Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #146550 > unrolled thread

How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing.

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-23 13:00 -0700
    Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-10-25 09:11 +0100
      Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-25 11:05 -0700
        Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-10-25 22:19 +0100
          Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-25 14:38 -0700
    Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 07:38 -0400
      Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-26 11:55 -0700
        Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 09:19 -0400
          Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2026-10-28 11:37 -0400
    Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 11:49 -0400
      Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-26 11:34 -0700
        Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 09:58 -0400
          Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-28 11:57 -0700
            Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 17:38 -0400
              Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-28 14:43 -0700
                Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 07:46 -0400
                  Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-29 10:35 -0700
                    Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 14:17 -0400
                      Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-29 11:40 -0700
                        Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-30 10:41 -0400
                          Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-30 10:24 -0700
                            Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-30 14:39 -0400
                              Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-30 11:57 -0700
                  Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-29 11:14 -0700
                    OT: And the coward ducked out of this one... (was Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-30 10:26 -0700
              Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-10-29 07:46 +0100
                Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-29 01:26 -0700
                  Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-10-29 11:17 +0100
                    Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-29 11:09 -0700
                      Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. News <News@Group.Name> - 2026-10-29 16:04 -0400
                        Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-29 13:13 -0700
                          Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. News <News@Group.Name> - 2026-10-30 09:59 -0400
    Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 18:15 -0400
      Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-27 15:56 -0700
    Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing. Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 08:08 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#146600

On 2026-10-30 07:41, Tom Elam wrote:
> On 10/29/26 2:40 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> So do you contend that a parabolic shape is the best racing line in 
>>> all situations for all track curves? if so, prove me wrong.
>>
>> You just two posts ago claimed the clothoid was the "best racing line" 
>> without caveats...
> 
> Oh my, another Fakerboy deflection! What are the chances? 99.999%!
> 
> A parabolic line is a subset of a clothoid with a unique set of 
> coefficients. Anyway, see the proof of your error below.

Liarboy...once again your AI searches have failed you.A clothoid is 
inherently a spiral...and therefore it cannot be varied with any 
coefficients to form a parabola, a curve whose curvature starts very 
low, reaches a maximum at the vertex, and then once again decreases as 
you go up the other limb of the parabola.

> 
> Here is a non-AI explanation of why a parabolic shape racing line 
> touching the apex at 45 degrees into a 90 degree turn is often not the 
> ideal racing line, and a later apex is.
> 
> https://www.drivingfast.net/racing-line/


I didn't say that you used that parabola to touch the apex at the 
midpoint of the corner, Liarboy.

You assumed it.

The parabolic line only represents the shape from corner entry to the 
car's slowest speed (and tightest radius).

Where in that is there any stricture that says that that must happen 
(for instance) "at 45 degrees into a 90 degree turn"?

No. Exactly as that article shows, that tightest point of curvature for 
the traditional, single-corner leading onto a straight, "modern racing 
line"...

...(although "modern" is entirely a misnomer, as no one has used what 
they call the "classic" line for decades and decades)...

...(and in both Diagram 2 and Diagram 3)...

...that tightest curvature occurs BEFORE the apex of the corner is touched.

> 
> Quote:
> 
> Common mistake:
> 
> It's very common for drivers to apex too early due to nerves about the 
> approaching corner and eagerness to take the turn. The racing line apex 
> which is often out of view at the point of turn in, or further round the 
> corner than you expect (see Diagram 3 below). This is where experience 
> and track knowledge come in.
> 
> End Quote

And?

Note the article says NOTHING about the shape of the car's path.

In fact, there is no occurrence of the word "parabola" OR "clothoid" on 
the entire site.

> 
> I'm thinking that you simply lacked the nerve to follow the fastest 
> racing line. What the heck did they teach you at that fancy racing school?

And what in the world would make you think that the fastest racing line 
requires any more nerve, Liarboy?

More ignorance on your part.

> 
> Your shocking lack of basic racing techniques makes me more certain than 
> ever that you could never be considered an exceptional driver in the 
> SCCBC world.

Your shocking lack of understanding of the subject is the reason for 
your certainty.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146602

On 10/30/26 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:
> The parabolic line only represents the shape from corner entry to the 
> car's slowest speed (and tightest radius).

But you originally said "parabola". It is not, and now just just 
contradicted yourself and changed your statement from "parabola" to 
"parabolic line".

Quote:

I'll tell you one little thing:

The line IN to the middle of a corner...

...from braking to speed necessary to simply negotiate it...

...forms a parabola...

End Quote

 From Wikipedia

The parabola is a member of the family of conic sections.
In mathematics, a parabola (/pəˈræbələ/ pə-RA-bə-lə) is a plane curve 
which is mirror-symmetrical and is approximately U-shaped. It fits 
several superficially different mathematical descriptions, which can all 
be proved to define exactly the same curves.

End quote

What you are now saying is correct does not fit this definition. Among 
other details, a parabola will always reverse direction at 90 degrees at 
the vertex. That would be halfway through a 90 degree turn.

See first graph at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabola

If your apex is past the vertex the path is is non-symmetrical and not a 
even a parabolic line. Guess what it really is?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146603

On 2026-10-30 11:39, Tom Elam wrote:
> On 10/30/26 1:24 PM, Alan wrote:
>> The parabolic line only represents the shape from corner entry to the 
>> car's slowest speed (and tightest radius).
> 
> But you originally said "parabola". It is not, and now just just 
> contradicted yourself and changed your statement from "parabola" to 
> "parabolic line".

"parabolic" is just the adjectival form of the word "parabola"

> 
> Quote:
> 
> I'll tell you one little thing:
> 
> The line IN to the middle of a corner...
> 
> ...from braking to speed necessary to simply negotiate it...
> 
> ...forms a parabola...
> 
> End Quote
> 

Yes, yes.. I didn't say a "part of a parabola".

I thought that would have been obvious from the fact that I said: "in to 
the middle of a corner".

And I meant "middle" from an ACTION standpoint. i.e. the transition from 
the braking (and turning) phase of the corner to the accelerating (and 
turning) phase.

>  From Wikipedia
> 
> The parabola is a member of the family of conic sections.
> In mathematics, a parabola (/pəˈræbələ/ pə-RA-bə-lə) is a plane curve 
> which is mirror-symmetrical and is approximately U-shaped. It fits 
> several superficially different mathematical descriptions, which can all 
> be proved to define exactly the same curves.
> 
> End quote
> 
> What you are now saying is correct does not fit this definition. Among 
> other details, a parabola will always reverse direction at 90 degrees at 
> the vertex. That would be halfway through a 90 degree turn.


Nope. There is no connection at all between where the parabolic portion 
of the racing line happens with the corner's geometry. The line gets to 
the vertex of the parabola BEFORE the car gets all the way into the 
apex, and then the shape of the curve is more complex.

> 
> See first graph at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabola
> 
> If your apex is past the vertex the path is is non-symmetrical and not a 
> even a parabolic line. Guess what it really is?

Not a clothoid. (I notice you've completely snipped the portion where I 
destroyed your argument that a parabola is just a clothoid with specific 
parameters. How very gracious of you!)

And the whole reason I specified that the line is parabolic from corner 
entry to the point of lowest speed is that the traction available is 
only a circle in the braking and lateral portions of the "friction circle".

Have you ever even HEARD of the "friction circle"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146581

On 2026-10-29 04:46, Tom Elam wrote:
> On 10/28/26 5:43 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> You corrected me on the local rules and I accepted and respected your 
>>> reply.
>> Only after arguing it ENDLESSLY.
>>
>> I'll tell you one little thing:
>>
>> The line IN to the middle of a corner...
>>
>> ...from braking to speed necessary to simply negotiate it...
>>
>> ...forms a parabola...
>>
>> ...for any corner up to 90 degrees.
> 
> NO! It's a lot mope complicated. Google "is a parabola always fastest 
> racing line" please. But you won't, so I will save you the trouble:
> 
> Quote:
> 
> No, a parabola is not always the fastest racing line.
> While a symmetric parabolic line (often associated with trail braking 
> into a pinched corner and an early throttle-out) works well for certain 
> isolated or specific turn types, the absolute fastest racing line 
> depends heavily on the context of the track.
> 
> Why a Parabola Isn't Always Fastest
> 
> • Corner Isolation vs. Sequences: A geometric or parabolic line assumes 
> a corner exists in complete isolation. On a real track, corners connect 
> to other corners, hairpins, or straights, meaning you must compromise 
> entry or mid-corner speed to maximize acceleration onto the most 
> important or longest straight.
> 
> • Car Performance and Power: For low-power cars, prioritizing a late 
> apex to get on the throttle earlier outweighs maintaining a smooth 
> parabolic mid-corner speed. For high-power or heavy cars, the physics of 
> weight transfer and tire grip change the ideal curve.
> 
> • Alternative Mathematical Curves: True mathematical optimizations for 
> race tracks frequently use Euler spirals (clothoids) or compound curves 
> rather than a simple parabola to transition smoothly between straight- 
> line braking, steady turning radius, and full-throttle exit.
> 
> • Defensive Driving and Traffic: Real-world racing requires adjusting 
> lines to block competitors, avoid marbles/debris off-line, or manage wet 
> weather grip, overriding pure theoretical geometry.
> 
> End quote
> 
> Hmmmm
> 
> Maybe your mistaken belief in parabolic racing lines helps explain how 
> McKay, McColl and Floer beat you so often.

BTW.

Isn't it interesting how you never mentioned any situational differences 
when you were declaring what you ignorantly thought was the ideal line?

:-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146601 — OT: And the coward ducked out of this one... (was Re: How badly Arlen/Maria gets it wrong: the catenary curve and road racing.

On 2026-10-29 11:14, Alan wrote:
> On 2026-10-29 04:46, Tom Elam wrote:
>> On 10/28/26 5:43 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> You corrected me on the local rules and I accepted and respected 
>>>> your reply.
>>> Only after arguing it ENDLESSLY.
>>>
>>> I'll tell you one little thing:
>>>
>>> The line IN to the middle of a corner...
>>>
>>> ...from braking to speed necessary to simply negotiate it...
>>>
>>> ...forms a parabola...
>>>
>>> ...for any corner up to 90 degrees.
>>
>> NO! It's a lot mope complicated. Google "is a parabola always fastest 
>> racing line" please. But you won't, so I will save you the trouble:
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> No, a parabola is not always the fastest racing line.
>> While a symmetric parabolic line (often associated with trail braking 
>> into a pinched corner and an early throttle-out) works well for 
>> certain isolated or specific turn types, the absolute fastest racing 
>> line depends heavily on the context of the track.
>>
>> Why a Parabola Isn't Always Fastest
>>
>> • Corner Isolation vs. Sequences: A geometric or parabolic line 
>> assumes a corner exists in complete isolation. On a real track, 
>> corners connect to other corners, hairpins, or straights, meaning you 
>> must compromise entry or mid-corner speed to maximize acceleration 
>> onto the most important or longest straight.
>>
>> • Car Performance and Power: For low-power cars, prioritizing a late 
>> apex to get on the throttle earlier outweighs maintaining a smooth 
>> parabolic mid-corner speed. For high-power or heavy cars, the physics 
>> of weight transfer and tire grip change the ideal curve.
>>
>> • Alternative Mathematical Curves: True mathematical optimizations for 
>> race tracks frequently use Euler spirals (clothoids) or compound 
>> curves rather than a simple parabola to transition smoothly between 
>> straight- line braking, steady turning radius, and full-throttle exit.
>>
>> • Defensive Driving and Traffic: Real-world racing requires adjusting 
>> lines to block competitors, avoid marbles/debris off-line, or manage 
>> wet weather grip, overriding pure theoretical geometry.
>>
>> End quote
>>
>> Hmmmm
>>
>> Maybe your mistaken belief in parabolic racing lines helps explain how 
>> McKay, McColl and Floer beat you so often.
> 
> BTW.
> 
> Isn't it interesting how you never mentioned any situational differences 
> when you were declaring what you ignorantly thought was the ideal line?
> 
> :-)

Well, Liarboy?

And I added "OT:" for the pedants.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146573

On 28.10.26 22:38, Tom Elam wrote:
> On 10/28/26 2:57 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2026-10-28 06:58, Tom Elam wrote:
>>> On 10/26/26 2:34 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2026-10-26 08:49, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>>> On 10/23/26 4:00 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> So far, I haven't found a convincing reference that makes that 
>>>>>> exact identification. I did find some useful sources discussing the 
>>>>>> mathematical shape of a racing line, which help distinguish a 
>>>>>> catenary from other curves that might look similar.'
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just Google "catenary curve in road racing" guys
>>>>>
>>>>> The Misconception vs. The Reality
>>>>>
>>>>> In racing, drivers strive to find the line of maximum radius (the 
>>>>> geometric apex) or the line of maximum exit speed (the late apex).
>>>>>
>>>>> • The Misconception: Some automotive enthusiasts use "catenary" to 
>>>>> describe a smooth, naturally flowing, variable-radius curve that 
>>>>> transitions seamlessly into and out of a corner.
>>>>>
>>>>> • The Reality: True racing lines do not follow a catenary formula 
>>>>> (\(y = a \cdot \cosh(x/a)\)). Instead, they are composed of 
>>>>> clothoids (Euler spirals) for entering and exiting a turn, and 
>>>>> circular arcs at the apex.
>>>>>
>>>>> And this
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why Track Designers Use Spirals (Not Catenaries)
>>>>>
>>>>> When a race car transitions from a straightaway into a corner, it 
>>>>> cannot instantly switch from zero steering angle to a sharp turning 
>>>>> angle. Doing so would upset the chassis and break tire traction.
>>>>>
>>>>> • Linear Steering Input: Designers use clothoid spirals because they 
>>>>> mirror human physiology and physics. As a driver turns the steering 
>>>>> wheel at a constant speed while driving forward, the car naturally 
>>>>> traces a clothoid.
>>>>>
>>>>> • Load Transfer: This gradual increase in curvature allows the 
>>>>> weight of the vehicle to shift smoothly to the outside tires, 
>>>>> maximizing grip.
>>>>
>>>> You should quit while you're behind.
>>>
>>> Yet another example of Fakerboy acting like his insulting behavior 
>>> model, Donald Trump.
>>>
>>> So, what exactly is wrong with the statements above that are not mine, 
>>> but were found on the web? You will not answer, you will deflect with 
>>> another insult.
>>>
>>> A catenary line implies you would tangentially touch the apex at a 
>>> single point halfway through a constant radius curve. That is far from 
>>> ideal.
>>>
>>> The quote below applies to single curves. Chicanes get a lot more 
>>> complicated depending on how tight they are. Also, curves are not 
>>> always constant radius.
>>>
>>> Reference: Google "clothoid racing line" to find:
>>>
>>> quote:
>>>
>>> What is a Clothoid Racing Line?
>>>
>>> • Smooth Transition: Instead of a driver abruptly steering into a 
>>> sharp, fixed-radius circular arc, a clothoid-based entry and exit 
>>> smoothly blend the straightaway into the corner.
>>>
>>> • Control of Lateral Force: It ramps up lateral (centripetal) 
>>> acceleration gradually rather than instantaneously, preventing sudden 
>>> tire slip or chassis shock.
>>>
>>> • Optimization in Path Planning: Autonomous vehicle controllers and 
>>> automated racing algorithms use clothoid segments or splines to 
>>> mathematically map the ideal, continuous path between straight and 
>>> curved track segments.
>>>
>>> Why Not Just Use a Standard Circle?
>>>
>>> • A True Circle is Suboptimal: A pure circular racing line forces a 
>>> constant speed or awkward trail-braking transition if you are driving 
>>> at the limit.
>>>
>>> • Jerk and Grip Management: Real-world racing lines use variable- 
>>> radius approaches (resembling Euler spirals or oval/droop-snoot 
>>> trajectories) to delay braking, maximize the apex speed, and get the 
>>> car pointing straight toward the exit sooner.
>>>
>>> end quote
>>>
>>> PS: I learned this years ago racing go karts. The truth is that the 
>>> ideal racing line is different for every race course and cannot be a 
>>> single simple symmetrical curve for every corner.
>>
>> Your "analysis" is as shallow as the argument you made when you first 
>> declared that Honda-powered Formula F cars weren't legal at Mission.
> 
> Total BS. Just another Trump-like knee-jerk response.
> 
> I learned racing lines following faster go kart drivers many years ago. 
> The above makes total sense to me. If you disagree feel free to share 
> your knowledge. Until then shut up.
> 
> You corrected me on the local rules and I accepted and respected your reply.

Is ist possible for you two OT-Trolls to have this discussion privately?!

-- 
Ave Caesar! Morituri te salutant!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146575

On 2026-10-28 23:46, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 28.10.26 22:38, Tom Elam wrote:
>> On 10/28/26 2:57 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2026-10-28 06:58, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/26 2:34 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-10-26 08:49, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/23/26 4:00 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> So far, I haven't found a convincing reference that makes that
>>>>>>> exact identification. I did find some useful sources discussing the
>>>>>>> mathematical shape of a racing line, which help distinguish a
>>>>>>> catenary from other curves that might look similar.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just Google "catenary curve in road racing" guys
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Misconception vs. The Reality
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In racing, drivers strive to find the line of maximum radius (the
>>>>>> geometric apex) or the line of maximum exit speed (the late apex).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> • The Misconception: Some automotive enthusiasts use "catenary" to
>>>>>> describe a smooth, naturally flowing, variable-radius curve that
>>>>>> transitions seamlessly into and out of a corner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> • The Reality: True racing lines do not follow a catenary formula
>>>>>> (\(y = a \cdot \cosh(x/a)\)). Instead, they are composed of
>>>>>> clothoids (Euler spirals) for entering and exiting a turn, and
>>>>>> circular arcs at the apex.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why Track Designers Use Spirals (Not Catenaries)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a race car transitions from a straightaway into a corner, it
>>>>>> cannot instantly switch from zero steering angle to a sharp turning
>>>>>> angle. Doing so would upset the chassis and break tire traction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> • Linear Steering Input: Designers use clothoid spirals because they
>>>>>> mirror human physiology and physics. As a driver turns the steering
>>>>>> wheel at a constant speed while driving forward, the car naturally
>>>>>> traces a clothoid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> • Load Transfer: This gradual increase in curvature allows the
>>>>>> weight of the vehicle to shift smoothly to the outside tires,
>>>>>> maximizing grip.
>>>>>
>>>>> You should quit while you're behind.
>>>>
>>>> Yet another example of Fakerboy acting like his insulting behavior
>>>> model, Donald Trump.
>>>>
>>>> So, what exactly is wrong with the statements above that are not mine,
>>>> but were found on the web? You will not answer, you will deflect with
>>>> another insult.
>>>>
>>>> A catenary line implies you would tangentially touch the apex at a
>>>> single point halfway through a constant radius curve. That is far from
>>>> ideal.
>>>>
>>>> The quote below applies to single curves. Chicanes get a lot more
>>>> complicated depending on how tight they are. Also, curves are not
>>>> always constant radius.
>>>>
>>>> Reference: Google "clothoid racing line" to find:
>>>>
>>>> quote:
>>>>
>>>> What is a Clothoid Racing Line?
>>>>
>>>> • Smooth Transition: Instead of a driver abruptly steering into a
>>>> sharp, fixed-radius circular arc, a clothoid-based entry and exit
>>>> smoothly blend the straightaway into the corner.
>>>>
>>>> • Control of Lateral Force: It ramps up lateral (centripetal)
>>>> acceleration gradually rather than instantaneously, preventing sudden
>>>> tire slip or chassis shock.
>>>>
>>>> • Optimization in Path Planning: Autonomous vehicle controllers and
>>>> automated racing algorithms use clothoid segments or splines to
>>>> mathematically map the ideal, continuous path between straight and
>>>> curved track segments.
>>>>
>>>> Why Not Just Use a Standard Circle?
>>>>
>>>> • A True Circle is Suboptimal: A pure circular racing line forces a
>>>> constant speed or awkward trail-braking transition if you are driving
>>>> at the limit.
>>>>
>>>> • Jerk and Grip Management: Real-world racing lines use variable-
>>>> radius approaches (resembling Euler spirals or oval/droop-snoot
>>>> trajectories) to delay braking, maximize the apex speed, and get the
>>>> car pointing straight toward the exit sooner.
>>>>
>>>> end quote
>>>>
>>>> PS: I learned this years ago racing go karts. The truth is that the
>>>> ideal racing line is different for every race course and cannot be a
>>>> single simple symmetrical curve for every corner.
>>>
>>> Your "analysis" is as shallow as the argument you made when you first
>>> declared that Honda-powered Formula F cars weren't legal at Mission.
>>
>> Total BS. Just another Trump-like knee-jerk response.
>>
>> I learned racing lines following faster go kart drivers many years ago.
>> The above makes total sense to me. If you disagree feel free to share
>> your knowledge. Until then shut up.
>>
>> You corrected me on the local rules and I accepted and respected your reply.
> 
> Is ist possible for you two OT-Trolls to have this discussion privately?!
> 

Is it possible you could see a thread you don't want to read and just 
killfile it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146576

On 29.10.26 09:26, Alan wrote:
> On 2026-10-28 23:46, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 28.10.26 22:38, Tom Elam wrote:
>>> You corrected me on the local rules and I accepted and respected your reply.
>>
>> Is ist possible for you two OT-Trolls to have this discussion privately?!
>>
> 
> Is it possible you could see a thread you don't want to read and just 
> killfile it?

No. You stop OT-discussions. That is a question of politeness.


-- 
Ave Caesar! Morituri te salutant!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146580

On 2026-10-29 03:17, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 29.10.26 09:26, Alan wrote:
>> On 2026-10-28 23:46, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> On 28.10.26 22:38, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>> You corrected me on the local rules and I accepted and respected your reply.
>>>
>>> Is ist possible for you two OT-Trolls to have this discussion privately?!
>>>
>>
>> Is it possible you could see a thread you don't want to read and just
>> killfile it?
> 
> No. You stop OT-discussions. That is a question of politeness.
I disagree.

It is impolite to hold a loud discussion in a room with other people...

...if those people have another reason to be there...

...because those people have no reasonable way not to be bothered by it.

It is impolite when people send you spam emails...

...precisely because there is no easy way for you to get all of them out 
of your inbox.

On the other hand, here you have a perfectly reasonable and easy way to 
not be bother by any discussion in a newsgroup.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146585

On 10/29/2026 2:09 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2026-10-29 03:17, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 29.10.26 09:26, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2026-10-28 23:46, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> On 28.10.26 22:38, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>>> You corrected me on the local rules and I accepted and respected 
>>>>> your reply.
>>>>
>>>> Is ist possible for you two OT-Trolls to have this discussion 
>>>> privately?!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is it possible you could see a thread you don't want to read and just
>>> killfile it?
>>
>> No. You stop OT-discussions. That is a question of politeness.
> I disagree.
> 
> It is impolite to hold a loud discussion in a room with other people...
> 
> ...if those people have another reason to be there...
> 
> ...because those people have no reasonable way not to be bothered by it.
> 
> It is impolite when people send you spam emails...
> 
> ...precisely because there is no easy way for you to get all of them out 
> of your inbox.
> 
> On the other hand, here you have a perfectly reasonable and easy way to 
> not be bother by any discussion in a newsgroup.


Ever the pedant, stinking up the room(s).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146587

On 2026-10-29 13:04, News wrote:
> On 10/29/2026 2:09 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2026-10-29 03:17, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> On 29.10.26 09:26, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2026-10-28 23:46, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> On 28.10.26 22:38, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>>>> You corrected me on the local rules and I accepted and respected 
>>>>>> your reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is ist possible for you two OT-Trolls to have this discussion 
>>>>> privately?!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it possible you could see a thread you don't want to read and just
>>>> killfile it?
>>>
>>> No. You stop OT-discussions. That is a question of politeness.
>> I disagree.
>>
>> It is impolite to hold a loud discussion in a room with other people...
>>
>> ...if those people have another reason to be there...
>>
>> ...because those people have no reasonable way not to be bothered by it.
>>
>> It is impolite when people send you spam emails...
>>
>> ...precisely because there is no easy way for you to get all of them 
>> out of your inbox.
>>
>> On the other hand, here you have a perfectly reasonable and easy way 
>> to not be bother by any discussion in a newsgroup.
> 
> 
> Ever the pedant, stinking up the room(s).

Ever the asshole.

Deliberately poking his nose into a thread that doesn't actually 
interest him.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146596

On 10/29/2026 4:13 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2026-10-29 13:04, News wrote:
>> On 10/29/2026 2:09 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2026-10-29 03:17, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> On 29.10.26 09:26, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-10-28 23:46, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>> On 28.10.26 22:38, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>>>>> You corrected me on the local rules and I accepted and respected 
>>>>>>> your reply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is ist possible for you two OT-Trolls to have this discussion 
>>>>>> privately?!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it possible you could see a thread you don't want to read and just
>>>>> killfile it?
>>>>
>>>> No. You stop OT-discussions. That is a question of politeness.
>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>> It is impolite to hold a loud discussion in a room with other people...
>>>
>>> ...if those people have another reason to be there...
>>>
>>> ...because those people have no reasonable way not to be bothered by it.
>>>
>>> It is impolite when people send you spam emails...
>>>
>>> ...precisely because there is no easy way for you to get all of them 
>>> out of your inbox.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, here you have a perfectly reasonable and easy way 
>>> to not be bother by any discussion in a newsgroup.
>>
>>
>> Ever the pedant, stinking up the room(s).
> 
> Ever the asshole.
> 
> Deliberately poking his nose into a thread that doesn't actually 
> interest him.


It's clinically interesting to watch a perma-pedant perform.

Do continue. Since you will.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146560

On 10/23/2026 4:00 PM, Alan wrote:

> For quite some while, we've seen that once Arlen/Andy/Wally J/Maria/ 
> (other numerous posting nyms) gets an idea fixed in his/her head, almost 
> no demonstrations of facts will sway him/her.
> 
> For instance!
> 
> I'm a road racing driver and instructor. I've been racing since 2013.
> 
> But for Arlen (I knew him first by that nym, IIRC) he became convinced 
> that I couldn't possibly be those things...
> 
> ...despite lots of conclusive evidence of the fact.
> 
> And it boiled down to only a couple of things.
> 
> First, I drive a BMW 135i, and Arlen insisted that if I didn't know 
> which nicknames were used for BMW's cars and motorcyles, then I couldn't 
> possibly be a racing driver. Mar 9, 2023
> 
> 'If Alan claims to race beemers, he's a moron for not even knowing the 
> first thing about his fabrications since the term came about in racing 
> circles.
> 
> Jesus Christ.
> What kind of idiot 'racer' doesn't know that?
> 
> Hence, I wish you wouldn't quote that moron Alan Baker, Jolly Roger, but
> now that you have, if he doesn't even know the difference between a 
> bimmer and a beemer, there's zero chance of his track fabrication being 
> true.'
> 
> And on December 20, 2023, he brought up the "catenary" curve.:
> 
> 'That's why I brought up the word "catenary" which _every_ (real) racer
> knows all about, as it's one of the most important words in racing 
> schools.'
> 
> And now (of course) he's taken to using AI LLMs to try and "prove" his 
> "facts"...
> 
> ...so I did the same:
> 
> I asked Gemini:
> 
> "Can you find any reference online that refers to the shape of the curve 
> a road racing car takes through a corner as being a catenary curve?"
> 
> And the response was:
> 
> "No, online references and vehicle dynamics literature do not refer to 
> the curve a racing car takes through a corner as a catenary curve."
> 
> But let's not stop there!
> 
> I asked ChatGPT the same question, and it answered:
> 
> 'I searched for references that explicitly describe a road-racing car's 
> path through a corner as a catenary curve, rather than merely discussing 
> the geometry of the racing line.
> 
> So far, I haven't found a convincing reference that makes that exact 
> identification. I did find some useful sources discussing the 
> mathematical shape of a racing line, which help distinguish a catenary 
> from other curves that might look similar.'
> 
> But my laughing at him over this led to him putting me in his kill file!
> 
> And after scouring the internet, the only place he could find a 
> reference to a "catenary" curve in racing...
> 
> ...was the curve that one programmer chose to use...
> 
> ...in a simulation...
> 
> ...of a track for racing model wooden race cars...
> 
> ...that were about one foot long!


I believe you.  You're the one with standing, integrity.  We've had our 
disagreements, but I haven't sensed dishonesty, from you.  These other 
characters don't hit me the same way.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146561

On Oct 27, 2026 at 3:15 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote in
11br7q9$1ub6f$1@dont-email.me:
> On 10/23/2026 4:00 PM, Alan wrote:
> 
>> For quite some while, we've seen that once Arlen/Andy/Wally J/Maria/
>> (other numerous posting nyms) gets an idea fixed in his/her head,
>> almost no demonstrations of facts will sway him/her.
>>
>> For instance!
>>
>> I'm a road racing driver and instructor. I've been racing since 2013.
>>
>> But for Arlen (I knew him first by that nym, IIRC) he became
>> convinced that I couldn't possibly be those things...
>>
>> ...despite lots of conclusive evidence of the fact.
>>
>> And it boiled down to only a couple of things.
>>
>> First, I drive a BMW 135i, and Arlen insisted that if I didn't know
>> which nicknames were used for BMW's cars and motorcyles, then I
>> couldn't possibly be a racing driver. Mar 9, 2023
>>
>> 'If Alan claims to race beemers, he's a moron for not even knowing
>> the first thing about his fabrications since the term came about in
>> racing circles.
>>
>> Jesus Christ.
>> What kind of idiot 'racer' doesn't know that?
>>
>> Hence, I wish you wouldn't quote that moron Alan Baker, Jolly Roger,
>> but now that you have, if he doesn't even know the difference between
>> a bimmer and a beemer, there's zero chance of his track fabrication
>> being true.'
>>
>> And on December 20, 2023, he brought up the "catenary" curve.:
>>
>> 'That's why I brought up the word "catenary" which _every_ (real)
>> racer knows all about, as it's one of the most important words in
>> racing schools.'
>>
>> And now (of course) he's taken to using AI LLMs to try and "prove"
>> his "facts"...
>>
>> ...so I did the same:
>>
>> I asked Gemini:
>>
>> "Can you find any reference online that refers to the shape of the
>> curve a road racing car takes through a corner as being a catenary
>> curve?"
>>
>> And the response was:
>>
>> "No, online references and vehicle dynamics literature do not refer
>> to the curve a racing car takes through a corner as a catenary
>> curve."
>>
>> But let's not stop there!
>>
>> I asked ChatGPT the same question, and it answered:
>>
>> 'I searched for references that explicitly describe a road-racing
>> car's path through a corner as a catenary curve, rather than merely
>> discussing the geometry of the racing line.
>>
>> So far, I haven't found a convincing reference that makes that exact
>> identification. I did find some useful sources discussing the
>> mathematical shape of a racing line, which help distinguish a
>> catenary from other curves that might look similar.'
>>
>> But my laughing at him over this led to him putting me in his kill
>> file!
>>
>> And after scouring the internet, the only place he could find a
>> reference to a "catenary" curve in racing...
>>
>> ...was the curve that one programmer chose to use...
>>
>> ...in a simulation...
>>
>> ...of a track for racing model wooden race cars...
>>
>> ...that were about one foot long!
> 
> 
> I believe you. You're the one with standing, integrity. We've had our
> disagreements, but I haven't sensed dishonesty, from you. These other
> characters don't hit me the same way.

Alan and I disagree at times but overall I think he is one of the good
ones.

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146564

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> For quite some while, we've seen that once Arlen/Andy/Wally 
> J/Maria/(other numerous posting nyms) gets an idea fixed in his/her 
> head, almost no demonstrations of facts will sway him/her.
> 
> For instance!
> 
> I'm a road racing driver and instructor. I've been racing since 2013.

Of all the things he's been lying about lately and you dredge up *this*?!

At least Donald's posts are mostly on-topic...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web