applied

sciences
Article
A Simple Mono-Dimensional Approach for Lap
Time Optimisation
Basilio Lenzo 1, * and Valerio Rossi 2
1 Department of Engineering and Mathematics, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S1 1WB, UK
2 Department of Civil and Industrial Engineering, Università di Pisa, 56122 Pisa, Italy;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 21 January 2020; Accepted: 19 February 2020; Published: 22 February 2020


Abstract: Lap time minimisation methods have great relevance in the analysis of race tracks,
and in the design and optimisation of race vehicles. Several lap time minimisation approaches
have been proposed in the literature, which are computationally demanding because they need to
either solve differential equations or to implement a forward–backward integration based on an
apex-finding method. This paper proposes an alternative method, based on a mono-dimensional
quasi-steady-state numerical approach. The proposed approach uses a simplified vehicle model
accounting for combined tyre–road interactions, aerodynamic effects, and power limitations. The
method exploits the knowledge of the curvature of the trajectory, which is worked out through a
rigorous approach that allows for the use trajectories defined with respect to ageneric curve parameter
and not necessarily the arc length. An iterative routine is implemented that exploits the vehicle
dynamics, without solving differential equations or performing forward–backward integrations
from the trajectory apexes. Simulations are carried out on three different tracks and are shown to
be computationally efficient. Despite being intentionally simple, the proposed method allows to
grasp key aspects of the problem, such as the effect of the combined tyre–road interactions on the
acceleration profiles, and the effect of aerodynamic drag and downforce on the position of the braking
point on the track and on the speed profile.

Keywords: lap time optimisation; trajectory planning; vehicle dynamics; curve parameterisation;
critical radius

1. Introduction
Race car drivers are expected to achieve a minimum lap time by exploiting all of the grip potential
of a given vehicle [1–3]. Given a driving track, the driver should make optimal use of the available
control inputs, mainly including the accelerator and brake pedal positions, along with the steering
wheel angle. Minimum lap time strategies have been investigated for more than 60 years [4]. They
are very challenging problems, but with potentially very wide applications, including the analysis
of race tracks (e.g., Formula 1) from the point of view of the human drivers and track engineers,
the optimisation of vehicle design/setup, and the potential combination of advanced vehicle control
techniques [5].
The most common methods for lap time simulation are [6]: (i) optimal control problem (OCP)
approaches; and (ii) quasi-steady-state (QSS) approaches. Optimal control is used when the trajectory
is not known a priori. This might be the case when it is necessary to find the optimal trajectory,
e.g., the first time a track is studied or simply when the track is new, as it sometimes happens, even
in Formula 1. OCPs are approachable either with direct methods (which solve the problem using
nonlinear programming (NLP) techniques [7,8]) or with indirect methods (which solve the problem

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1498; doi:10.3390/app10041498 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1498 2 of 14

using numerical techniques for systems of differential equations [9,10]). The key peculiarities of the
direct and indirect methods have been extensively discussed in the literature [11]. QSS methods,
instead, rely on a given trajectory. They are based on steady-state vehicle dynamics equations, with
the exception of the vehicle speed. Normally, the path is divided into small segments and the corner
apexes are identified; hence, the maximum vehicle speed is therein calculated. The acceleration and
braking zones are worked out by forward and backward integration, respectively, after and before
each apex, and the speed profiles between the apexes are connected at their intersection points [12].
While integrating backwards, the maximum braking capabilities are considered, which normally
include grip and aerodynamic effects. On the other hand, forward integration accounts for the
maximum acceleration capabilities, which may include grip, aerodynamics, and power limits. In the
literature [13], a method is proposed that employs QSS models and free trajectory using a vehicle g–g
map, and then applying the OCP techniques again. Further simulation studies have been proposed
to investigate additional aspects, including the extension of QSS methods to transients [14,15] and
modelling three-dimensional roads [16].
In terms of computational cost, both OCP and QSS are generally quite demanding. This is
because of the solution of differential equations through direct/indirect methods (OCP) and the
backward/forward integration from each apex (QSS), respectively. In the analysis of OCP techniques in
reference [11], the authors suggested that new methods should be investigated that "have the ability
to compute a simulation in a reasonable amount of time, e.g., less than a few hours". For example,
the OCP method in reference [17] took around 8 hours to simulate a full lap of the Jerez circuit. QSS
methods are generally faster than the OCP ones. The QSS method in reference [12] took 16 minutes to
simulate the Barcelona circuit, compared with 39.8 hours using the OCP method in reference [18]. Still,
that is around 5–10 times (depending on the vehicle) the actual lap time. In addition, the authors of the
QSS technique in reference [19] stated that their method is "for design phase decisions but not for a fast
trackside usage".
In this paper, a new QSS approach is proposed for fixed trajectories. It is based on a numerical
method using a simplified vehicle model including physical constraints, such as combined tyre–road
interaction limits, aerodynamic effects, and engine power boundaries. The main advantage of the
proposed method lies in the low computational cost. The reason for this is that there is no need for
solutions of differential equations (as in standard OCP methods), nor backward/forward integrations
in order to work out the optimal speed profiles (as in standard QSS methods). The proposed method
exploits the knowledge of the curvature of the trajectory. The curvature is worked out through a
rigorous approach, with the benefit that it allows for the use of trajectories defined with respect to a
generic curve parameter and not necessarily the arc length. Simulations are carried out along a circle,
an ellipse, and a combination of straight lines and a hairpin bend.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses the modelling of the
vehicle and its performance limits. Section 3 describes the proposed optimisation approach. The
simulation results are in Section 4. The main conclusions are drawn in Section 5.

2. Vehicle Modelling and Performance Bounds

This paper focuses on mono-dimensional tracks, i.e., predefined trajectories. Let λ be a generic
parameter. Given a curve γ(λ), which may or may not be closed, the vehicle negotiating γ(λ) will
be represented as a mass point that moves along the curve, similar to [20]. The curve can also be
expressed as a function of the arc length (curvilinear abscissa), s, as γ(s(λ)). A condition that needs to
be fulfilled is that the car is always on the track, i.e.,

x(λ) ≡ γ(s(λ)) (1)

where x(λ) is the position vector with respect to a fixed arbitrary reference frame. Once the curve
is assigned, together with the initial conditions, one can determine the optimal law of the driver’s
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1498 3 of 14

behaviour on the accelerator and brake pedals, as functions of the position on the track, so as to
minimise the time to cover γ(s(λ)):
Z
1  
min ds subject to kax (s)k ≤ h a y (s), v(ax (s)) (2)
ax (s) v(ax (s))

where h represents the physical constraints or performance bounds, a y is the lateral acceleration, and
.
v = s is the vehicle speed. h depends on both the grip and engine power.
The mathematical modelling of the physical constraints was designed so as to capture the most
relevant aspects of road dynamics. Three main factors were considered, namely:

• Adherence of tyres to the asphalt (grip);

• Engine power;
• Aerodynamic loads, such as drag force and lift/downforce.

When trying to minimise lap time for generic driving conditions, the upper limit of the vehicle
performance may depend on either the grip or engine power. For example, in case of deceleration
on a straight line or in case of cornering, the bottleneck is grip. However, in case of acceleration on a
straight line, depending on the conditions, the maximum performance may be limited by either the
engine power or grip.
The grip constraint can be studied through the well-known friction ellipse [21]. Given its symmetry
in terms of lateral acceleration behaviour, only half of the ellipse will be considered. Mathematically, the
locus is determined once the values of the semi-axes are given. Because of the effect of aerodynamics,
the size of the ellipse is speed dependent. The longitudinal and vertical aerodynamic forces, Fx and Fz ,
respectively, can be expressed as follows:

Fx = 12 ρcx Sv2 = kx v2
(3)
Fz = 21 ρcz Sv2 = kz v2

where ρ is the air density, S is the frontal area, and cx and cz are the drag and downforce coefficients,
respectively. The tyre model herein adopted is based on the assumption that the maximum available
tyre–road frictional force is proportional to the vertical load on the tyre, through the friction coefficient
µ. Therefore, the ellipse semi-axes can be obtained directly from the dynamic equilibrium equations:
 
max+,grip = 12 µmg + 12 µkz − kx v2 acceleration
max−,grip = −µmg − (µkz + kx )v2 braking (4)
ma y,max = µ mg + kz v2

where m is the vehicle mass, g is the gravitational acceleration, ax+,grip is the maximum achievable
longitudinal acceleration when the vehicle accelerates, ax−,grip is the maximum achievable longitudinal
acceleration when the vehicle brakes, and a y,max is the maximum achievable lateral acceleration. The
last three quantities determine the ellipse semi-axes. In the first equation, the coefficient 12 reflects the
assumption that the vehicle is either front-wheel-drive (FWD) or rear-wheel-drive (RWD), as well as
the simplified hypotheses that load transfers are neglected and that the downforce effect is evenly
distributed between the front and rear axles of the vehicle.
For a generic vehicle condition with the lateral acceleration expressed as a y = v2 /R (R is the radius
of curvature), the achievable longitudinal acceleration according to the grip constraint is as follows:
r  2
ay
ax+ = ax+,grip 1 − a y,max acceleration
r  2 (5)
ay
ax− = ax−,grip 1 − ay,max braking
 2
𝑎𝑦
𝑎𝑥+ = 𝑎𝑥+,𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑝 √1 − ( ) 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑎𝑦,𝑚𝑎𝑥
(5)
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1498 2 4 of 14
𝑎𝑦
𝑎𝑥− = 𝑎𝑥−,𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑝 √1 − ( ) 𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑎𝑦,𝑚𝑎𝑥
Figure 11 shows
Figure shows an
an example
example of
of the
the obtained
obtained ellipse for v𝑣== 50
ellipse for 50km/h.
km/h.

Frictionellipse
Figure1.1.Friction
Figure ellipsefor = 50
for 𝑣v = 50 km/h,
km/h, grip
grip effect
effectonly
only(blue
(blueline:
line: acceleration,
acceleration, red
redline:
line: braking).
braking).

The constraint
The constraint on
on engine
engine power
power can
can be
be expressed
expressed as
as follows:
follows:
𝑃 − 𝑘𝑥 𝑣 3 3
𝑎𝑥+,𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = = P − kx v
ax+,power (6)(6)
𝑚𝑣mv
where 𝑃 is the available power. As shown in Figure 2, the locus is just a vertical line.
where P is the available power. As shown in Figure 2, the locus is just a vertical line.
Appl.The overall
Sci. 2020, vehicle
10, x FOR PEERperformance
REVIEW bounds are determined by the most restrictive conditions
5 of 13
between the grip limit and power limit. In acceleration conditions, the maximum achievable
longitudinal acceleration, 𝑎𝑥+,𝑚𝑎𝑥 , is given by:
𝑎𝑥+,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = min(𝑎𝑥+ , 𝑎𝑥+,𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 ) (7)

while in braking conditions, the maximum achievable longitudinal acceleration, 𝑎𝑥−,𝑚𝑎𝑥 , is as

follows:
𝑎𝑥−,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑎𝑥− (8)

In other words, at each point of the trajectory, 𝑎𝑦 = 𝑣 2 /𝑅 is calculated, then Equations (7) and
(8) provide the maximum acceleration/deceleration, accounting for the effect of the friction ellipse
and maximum power.
The resulting overall performance bounds are depicted in Figure 3 for speeds from 10 to 250
km/h in 24 km/h steps. Equation (7) inevitably leads to a discontinuity of the derivative at the
boundary between the grip and power constraints. There is no discontinuity for low speeds, meaning
that the performance is limited by the grip. However, as the speed increases, the discontinuity shows
up and the vehicle performance is limited by power. This means that the driver can negotiate the
corner at full throttle, without the risk of skidding, as there is high availability of grip.

Figure2.2.Power
Figure Powerlimit forvv==50
limitfor 50km/h.
km/h.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1498 5 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 13

The overall vehicle performance bounds are determined by the most restrictive conditions between
the grip limit and power limit. In acceleration conditions, the maximum achievable longitudinal
acceleration, ax+,max , is given by:
 
ax+,max = min ax+ , ax+,power (7)

while in braking conditions, the maximum achievable longitudinal acceleration, ax−,max , is as follows:

ax−,max = ax− (8)

In other words, at each point of the trajectory, a y = v2 /R is calculated, then Equations (7) and (8)
provide the maximum acceleration/deceleration, accounting for the effect of the friction ellipse and
maximum power.
The resulting overall performance bounds are depicted in Figure 3 for speeds from 10 to 250 km/h
in 24 km/h steps. Equation (7) inevitably leads to a discontinuity of the derivative at the boundary
between the grip and power constraints. There is no discontinuity for low speeds, meaning that the
performance is limited by the grip. However, as the speed increases, the discontinuity shows up and
the vehicle performance is limited by power. This means that the driver can negotiate the corner at full
throttle, without the risk of skidding, as there is high availability of grip.
Figure 2. Power limit for v = 50 km/h.

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Performance
Performance bound
bound for
for different
different vehicle
vehicle speeds.
speeds.

As stated earlier, the availability of the grip increases with the vehicle speed because of the
downforce effect. The vehicle will not skid, as long as the following equation is satisfied:
satisfied:
𝑚𝑣 2 2
mv≤ 𝜇𝑚𝑔 + 𝜇𝑘𝑧 𝑣 2 2 (9)
𝑅 ≤ µmg + µkz v (9)
R
from which it can be observed that if the radius of the curvature is large enough, there is no grip-
from which
related speedit can beThe
limit. observed
radiusthat if the
of the radius offor
curvature thewhich
curvature is large enough,
this happens, there
denoted is no
as the grip-related
critical radius
speed
of limit. The radius
the curvature, of the
𝑅𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 , can curvature
be easily for which
worked out as this happens, denoted as the critical radius of the
follows:
curvature, Rcrit , can be easily worked out as follows: 𝑚
𝑅𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 = (10)
𝜇𝑘𝑧m
Rcrit = (10)
Another way to interpret this is by looking at µk thez left- and right-hand sides of Equation (9)—
they are two parabolas, with 𝑣 as the independent variable. If 𝑅 < 𝑅𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 , the parabolas have an
intersection point, which represents the maximum speed that can be achieved as a result of the grip
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1498 6 of 14

Another way to interpret this is by looking at the left- and right-hand sides of Equation (9)—they
are two parabolas, with v as the independent variable. If R < Rcrit , the parabolas have an intersection
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 13
point, which represents the maximum speed that can be achieved as a result of the grip constraint. If
there is no intersection, there is no speed limit. This is seen in Figure 4, which depicts the two parabolas
constraint. If there is no intersection, there is no speed limit. This is seen in Figure 4, which depicts
for two values of R, one lower and one greater than Rcrit .
the two parabolas for two values of 𝑅, one lower and one greater than 𝑅𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 .

Figure4.4.Maximum
Figure Maximumachievable
achievablespeed
speedasasaaresult
resultofofthe
thegrip
gripand
andcritical
criticalradius
radiusofofthe
thecurvature.
curvature.

3.3.Optimisation
OptimisationApproach
Approach
From
Fromthe literature,
the it isitknown
literature, that athat
is known generic curve, γ,
a generic can be𝛾parameterized
curve, with any parameter.
, can be parameterized with any
Denoting with t (the tangent unit vector) and k
parameter. Denoting with 𝑡 (the tangent unit vector) and 𝑘 (the curvature), in general,relationships
(the curvature), in general, the following the following
hold [22]:
relationships hold [22]:
dγ/dλ
t= 𝑑𝜸/𝑑𝜆= dγ/ds (11)
𝒕=dγ/dλ = 𝑑𝜸/𝑑𝑠 (11)
|𝑑𝜸/𝑑𝜆|
and
and d2 γ(s) dt
k= 2
= (12)
d 𝜸(𝑠) ds 𝑑𝒕
ds
𝑘=| |=| | (12)
where the relationship between the generic parameter, d𝑠 2 λ, and𝑑𝑠the arc length, s, is as follows:
where the relationship between the generic parameter,
Z λ λ, and the arc length, 𝑠, is as follows:
dγ(u)
s(λ) = 𝜆
d𝜸(𝑢) du (13)
𝑠(𝜆) =0 ∫ |du | d𝑢 (13)
0 d𝑢
which implies dγ/ds = 1, already used in Equation (11).
which implies |𝑑𝜸/𝑑𝑠| = 1, already used in Equation (11). 2
As the vehicle performance bounds imply that a y = vR 2
𝑣 2 = kv cannot exceed a y,max , there is a
As the vehicle performance bounds imply that 𝑎𝑦 = = 𝑘𝑣 2 cannot exceed 𝑎𝑦,𝑚𝑎𝑥 , there is a
maximum allowable speed at each λ: 𝑅
maximum allowable speed at each 𝜆:
r
a y,max
𝑎
(λ) (𝜆)
vmax𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = √ 𝑦,𝑚𝑎𝑥 (14)
k 𝑘
Suchmaximum
Such maximum speed
speed plays
plays a keya role
keyinrole in the definition
the definition of thedriver
of the optimal optimal driver Therefore,
behaviour. behaviour.
Therefore, knowledge of the curvature,
knowledge of the curvature, k, is crucial. 𝑘, is crucial.
Practically, curves are often written in terms of a parameter, 𝜆, which is not the arc length. To
work out 𝑘 , a potential strategy would be to calculate 𝑠(𝜆) using Equation (13), find 𝜆(𝑠) by
inversion, express the curve using the curvilinear abscissa 𝛾(𝜆(𝑠)), and then calculate 𝑘 using
Equation (12). However, this approach might not be straightforward. For instance, in the simple case
of a planar ellipse, 𝛾(𝜆) = (𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝜆; 𝑏 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜆) can be used as the parameterisation, where 𝑎 and 𝑏
are the ellipse semi-axes. The computation of the curvilinear abscissa leads to an integral that cannot
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1498 7 of 14

Practically, curves are often written in terms of a parameter, λ, which is not the arc length. To
work out k, a potential strategy would be to calculate s(λ) using Equation (13), find λ(s) by inversion,
express the curve using the curvilinear abscissa γ(λ(s)), and then calculate k using Equation (12).
However, this approach might not be straightforward. For instance, in the simple case of a planar
ellipse, γ(λ) = (a cos λ; b sin λ) can be used as the parameterisation, where a and b are the ellipse
semi-axes. The computation of the curvilinear abscissa leads to an integral that cannot be expressed by
elementary functions (elliptical integral). As an alternative, Equation (11) can be used in Equation (12):

dt dt dλ 1 dt 1 dt
k= = = ds = (15)
ds dλ ds dλ dγ dλ
dλ dλ

where the second term on the right-hand side can be expanded, using Equation (11), as follows:

d2 γ
 
d
dγ/dλ − dγ/dλ dγ/dλ
 
dt d  dγ/dλ  dλ2 dλ
=  = 2
(16)
dλ dλ  dγ/dλ 

dγ/dλ

and applying the chain rule, the derivative of the norm of dγ/dλ can be calculated as:
 
dγ
d
 dλ  d2 γ (dγ/dλ)T d2 γ
d   d  d 
dγ/dλ =   dγ/dλ =   dγ/dλ = (17)
dλ dγ
d dλ
dλ dγ
d dλ dλ2 dγ/dλ dλ2

Replacing Equation (17) into Equation (16), and then into Equation (15), leads to the following:

d2 γ (dγ/dλ)T d2 γ
dγ/dλ − dγ/dλ
1 dt 1 dλ2 |dγ/dλ| dλ2
k= = 2
(18)
dγ dλ dγ
dγ/dλ
dλ dλ

and finally, is simplified to the following:

d2 γ
d2 γ (dγ/dλ)T
dλ2
dλ2
− 2 dγ/dλ
(dγ/dλ)
k= 2
(19)
dγ/dλ

which allows for calculating k for a curve expressed with a generic parameter, λ, without using s.
To minimise the lap time, at each time step, the driver needs to maximise the vehicle speed as well
as the magnitude of the total acceleration. The main challenge for working out the optimal behaviour
boils down to figuring out where the driver needs to brake in order to keep the vehicle on the assigned
trajectory, i.e., satisfying the performance bounds. Other than that, the driver should always accelerate
with full throttle. To ensure the performance bounds are met, the driver should brake early enough so
that the vehicle speed at the apex of a corner (the point where k(λ) is the maximum, or the curvature
radius is minimum) still satisfies k(λ)v2 ≤ a y,max . If the driver brakes too late, this constraint will not
be met, hence the vehicle will not be able to stay on the track. If the driver brakes too early, he/she will
be able to stay on the track, but the lap time will not be minimised.
The above idea was implemented through a MATLAB script, according to the following pattern:

• Calculate the state of motion at time step i (or, at the beginning of a simulation, use the initial
conditions).
• Calculate all of the future vehicle states of motion assuming that the driver is braking, until k(λ)
has a maximum.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1498 8 of 14

• Check whether the speed satisfies k(λ)v2 ≤ a y,max at any future time step j.
• If the condition above is always met, it means that the driver can accelerate at step i, and then the
state of motion at step i + 1 can be calculated. Otherwise, go back one step and impose that the
driver is braking at step i − 1.

The interdependency between the track parameters and vehicle states is embedded in the above
steps, as the track curvature influences the maximum speed at which a specific portion of the track
can be negotiated. The use of a numerical approach introduces an error that depends on the level of
discretisation. On the other hand, the greater the accuracy, the narrower the discretisation and the
larger the computational time. A trade-off is to be sought between the performance and computational
cost. For the simulations presented in this paper, the curvilinear abscissa was discretised with steps of
around 0.1 m, resulting in calculation times of up to a few seconds, always lower than the actual lap
times. The step size is in line with suggestions from the literature [13].

4. Results
Simulations were carried out through MATLAB for different tracks, using a high-performance
race vehicle. The main vehicle parameters are reported in Table 1. The tracks investigated were as
follows:

• Circumferences (radius of 100 or 200 m)

• Ellipse (semi-axes of 100 and 150 m)
• Straight lines and hairpin bend (two straight lines joined by a 180◦ constant radius bend, with a
radius of 100 m)

Table 1. Main vehicle parameters.

Quantity Symbol (unit) Value

Mass m (kg) 620
Drag factor kx (Ns2 /m2 ) 0.72
Downforce factor kz (Ns2 /m2 ) 2.15
Power P (kW) 550

In the following plots, the vehicle speed is compared against vmax (from Equation (14)), while the
longitudinal and lateral accelerations appear normalised with respect to g.

4.1. Circumference
Several simulations were carried out, with and without aerodynamic effects. In the case of
aerodynamic effects, a trajectory with a radius greater than the critical one was also studied. The initial
speed was intentionally small, so as to better analyse the performance of the developed algorithm.
The first simulation was run without aerodynamics effects, and R = 100 m. Figure 5 shows speed
and accelerations as functions of the arc length. As expected, the vehicle accelerated to reach the
maximum speed as soon as possible (Figure 5 (left)). Meanwhile, Figure 5 (right) shows that the lateral
acceleration increased at the same time the longitudinal acceleration decreased, because of the effect
of the friction ellipse (see Equation (5)). When the maximum speed was reached (around s ≈ 150 m),
Equation (5) shows that the maximum achievable longitudinal acceleration was zero, therefore the
vehicle carried on at that speed.
speed and accelerations as functions of the arc length. As expected, the vehicle accelerated to reach
the maximum speed as soon as possible (Figure 5 (left)). Meanwhile, Figure 5 (right) shows that the
lateral acceleration increased at the same time the longitudinal acceleration decreased, because of the
effect of the friction ellipse (see Equation (5)). When the maximum speed was reached (around 𝒔 ≈
Appl.
𝟏𝟓𝟎 Sci.
m),2020, 10, 1498 (5) shows that the maximum achievable longitudinal acceleration was 9zero,
Equation of 14
therefore the vehicle carried on at that speed.

Figure 5.5. Circumference,

Figure Circumference, no
no aerodynamics,
aerodynamics, R
R == 100
100 m:
m: (left)
(left) speed
speed and
and (right)
(right) accelerations
accelerations with
with
respect to 𝑠.
respect to s.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13

Figure 6 shows the same quantities for a simulation with aerodynamics. The downforce effect
Figure 6 shows the same quantities for a simulation with aerodynamics. The downforce effect
clearly increased the maximum achievable speed with respect to the previously analysed case. By
clearly increased the maximum achievable speed with respect to the previously analysed case. By
looking at the longitudinal acceleration, it increased only until around s ≈ 80 m, then it was still
looking at the longitudinal acceleration, it increased only until around 𝒔 ≈ 𝟖𝟎 m, then it was still
positive, but decreased as a result of the vehicle power limit.
positive, but decreased as a result of the vehicle power limit.

Figure6.6.Circumference,
Figure Circumference,aerodynamics,
aerodynamics,RR==100
100m:
m: (left)
(left) speed
speed and
and (right)
(right) accelerations
accelerationswith
withrespect
respect
to
to s.𝑠.

Usingthe
Using thevehicle
vehicleparameters
parametersfrom
fromTable
Table1 1ininEquation
Equation (10),
(10), thethe critical
critical radius
radius was
was 144144
m.m. Figure
Figure 7
7 shows
shows the the results
results =𝑹
for Rfor =m,
200 𝟐𝟎𝟎 m, which
which is aboveis the
above theradius.
critical criticalThe
radius. The maximum
maximum speed stillspeed still
increased
increased
with with the
the vehicle speedvehicle speed
v, but 𝒗, but reached.
was never was never reached.
With R being With 𝑹 being
larger larger
than the thanradius,
critical the critical
the
radius, thevelocity
maximum maximum will velocity will always
always grow more thangrow themore than
vehicle the vehicle
velocity. velocity.
However, this However, this time,
time, the maximum
the maximum
velocity velocitybecause
was saturated was saturated because
of the power limit,of which
the power limit, which
intervened rather intervened
early (Figure rather early
7 (right)).
(Figure
This 7 (right)).
implies This implies
that, when that, when
the negotiated the negotiated
trajectory trajectory there
was approached, was approached, there was large
was still a potentially still a
potentially of
availability large
grip.availability of grip.
Theoretically, withoutTheoretically,
a power limit, without a power
the speed would limit,
keepthe speed would keep
increasing.
increasing.
increased with the vehicle speed 𝒗, but was never reached. With 𝑹 being larger than the critical
radius, the maximum velocity will always grow more than the vehicle velocity. However, this time,
the maximum velocity was saturated because of the power limit, which intervened rather early
(Figure 7 (right)). This implies that, when the negotiated trajectory was approached, there was still a
potentially
Appl. Sci. 2020,large availability of grip. Theoretically, without a power limit, the speed would10keep
10, 1498 of 14
increasing.

Figure 7. Circumference,
Figure 7. Circumference, aerodynamics, R=
aerodynamics, R = 200
200 m:
m: (left)
(left) speed
speed and
and (right)
(right) accelerations
accelerations with
with respect
respect
to s.𝑠.
to

4.2. Ellipse
4.2. Ellipse
Two main
Two mainsimulations
simulations were carried
were out, out,
carried i.e., without and with
i.e., without andaerodynamics. Unlike the
with aerodynamics. previous
Unlike the
case, the case,
previous radiustheofradius
the curvature varied varied
of the curvature along along
the path, hencehence
the path, the driver behaviour
the driver waswas
behaviour notnot
as
straightforward as the circumference. Again, the initial speed was relatively
as straightforward as the circumference. Again, the initial speed was relatively small. small.
Figure 88 shows
Figure shows thethe speed
speed and
and acceleration
acceleration as functions of
as functions the arc
of the arc length
length for
for aa simulation
simulation without
without
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13
aerodynamics. ItIt is
aerodynamics. is clear
clear that
that at
at some
some point,
point, before
before reaching
reaching the
the minimum
minimum radius
radius of of the
the curvature,
curvature,
the driver needed to brake, so that the speed was equal (without exceeding) to the maximum speed
the driver needed to brake, so that the speed was equal (without exceeding) to the maximum speed
where the curvature was at a maximum (hence the radius of the curvature is at a minimum, which
where the curvature was at a maximum (hence the radius of the curvature is at a minimum, which
corresponds to the minima of the red curve in Figure 8 (left)).
corresponds to the minima of the red curve in Figure 8 (left)).

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Ellipse,
Ellipse, no
no aerodynamics:
aerodynamics: (left) speed and
and (right)
(right) accelerations
accelerations with
with respect to s.𝑠.
respect to

Figure
Figure 99 shows
shows the
the same
same quantities
quantities obtained
obtained forfor aa simulation
simulation including
including aerodynamic
aerodynamic effects.
effects.
Again,
Again,thethemaximum
maximum speed waswas
speed increased because
increased of the downforce
because effect. The
of the downforce vehicle
effect. Thespeed increased
vehicle speed
less sharply
increased than
less in Figure
sharply than 8,
in as the power
Figure limits
8, as the powerof limits
the vehicle
of the were reached
vehicle earlier because
were reached of the
earlier because
presence of the drag
of the presence force.
of the dragOn theOn
force. other
thehand,
otherthe presence
hand, of the drag
the presence of theforce
dragallowed for a delay
force allowed for ain the
delay
braking points, which
in the braking points,were
which now much
were now closer
much to closer
the trajectory apexes (points
to the trajectory apexeswith minimum
(points radius of
with minimum
curvature).
radius of curvature).
 Figure 9 shows the same quantities obtained for a simulation including aerodynamic effects.
Again, the maximum speed was increased because of the downforce effect. The vehicle speed
increased less sharply than in Figure 8, as the power limits of the vehicle were reached earlier because
of the presence of the drag force. On the other hand, the presence of the drag force allowed for a delay
inSci.
Appl. the2020,
braking points, which were now much closer to the trajectory apexes (points with minimum
10, 1498 11 of 14
radius of curvature).

Figure
Figure 9. 9.Ellipse,
Ellipse,aerodynamics:
aerodynamics: (left)
(left) speed
speed and
and (right)
(right)accelerations
accelerationswith
withrespect to to𝑠.s.
respect

4.3.4.3.
Straight Lines
Straight and
Lines andHairpin
HairpinBend
Bend
TheThe investigated
investigated trajectoryconsisted
trajectory consistedofofaa500
500 mm straight line,
line,then
thenaaconstant
constantradius
radiushairpin bend,
hairpin bend,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 13
andand finally
finally a straight
a straight lineidentical
line identicaltotothe
thefirst
firstone
one (Figure
(Figure 10). Practically,
Practically,such
suchaapath
pathwas
wasobtained
obtained
by by creating
creating a MATLAB
a MATLAB scriptthat
script thatallowed
allowedforforthe
the generation
generation ofof any
anygeneric
genericcurve
curvestarting from
starting from itsits
aerodynamics. This was due to the aerodynamic drag, which, on the one hand, triggered the vehicle
geometric properties, e.g., lengths of the straight lines, bend
geometric properties, e.g., lengths of the straight lines, bend radii, etc. radii, etc.
power Figure
limit much earlier,
11 shows butand
speed on the other hand,
acceleration allowed for
as functions braking
of the muchfor
arc length closer to the bend.
a simulation without
aerodynamics. The speed plot shows again that the driver needed to brake rather early in preparation
for the bend, which was negotiated at the maximum speed. Once the bend was cleared, the driver
accelerated as much as possible. Again, there were important differences when the simulation was
carried out including aerodynamic effects (Figure 12). The maximum speed within the bend was
obviously higher, which allowed the vehicle to be much faster (around 270 km/h instead of 150 km/h).
Interestingly, just before the bend, the achieved speed was around 300 km/h with or without

Figure10.
Figure 10. Straight
Straight lines
lines and
and hairpin
hairpin bend
bend path.
path.

Figure 11 shows speed and acceleration as functions of the arc length for a simulation without
aerodynamics. The speed plot shows again that the driver needed to brake rather early in preparation
for the bend, which was negotiated at the maximum speed. Once the bend was cleared, the driver
accelerated as much as possible. Again, there were important differences when the simulation was
carried out including aerodynamic effects (Figure 12). The maximum speed within the bend was
obviously higher, which allowed the vehicle to be much faster (around 270 km/h instead of 150
km/h). Interestingly, just before the bend, the achieved speed was around 300 km/h with or without
aerodynamics. This was due to the aerodynamic drag, which, on the one hand, triggered the vehicle
power limit much earlier, but on the other hand, allowed for braking much closer to the bend.

Figure 11. Straight lines and hairpin bend, no aerodynamics: (left) speed and (right) accelerations with
respect to 𝑠.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1498 12 of 14
Figure 10. Straight lines and hairpin bend path.
Figure 10. Straight lines and hairpin bend path.

Figure
11.11. Straight
Straight linesand
lines and hairpinbend,
bend, noaerodynamics:
aerodynamics: (left)
(left)speed
speedand
and(right)
(right)accelerations with
Figure
Figure 11. Straight lines andhairpin
hairpin bend,no
no aerodynamics: (left) speed and (right) accelerations
accelerations with
with
respect
respect to to 𝑠.
s.
respect to 𝑠.

Figure 12. Straight lines and hairpin bend, aerodynamics: (left) speed and (right) accelerations with
respect to s.

5. Conclusions
This paper discussed a simple yet insightful method for lap time optimisation. By using a
purposely simple vehicle model, the physical constraints as a result of the grip, aerodynamics, and
power limit of a generic vehicle were modelled. A rigorous approach was followed in order to work out
the curvature of a generic trajectory as a function of a generic parameter which might not correspond
to the arc length.
The simulation results allow for the assessment and understanding of the common peculiarities
pertaining to the minimum lap time optimisation problem. These include, for example, the combined
(longitudinal and lateral) tyre–road interactions, and the effects of both the aerodynamic drag and
downforce. Interestingly, the script developed in Section 4.3 will easily allow for the modelling of any
real track, which can be well approximated by a mix of straight lines connected through sequences of
arcs of circumference.
The computational simplicity of the developed algorithm can be combined with more complicated
vehicle/tyre models. As future steps, the authors are working on improving the vehicle dynamics
model by: (i) dropping the hypothesis of mass point, (ii) enhancing the tyre modelling, and (iii)
extending the algorithm to multi-dimensional tracks. Furthermore, the authors intend to perform
appropriate performance comparisons with other methods presented in the literature.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.L. and V.R.; methodology, B.L. and V.R; software, B.L. and V.R;
validation, B.L. and V.R.; formal analysis, B.L. and V.R.; investigation, B.L. and V.R.; data curation, B.L. and V.R.;
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1498 13 of 14

writing—original draft preparation, B.L.; writing—review and editing, B.L.; All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Metz, D.; Williams, D. Near time-optimal control of racing vehicles. Automatica 1989, 25, 841–857. [CrossRef]
2. Van Leeuwen, P.M.; de Groot, S.; Happee, R.; de Winter, J.C. Differences between racing and non-racing
drivers: A simulator study using eye-tracking. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0186871. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Gadola, M.; Vetturi, D.; Cambiaghi, D.; Manzo, L. A Tool for Lap Time Simulation (No. 962529); SAE Technical
Paper; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 1996.
4. Scherenberg, H. Mercedes-Benz Racing Design and Cars Experience (No. 580042); SAE Technical Paper; SAE
International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 1985.
5. Lenzo, B.; Zanchetta, M.; Sorniotti, A.; Gruber, P.; De Nijs, W. Yaw Rate and Sideslip Angle Control through
Single Input Single Output Direct Yaw Moment Control. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2020, 1–16.
[CrossRef]
6. Dal Bianco, N.; Lot, R.; Gadola, M. Minimum time optimal control simulation of a GP2 race car. Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng. Part D J. Automob. Eng. 2018, 232, 1180–1195. [CrossRef]
7. Kirches, C.; Sager, S.; Bock, H.G.; Schlöder, J.P. Time-optimal control of automobile test drives with gear
shifts. Optim. Control Appl. Methods 2010, 31, 137–153. [CrossRef]
8. Kelly, D.P.; Sharp, R.S. Time-optimal control of the race car: A numerical method to emulate the ideal driver.
Veh. Syst. Dyn. 2010, 48, 1461–1474. [CrossRef]
9. Tavernini, D.; Massaro, M.; Velenis, E.; Katzourakis, D.I.; Lot, R. Minimum time cornering: The effect of road
surface and car transmission layout. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 2013, 51, 1533–1547. [CrossRef]
10. Biral, F.; Zendri, F.; Bertolazzi, E.; Bosetti, P.; Galvani, M.; Trivellato, F.; Da Lio, M. A web based “virtual racing
car championship” to teach vehicle dynamics and multidisciplinary design. In Proceedings of the ASME
2011 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Denver, CO, USA, 11–17 November
2011; American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection: New York, NY, USA; pp. 391–401.
11. Dal Bianco, N.; Bertolazzi, E.; Biral, F.; Massaro, M. Comparison of direct and indirect methods for minimum
lap time optimal control problems. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 2019, 57, 665–696. [CrossRef]
12. Brayshaw, D.L.; Harrison, M.F. A quasi steady state approach to race car lap simulation in order to understand
the effects of racing line and centre of gravity location. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part D J. Automob. Eng. 2005,
219, 725–739. [CrossRef]
13. Veneri, M.; Massaro, M. A free-trajectory quasi-steady-state optimal-control method for minimum lap-time
of race vehicles. In The IAVSD International Symposium on Dynamics of Vehicles on Roads and Tracks; Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 1–22.
14. Siegler, B.; Deakin, A.; Crolla, D. Lap Time Simulation: Comparison of Steady State, Quasi-Static and Transient
Racing Car Cornering Strategies (No. 2000-01-3563); SAE Technical Paper; SAE International: Warrendale, PA,
USA, 2000.
15. Völkl, T.; Muehlmeier, M.; Winner, H. Extended steady state lap time simulation for analyzing transient
vehicle behavior. SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars-Mech. Syst. 2013, 6, 283–292. [CrossRef]
16. Lot, R.; Biral, F. A curvilinear abscissa approach for the lap time optimization of racing vehicles. IFAC Proc.
Vol. 2014, 47, 7559–7565. [CrossRef]
17. Kelly, D.P. Lap time simulation with transient vehicle and tyre dynamics. Available online: https://dspace.lib.
cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/4791 (accessed on 21 January 2020).
18. Casanova, D. On minimum time vehicle manoeuvring: The theoretical optimal lap. Available online:
https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/1091 (accessed on 21 January 2020).
19. Malcher, S.; Bargende, M.; Grill, M.; Baretzky, U.; Diel, H.; Wohlgemuth, S. Virtual Optimization of Race Engines
Through an Extended Quasi Steady State Lap Time Simulation Approach (No. 2018-01-0587); SAE Technical Paper;
SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2018.
20. Mühlmeier, M.; Müller, N. Optimisation of the driving line on a race track. AutoTechnology 2003, 3, 68–71.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1498 14 of 14

21. Genta, G. Motor Vehicle Dynamics: Modeling and Simulation; World Scientific: Singapore, 1997; Volume 43.
22. Curvature and Normal Vectors of a Curve. Available online: https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/
Calculus/Supplemental_Modules_(Calculus)/Vector_Calculus/2%3A_Vector-Valued_Functions_and_
Motion_in_Space/2.3%3A_Curvature_and_Normal_Vectors_of_a_Curve (accessed on 30 November 2019).

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).