Speedway Motorcycle Racing Physics

AI Thread Summary
Speedway motorcycle racing features four riders on single-speed bikes without brakes racing on a dirt oval track, where they often slide sideways through corners. A key technique involves tucking the body to the left and adjusting the bike's position to enhance traction and control during turns. The discussion raises questions about the physics behind standing the bike upright while leaning, suggesting it may affect tire behavior and suspension characteristics. It is noted that this technique may be particularly beneficial for navigating tighter corners, allowing for better acceleration and faster lap times. Overall, the interplay of rider position, bike angle, and tire dynamics plays a crucial role in optimizing performance in speedway racing.
bdub_24
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
At least in the US, it's rare to find anyone that is familiar with speedway racing, so here is a very basic description of the sport:

Four riders race around a dirt oval track on single-speed motorcycles with no brakes. They slide sideways around the corners.

Here is a sample video:


I used to race in the US, and one of the techniques you learn to gain drive is: at the apex of the corner, tuck your body down to the left side of the bike, push the bike into an upright position (while still leaned left), and drag your left foot back toward the rear wheel (they don't do much of this in the video above as the track wasn't demanding). The attached a photo demonstrates what I'm talking about.

I understand that dragging your foot back will shift some weight toward the rear wheel to increase friction, but I've never understood why standing the bike upright is supposed to help considering you're still tucked to the left, thus your center of gravity is shifted left. They say it gives you a bigger "footprint" on the ground, but I know from physics that shouldn't be the case. I don't feel like this situation can be explained with managing tire temperature as one would explain the size of drag racing tires.

Any ideas?
 

Attachments

  • ac02.jpg
    ac02.jpg
    32.9 KB · Views: 947
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
You raise a good question. And all I have are a few thoughts:
An upright tire has a different behavior than a tilted one as I would imagine it is more rigid when pressed on the side, which would influence the suspension characteristics of it.
The tire treads would "cut" the dirt completely differently in tilted vs upright. Not that you cannot cut different treads on a tire for better side performance but in tilted it would hit the dirt from sideways and impart sideways kinetic motion instead of a sideways Force. So the overall behavior is different.
The specific sideways slide of this sport does not leave a lot of choice for the rider to balance the bike in a tilted position (how wrong am I here?).
 
To add to those thoughts, if the bike were leaned back further, perhaps you could not get as low off the side of the bike, because if you did, too much mass would be behind the contact part of the rubber with the ground. You could lose control and end up sliding in an undesired way - falling.
To get low, lowers the centre of gravity of the entire mass of rider and bike which would have to be beneficial in this sport. Because this is effectively being done by "flattening out" the mass of rider and bike (instead of having them stacked one on top of the other) you could simplistically interpret this as a "bigger footprint" for the mass (even though the more obvious "footprint" of the rubber remains relatively unchanged).
 
Lok said:
You raise a good question. And all I have are a few thoughts:
An upright tire has a different behavior than a tilted one as I would imagine it is more rigid when pressed on the side, which would influence the suspension characteristics of it.
The tire treads would "cut" the dirt completely differently in tilted vs upright. Not that you cannot cut different treads on a tire for better side performance but in tilted it would hit the dirt from sideways and impart sideways kinetic motion instead of a sideways Force. So the overall behavior is different.
The specific sideways slide of this sport does not leave a lot of choice for the rider to balance the bike in a tilted position (how wrong am I here?).

You can definitely make it around a corner without using the technique I mentioned, but I'm wondering if it has more benefit for a rider that turns a tighter radius in a corner. It is well-known that the fastest line around the track is to come in slightly wide, turn the tightest radius that the rider can handle, then come out tight and straight to maximize the amount of time accelerating.

To better explain the cornering, you want to lay down the bike to scrub off speed when approaching the corner (done as late as possible), the discussed technique is applied right at the apex of the corner, then the bike is straightened out to head down the straight.

I think this technique would be more likely to be used when making a tight turn, so I think that the balance issue you guys have discussed is probably correct. Although it doesn't necessarily provide more drive directly, it contributes to faster times since it is used to allow for a tighter radius.

To help analyze the tire explanation, here is an image of the rear tire tread pattern.
 

Attachments

  • SW07.JPG
    SW07.JPG
    32.2 KB · Views: 694
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top