C2 1 −  − C1δ  δ −  + vr ,
analogous to that reported in [2], not only constructive m   Ω 2 R0   u 
parameters (such as the rear track) but also dynamic
variables (like the longitudinal velocity) appear; therefore, 1  v + ra  v − rb  (12)
v! = C1  δ −  − C2 − ur,
as already stated, in steady-state conditions m   u  Ω 2 R0 
M z2 decreases as the turning radius grows.
1   v + ra  v − rb t22 r 
r! =  1 
C a δ −  + C 2 b − C 2 ,
J   u  Ω 2 Ro 4 Ω 2 R0 
LATERAL FORCES

In order to investigate kart dynamics it is now necessary
to obtain the explicit expression of all the forces which
appear in the equilibrium equations (2). The following
linear relationship between the lateral forces and the
lateral slips is assumed:
F y ij = − C ij0 σ , (8)
y ij
where u , v and r represent the state variables, which
determine the cornering vehicle dynamic behaviour. Note
that the state equations above are coupled because Ω 2
appears in each equation. Again, Eqs. (12) can be
rewritten into a simpler form if it is assumed that
u ≅ Ω 2 R0 .

1  v + ra 
where the effect of the lateral load transfer is neglected. u! =  Fx2 − C1δ  δ −  + vr,
The analytical expressions for the lateral tyre slips are m  u 
given by [2 - 4]:
1  v + ra  v − rb  (13)
v! = C1  δ −  − C2 − ur,
v + ra m  u  u 

σ y1 = σ y11 = σ y12 = u − δ , 1   v + ra  v − rb t22 r 
 (9) r! =  1 
C a δ −  + C 2 b − C 2 .
σ y = σ y = σ y = v − rb . J   u  u 4 u 
 2 21 22
Ω 2 R0
The dynamic vehicle behaviour can be investigated by
Note that the front axle lateral slip only depends upon the means of only two state variables ( v and r ), if the
longitudinal velocity since the front tyre longitudinal slips longitudinal velocity u is a given function of time, along
are zero (no torque acts on the front wheels, therefore with the wheel steering angle δ .
they have a pure rolling motion). If it can be assumed
that u ≅ Ω 2 R0 , Eqs.(9) become: Consequently, the first of Eqs. (13) is only necessary in
order to estimate the longitudinal force Fx2 (tractive
 v + ra force). The last two equations in Eqs. (13) can be
σ y1 = u − δ = −α 1 , rewritten into a more compact form:
 . (10)
σ ≅ v − rb = −α . ! = Aw + b,
w (14)
 y2 u
2

where:
w = [v r ] is the vector of the state variables;
T The vehicle handling behaviour depends on the sign of
the understeer gradient [2, 4]: namely K 0 < 0 , K 0 > 0

 C1 + C 2 C1 a − C 2 b  and K 0 = 0 correspond to oversteer, understeer and

 mu +u 
A = −
mu neutral steer, respectively. Note that the total derivative
2 2 2 
 C1 a − C 2 b C1 a + C 2 b t is employed in Eq. (16) and Eq. (18), since it is implicitly
+ C2 2  assumed that δ − l / R only depends on the lateral
 Ju Ju 4 Ju  acceleration.

is the matrix of coefficients; The difference between the two slip angles in a linear
single-track model of an ordinary vehicle is simply:
b = [C1δ / m C1aδ / J ]T is the known vector.
m b a 
α1 − α 2 =  − a y .
l  C1 C 2 
(19)
Note that the matrix A is a function only of the
longitudinal velocity u, whereas the vector b depends
only on the wheel steering angle. The linear differential
system defined by Eq. (14) analytically characterizes the Consequently, the undeerster gradient is constant and
kart dynamic cornering behaviour as well as that of only depends on the constructive parameters of the
vehicles in completely locked differential conditions. vehicle:

STEADY-STATE BEHAVIOR: THE UNDERSTEER m b a 

K0 =  − 
l  C1 C2 
GRADIENT (20)

The cornering steady-state behaviour, that is with

v! = r! = 0 is investigated in this section. With such In other words, the handling behavior doesn’t depend on
assumptions, the linear differential system defined by Eq. the motion variables such as the vehicle longitudinal
(14) becomes a linear algebraic system: velocity.

However, if this assumption is quite correct in ordinary

Aw p = b , (15)
passenger vehicles, it is not valid for those vehicles
lacking any differential effect. In order to demonstrate
w p = [v P rP ] is the vector of the steady-state
T this statement, the algebraic system (15) can be
where
rewritten in a most convenient form:
variables.

The steady-state vehicle handling behaviour is usually C1α 1 + C 2α 2 = ma~ y ,

 (21)
characterised by means of the understeer gradient K 0 , C1α 1 a − C 2α 2 b = − M z 2 ,
defined by (e.g. [2]):
where the slip angles of each axle take the place of the
d  l steady-state variables v and r . The analytical
K= δ −  . (16)
da y  R expression for α1 − α 2 can now be obtained, by solving
system (21):
where the parameter δ − l / R represents the difference
between the wheel steering angle and the Ackermann m b a  M z2  1 1 
angle. α1 −α 2 =  − a y +  + . (22)
l  C1 C 2  l  C1 C 2 
The following relationship can be obtained directly by
Eqs. (10): Comparing Eq.(22) and (19) it can be observed the
presence of a new term, representing the effect of the
l yaw moment M z2 on the steady dynamic equilibrium.
δ− = α1 − α 2 , (17)
R
Therefore, since M z2 can be related to various motion
where u = rR. Consequently, the understeer gradient
can be also defined by: variables (like the forward velocity u or the turning
radius R like shown in Eq. (7)), it is now necessary to
d consider a specific manoeuvre, in order to investigate the
K0 = (α1 − α 2 ) . (18) kart steady state behaviour.
da y
In the following the forward speed u, the turning radius R In addition, the understeer gradient K decreases with
and the steer angle δ will be, in turn, taken as constant, the square of the forward velocity (Fig. 3) and it is close
in order to discuss the vehicle steady state behaviour. to K 0 only when the magnitude of the forward velocity

Manoeuvre with constant forward speed tends to infinite. If K 0 is negative (the ordinary vehicle
has a oversteer behaviour), the understeer gradient
Let us assume u = const in Eq. (7); in this case Eq. becomes positive as soon as the forward velocity is
(22) becomes: lower than (Fig. 3):

m  b a  C t2 1 1  C 2 (C 1 + C 2 ) t 22
α1 − α 2 =   −  + 2 22  + a y . (23) u = . (25)
 l  C1 C2  4lu  C1 C2  4 m (C 2 b − C 1 a )

The second term in Eq. (22), which varies as the inverse Manoeuvre with constant turning radius
squared velocity, is related to the lack of the differential.
In this section let us assume R=const [6]. Substituting
Consequently, Eq.(18) can be used to define the Eq. (7) into Eq (21) the following equation can be
understeer gradient for the constant speed manoeuvre obtained:
as:
m b a  C t2  1 1 1
α1 −α 2 =  − a y + 2 2  +  . (26)
d Ku
K= (α1 − α 2 ) = K0 + . (24) l  C1 C 2  4l  C1 C 2 R
da y
u = const
u2
which, again, can be rewritten in a more compact form:
where K 0 , defined in Eq.(20), indicates the understeer
1
gradient of the corresponding (i.e. having the same m, l, α1 −α2 = K0 a y + KR . (27)
R
a, b, C1, C2) ordinary model and K u , which depends on
2
constructive parameters, determines the 1/u In this case, however, the understeer gradient is not
dependence. affected by the turning radius and is simply:

Note that it is always K > K o because of the positive

d
term K u / u 2 , showing that the lack of the differential K= (α1 − α 2 ) = K0 , (28)
da y
yields a greater understeer behaviour than that R = const
characterizing the corresponding ordinary vehicle.
meaning that the actual kart has the same steady state
behaviour of the corresponding ordinary vehicle.

Manoeuvre with constant steer angle

Finally, let us assume a constant steer angle, i.e.

δ = const . It can be demonstrated that the difference
between the two slip angles depends not only on the
lateral acceleration but also on the front wheel steer
angle. For this purpose Eq. (26) can be rewritten as:

l
(α 1 − α 2 )l = K 0 la y + KR . (29)
R

Now, introducing Eq. (17), the following analytical

expression for α 1 − α 2 can be obtained:

Fig. 3 The understeer gradient K as a function of the forward velocity. K0 l K

α1 −α2 = ay + R δ . (30)
KR + l KR + l
In this case as well the understeer gradient is constant, follow this cornering path at the fixed forward velocity u ,
but now it differs from K 0 : can be immediately obtained at the intersection of the
dashed line with the horizontal axis.

d K0 l ay
K= (α1 − α 2 ) = , (31)
da y KR + l g
δ = const

Note also that K < K 0 since the parameter K R is

always positive. u = const

In conclusion, all considerations can be summarized in

the following scheme: u2 P
gl
 Ku
u = const ⇒ K = K 0 + 2 ⇒ K > K 0 ,
u δp

 R = const ⇒ K = K 0 , α1 − α 2
O l l
 K 0l Rp R
δ = const ⇒ K = ⇒ K < K0. α1 − α 2
p p

 KR + l
Fig. 4 Example of handling diagram typical of a non-linear model in a
constant forward speed manoeuvre.
As shown, the understeer gradient K is affected by the
manoeuvre. The kart and the ordinary single-track model
have the same understeer gradient only in a constant
turning radius manoeuvre. For a u = const manoeuvre,
K becomes a function of the forward speed and tends Constant forward speed manoeuvre
to K 0 , as u tends to infinite. In a constant steer angle
manoeuvre, the understeer gradient of the kart model is In the classical linear model of an ordinary vehicle
constant and always lower than that of the classical (dashed line in Fig. 5) the constructive characteristics
single-track model. completely define the understeer gradient. Therefore, the
line slope does not change with the forward velocity. On
THE HANDLING DIAGRAM the contrary, in the kart model, its magnitude depends on
the forward speed, according to Eq. (25) and as shown
The handling diagram [7] can be considered as a graphical in Fig. 5. In particular, the slope increases with the
method, which shows the steady-state equilibrium square of the forward speed. Note that in both models
conditions of a vehicle in cornering manoeuvre (continuous the difference between the two slip angles α 1 − α 2 is
line in Fig. 4). On the left side of the horizontal axis it is zero when the lateral acceleration goes to zero.
reported the difference α 1 − α 2 between the front and the
rear slip angles, while on the vertical axis it is reported the
ratio of the lateral to the gravity acceleration a y / g . On the
right side of the horizontal axis is conventionally reported the
Ackermann angle.

On the basis of the handling diagram of a non linear u

(axle characteristics) vehicle, the main dynamic variables
( )
α 1 − α 2 , a y , R, δ , u defining the equilibrium for a
given manoeuvre can be easily determined by graphical
method.

For example, in a constant forward speed manoeuvre

(Fig. 4), the equilibrium point P is at the intersection
between the dashed line, whose slope is related to the
forward speed and the handling diagram (continuous
curve). In addition, the steer angle δ p , necessary to
Fig. 5 Handling diagram: constant forward speed manoeuvre.
Constant turning radius manoeuvre Finally, like in the constant turning radius manoeuvre, for
lateral acceleration close to zero, the handling diagram
This manoeuvre is also known as the steering pad test. does not intersect the origin of the axes.
The driver acts on the steering wheel and the accelerator
in order to maintain constant the turning radius R with a
fixed forward speed [6]. The handling diagram for this
manoeuvre is shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 7 Handling diagram: constant steer angle manoeuvre.

Fig. 6 Handling diagram: constant turning radius manoeuvre.

HANDLING STABILITY AND CRITICAL SPEED

A vehicle is directionally stable only if the transient part of

the solution of the linear differential system (14) vanishes
Note that in this case the lines (continuous for a kart and
with time. This happens when the following two
dashed for classical model) have the same slope,
conditions are satisfied [2]:
meaning that the same understeer gradient
characterizes the two linear models, according to Eq.
(28). handling stability ⇔ Re (λ1 ) < 0 and Re (λ2 ) < 0 ,
(32)
However, it can be observed how, decreasing the turning
radius, the continuous lines (kart model) shift to the left in which λ1 and λ2 represent the eigenvalues of the
matrix A defined earlier and Re (λi ) represents their
while remaining parallel to the line of the ordinary
vehicle, in agreement to Eq. (28). Moreover, for zero
lateral acceleration, the continuous lines (kart model) no real part. Actually, the handling stability can be studied
more goes through the origin of the axes; the value of without computing the eigenvalues but only considering
α 1 − α 2 (for zero lateral acceleration) is higher the lower the following conditions for matrix A :

handling stability ⇔ tr (A ) < 0 and det (A ) > 0 ,

the cornering radius.

Manoeuvre with constant steer angle (33)

The handling diagram obtained by a constant wheel where tr (A ) and det (A ) mean, respectively, the trace
steer angle manoeuvre is shown in Figure 7. and the determinant of the matrix A . Since the trace of
Note that increasing the wheel steer angle (which
A is always negative, the handling stability is
however is fixed during each manoeuvre) the lines of the
determined only by the second condition.
kart model are shifted to the left but remain parallel,
meaning constant understeer gradient (Eq.(30)). From
another point of view, given a certain lateral acceleration, The critical speed u cr is defined as the possible value of
the difference between the two slip angles α 1 − α 2 the longitudinal speed u , above which det (A ) becomes
depends directly on the steer angle, according to Eq. negative. The analytical expression for the critical speed
(29). can be obtained, from det (A ) and is given by:
From Fig. 7, it can also be observed a greater slope of
the actual kart handling diagram, in relation to the
ordinary single track model (dashed line).

t22 t2
C1C2l 2 +C2 (C1 +C2 ) C2 (C1 +C2 ) 2
ucr =
m(C1a −C2b)
( )
4 = uc 2 +
cr
m (C1a −C2b)
4,
(34)
in which, u crc represents the critical speed of the
corresponding classical single track model. As expected,
due to the understeering effect of the yaw moment, the
kart has a higher critical speed than the ordinary vehicle.
CONCLUSION
A theoretical analysis of the cornering behaviour of
vehicles, lacking any differential system or in completely
locked differential conditions, was developed in this
paper. The inadequacy of the classical single track
model, which is usually used to characterize the ordinary
passenger vehicle behaviour, was discussed in the first
section. It was shown that a new yaw moment M z2 ,
arising from the difference between the rear longitudinal
forces, does affect the yaw equilibrium and,
consequently, the cornering behaviour.
An simple linear expression for M z2 was obtained,
which showed M z2 to be related to motion variables
such as the yaw rate r , the longitudinal speed u and
the geometrical distance R of the instantaneous centre
of rotation from the vehicle longitudinal axis.
The steady state cornering behaviour was then
investigated using the developed model and discussed in
comparison with an ordinary vehicle.
A new definition of the understeer gradient was
presented for this kind of vehicles. It was showed how, in
order to obtain the understeer gradient K it is necessary
to specify the manoeuvre.
The handling diagram for constant forward velocity,
constant turning radius and constant steer angle were
presented, together with analytical expression of the
difference between the two slip angles α 1 − α 2 .
The understeer gradient of the actual kart is equal to that
of the ordinary vehicle in the constant turning radius
manoeuvre, while it is respectively higher and lower than
it for the constant speed and constant steer angle
manoeuvre.
In the last section the kart handling stability was
investigated on the basis of the developed model. The
analytical expression for the possible critical speed was
finally derived. It appears to be always higher than the
classical single track model critical speed; as a
consequence, the vehicle model lacking of the differential
always exhibits a higher handling stability limit.
The presented results, which apparently have not been
previously published in the technical literature, were
obtained by a simple linear model; therefore they are
likely to be realistic only for small lateral acceleration
values. However, even if obtained by means of a simple
model, they can give some indications for racing
vehicles, such as formula cars, whose differential is
frequently completely or partially locked.
REFERENCES
1. Vitale E., Frendo F., Ghelardi E., Leoncini A. A
lumped parameter model for the analysis of kart
dynamics; The role of experimentation in the
automotive product development process, Florence
ATA 2001, 23-25 May 2001 (on CD).
2. Dixon J.C. (1991), Tyres, Suspenction and Handling,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
3. Guiggiani M. (1998), Dinamica del Veicolo, Città
Studi Edizioni, Torino.
4. Gillepsie T.D. (1992), Fundamentals of Vehicle
Dynamics, Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE),
Warrendale.
5. Ellis J.R. (1994), Vehicle Handling Dynamics,
Mechanical Engineering Publications (MEP), Londra.
6. ISO 4138 (1982), “Road vehicles – Steady-state
circular test procedure”.
7. Pacejka H.B. (1973), “Simplified analysis of steady-
state behaviour of motor vehicles”, Vehicle System
Dynamics: 2, 161-172, 173-183, 185-204.
8. Pacejka H.B. ed., (1992), Tyre Models for Vehicle
Dynamics Analisys, suppl. a Vehicle Sistem
Dynamics, 21.
9. Segel L. (1957), “Theoretical prediction and
experimental substantiation of the response of the
automobile to steering control”, Proc. of the
Automobile Division of I.Mech.E., 7, 310-330.
CONTACT
Massimo Guiggiani, Professor of Applied Mechanics at
the Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica Nucleare e
della Produzione of the University of Pisa.
email: guiggiani@ing.unipi.it