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 911, 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 SAEs 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
A theoretical analysis of the cornering behaviour of vehicles with locked differential is presented in this paper. In particular, attention is focused on karts, which, being characterised by the lack of any differential and suspension system, show a peculiar dynamic behaviour. A linear model for cornering dynamics is obtained in the first part of the paper: the yaw equilibrium is affected by the absence of the differential, since the longitudinal forces acting on the rear tyres are no longer equal. The steady state behaviour and 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 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 indications for racing vehicles, such as formula cars, whose differential is frequently completely or partially locked.

model the vehicle steady state behaviour handling diagram and stability are discussed.

A LINEAR MODEL OF VEHICLES LACKING ANY DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEM

The classical single track model, which is usually used to study the cornering dynamics of passenger cars [2, 3, 4, 5, 9], becomes inadequate for karts.

V1

VG G r V2

INTRODUCTION
The kart is a peculiar racing vehicle because of its constructive features such as the lack of any differential and suspension systems, which yield a dynamic behaviour quite different in comparison with most common vehicles. Typically, racing teams set the kart constructive parameters, in order to maximize their performances, mainly according to their experience. 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]. The effects of a solid differential are briefly treated in [2]; however, the dependence of steady state equilibrium on the manoeuvre and the vehicle stability are not investigated. In this paper a detailed theoretical analysis of the cornering behaviour of vehicles, with locked 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 small lateral accelerations. On the basis of the obtained

Fx

Fy

Mz

Fig. 1 A new yaw moment Mz2 appears in to the single track model owing to the lack of any differential system.

In this conditions the longitudinal forces (tractive forces) acting on each rear tyre are no longer equal and therefore a new yaw moment, called M z2 , appears in the yaw equilibrium of the vehicle (Fig. 1). expressed as

M z2 can be

M z2 = Fx22 Fx21

) t2 ,
2

(1)

where (Fig. 2)

Fx21 , Fx22 are the longitudinal forces,

acting respectively on the left and the right rear tyres, and t 2 is the rear track. t1 Fx
12

acceleration. As a matter of fact, the longitudinal force is usually related to many factors, although it can be reasonably assumed to be mainly a function of the longitudinal tyre slip and the vertical load. That is:

Fx = f ( x , Fz ) ,
where

(3)

Fx
11

is the longitudinal tyre slip and

Fz is the

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

ui Fy Fx Fy
21 21 11

Fz . Accordingly, for the rear longitudinal force the

Fy a
12

following equation holds:

0 Fx2 i = C 2 i K 2 Fz2 x2 i ,

G vj

r Fy
22

Fx

22

(4)

where: the subscript i indicates the generic rear wheel (inside and outside); C 2i is the slip stiffness at static vertical load
0

Fz 0 , while K 2 is the load factor (load sensitivity); they

t2
Fig. 2 Forces acting on the tyres in the planar kart model.

are tyre parameters which depend on the compound, inflation pressure, rubbing wear, etc. Fz2 represents the 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:

! vr ) = Fx Fy Fa , m(u 2 1 ! + ur ) = Fy + Fy , m(v 1 2
(2)

where

x 21

ur

2 R0

t2 2 1, 21

x =
22

u+r

2 R0

t2 2 1, 22

(5)

! = F y a Fy b + M z , Jr 1 2 2
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

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:
2 & t2 u # r M z2 = K 2 t 2 Fz2 $ $1 R ! ! C2 4 R , 2 0 " 2 0 %

lateral forces on each axle; 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;

(6)

Fa is the

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

0 0 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 zero since u 2 R0 in ordinary dynamic conditions, because of the small longitudinal slips. With these assumptions, which greatly simplify the problem, the equation for M z2 becomes:

However, in generic conditions Eq.(9) must be employed and the analytical expressions for the lateral forces acting on each axle are given by:

M z2

t2 t2 r t2 C 2 2 = C 2 2 = C 2 2 2 a y , 4 u 4R 4u

(7)

* v + ra # & ' Fy1 = C1 $ u !, ' % " ) ' F = C v rb . 2 y2 ' 2 R0 (

STATE EQUATIONS

(11)

where R = u / r is the distance between the instantaneous centre of rotation and the longitudinal vehicle axis (x-axis) (in steady-state conditions R is also the turning radius) and

a y = u / R is the steady-state lateral acceleration. Note that a positive r yields a negative M z2 . In Eq. (7), whose expression is
analogous to that reported in [2], not only constructive parameters (such as the rear track) but also dynamic variables (like the longitudinal velocity) appear; therefore, as already stated, in steady-state conditions M z2 decreases as the turning radius grows. 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:
0 F y ij = C ij y ij

The state equations for the kart dynamical system can now be obtained by substituting Eqs. (4), (7) and (11) into the equilibrium equations (2):

!= u != v != r

10 & v + ra #u # & ! 1 C1 $ !+ + vr , .C2 $ ! $ u ", m / % 2 R0 " % 10 & v rb v + ra # C1 $ ! C2 + ur, u m. " 2 R0 , / % 1 J

2 0 t2 r v rb v + ra # & + C C b C a . 1 $ ! +, 2 2 4 R R u " % 2 o 2 0 . + / ,

(12)

(8)

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 2 appears in each equation. Again, Eqs. (12) can be rewritten into a simpler form if it is assumed that u 2 R0 .

where the effect of the lateral load transfer is neglected. The analytical expressions for the lateral tyre slips are given by [2 - 4]:

!= u != v

v + ra #10 & Fx2 C1 $ ! + vr, . m/ u "+ % , v + ra # v rb 10 & C1 $ ur, ! C2 . m/ % u " u + , 1 J

2 0 v + ra # v rb t2 r & C a C b + C ! . 1 $ +. 2 2 u 4 u u % " . + / ,

(13)

v + ra * , y1 = y11 = y12 = ' u ' ) ' y = y = y = v rb . 2 21 22 ' 2 R0 (

(9)

!= r

Note that the front axle lateral slip only depends upon the longitudinal velocity since the front tyre longitudinal slips are zero (no torque acts on the front wheels, therefore they have a pure rolling motion). If it can be assumed that u 2 R0 , Eqs.(9) become:

The dynamic vehicle behaviour can be investigated by means of only two state variables ( v and r ), if the longitudinal velocity u is a given function of time, along with the wheel steering angle . Consequently, the first of Eqs. (13) is only necessary in order to estimate the longitudinal force Fx2 (tractive force). The last two equations in Eqs. (13) can be rewritten into a more compact form:

v + ra * y1 = = 1 , ' ' u . ) ' v rb = . y 2 ' u ( 2

(10)

! = Aw + b, w
where:

(14)

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 and

0 C1 + C 2 . mu A = . . C1 a C 2 b . Ju /

C1 a C 2 b +u + mu 2 2 2 + t C1 a + C 2 b + C2 2 + + Ju 4 Ju ,

K 0 = 0 correspond to oversteer, understeer and

neutral steer, respectively. Note that the total derivative is employed in Eq. (16) and Eq. (18), since it is implicitly assumed that l / R only depends on the lateral acceleration. The difference between the two slip angles in a linear single-track model of an ordinary vehicle is simply:

is the matrix of coefficients;

b = [C1 / m C1a / J ]T is the known vector.

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 kart dynamic cornering behaviour as well as that of vehicles in completely locked differential conditions. STEADY-STATE BEHAVIOR: THE UNDERSTEER GRADIENT The cornering steady-state behaviour, that is with !=r ! = 0 is investigated in this section. With such v assumptions, the linear differential system defined by Eq. (14) becomes a linear algebraic system:

1 2 =

m& b a # ! $ !a y . l $ C C 2 " % 1

(19)

Consequently, the undeerster gradient is constant and only depends on the constructive parameters of the vehicle:

K0 =

m& b a # $ ! $ l % C1 C2 ! "

(20)

In other words, the handling behavior doesnt depend on the motion variables such as the vehicle longitudinal velocity. However, if this assumption is quite correct in ordinary passenger vehicles, it is not valid for those vehicles lacking any differential effect. In order to demonstrate this statement, the algebraic system (15) can be rewritten in a most convenient form:

Aw p = b ,
where

(15)

w p = [v P

rP ] is the vector of the steady-state

T

variables. The steady-state vehicle handling behaviour is usually characterised by means of the understeer gradient K 0 , defined by (e.g. [2]):

~ * 'C1 1 + C 2 2 = ma y , ) ' (C1 1 a C 2 2 b = M z 2 ,

(21)

d K= da y

l# & $ ! . R" %

(16)

where the slip angles of each axle take the place of the steady-state variables v and r . The analytical expression for system (21):

1 2

can now be obtained, by solving

where the parameter l / R represents the difference between the wheel steering angle and the Ackermann angle. The following relationship can be obtained directly by Eqs. (10):

1 2 =

M z2 m& b a # $ ! ay + $ ! l % C1 C 2 " l

& 1 1 # $ $C + C ! !. (22) 2 " % 1

l = 1 2 , R

(17)

Comparing Eq.(22) and (19) it can be observed the presence of a new term, representing the effect of the yaw moment M z2 on the steady dynamic equilibrium. Therefore, since

where u = rR. Consequently, the understeer gradient can be also defined by:

M z2 can be related to various motion variables (like the forward velocity u or the turning radius R like shown in Eq. (7)), it is now necessary to
consider a specific manoeuvre, in order to investigate the kart steady state behaviour.

K0 =

d (1 2 ) . da y

(18)

In the following the forward speed u, the turning radius R and the steer angle will be, in turn, taken as constant, in order to discuss the vehicle steady state behaviour. Manoeuvre with constant forward speed Let us assume (22) becomes:

In addition, the understeer gradient K decreases with the square of the forward velocity (Fig. 3) and it is close to K 0 only when the magnitude of the forward velocity tends to infinite. If

K 0 is negative (the ordinary vehicle

u = const in Eq. (7); in this case Eq.

&1 1 #$ + $C C ! !+a y . (23) 2 ", % 1

has a oversteer behaviour), the understeer gradient becomes positive as soon as the forward velocity is lower than (Fig. 3):

1 2 = . $ $

2 0m & b a # C2 t 2 ! + 2 ! / l % C1 C2 " 4lu

u =

2 C 2 (C 1 + C 2 ) t 2 . 4 m (C 2 b C 1 a )

(25)

The second term in Eq. (22), which varies as the inverse squared velocity, is related to the lack of the differential. Consequently, Eq.(18) can be used to define the understeer gradient for the constant speed manoeuvre as:

Manoeuvre with constant turning radius In this section let us assume R=const [6]. Substituting Eq. (7) into Eq (21) the following equation can be obtained:

K=

d (1 2 ) da y

= K0 +
u = const

Ku u2

1 2 =
. (24)

m& b a $ $ l % C1 C 2

2 # C2t 2 ! + a ! y 4l "

& 1 1 $ $C + C 2 % 1

#1 ! ! R . (26) "

which, again, can be rewritten in a more compact form:

where

K 0 , defined in Eq.(20), indicates the understeer

gradient of the corresponding (i.e. having the same m, l, a, b, C1, C2) ordinary model and K u , which depends on constructive dependence. parameters, determines the 1/u
2

1 2 = K0 a y + KR

1 . R

(27)

In this case, however, the understeer gradient is not affected by the turning radius and is simply:

Note that it is always K term

> K o because of the positive

that

K u / u 2 , showing that the lack of the differential

K=

yields a greater understeer behaviour than characterizing the corresponding ordinary vehicle.

d (1 2 ) da y

= K0 ,
R = const

(28)

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. = 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:

( 1 2 )l = K 0 la y

+ KR

l . R

(29)

Now, introducing Eq. (17), the following analytical expression for 1 2 can be obtained:
Fig. 3 The understeer gradient K as a function of the forward velocity.

1 2 =

K0 l K ay + R . KR + l KR + l

(30)

In this case as well the understeer gradient is constant, but now it differs from K 0 :

follow this cornering path at the fixed forward velocity u , can be immediately obtained at the intersection of the dashed line with the horizontal axis.
ay g

K=

d (1 2 ) da y

=
= const

K0 l , KR + l

(31)

Note also that always positive.

K < K 0 since the parameter K R is

u = const

In conclusion, all considerations can be summarized in the following scheme:

u2 gl

Ku * 'u = const 1 K = K 0 + 2 1 K > K 0 , u ' ' ) R = const 1 K = K 0 , ' K 0l ' = const 1 K = 1 K < K0. ' KR + l (
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 to K 0 , as u tends to infinite. In a constant steer angle manoeuvre, the understeer gradient of the kart model is constant and always lower than that of the classical single-track model. THE HANDLING DIAGRAM The handling diagram [7] can be considered as a graphical method, which shows the steady-state equilibrium conditions of a vehicle in cornering manoeuvre (continuous line in Fig. 4). On the left side of the horizontal axis it is reported the difference 1 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 (axle characteristics) vehicle, the main dynamic variables 1 2 , a y , R, , u defining the equilibrium for a

p 1 2 1 2
p p

l Rp

l R

Fig. 4 Example of handling diagram typical of a non-linear model in a constant forward speed manoeuvre.

Constant forward speed manoeuvre In the classical linear model of an ordinary vehicle (dashed line in Fig. 5) the constructive characteristics completely define the understeer gradient. Therefore, the line slope does not change with the forward velocity. On the contrary, in the kart model, its magnitude depends on the forward speed, according to Eq. (25) and as shown in Fig. 5. In particular, the slope increases with the square of the forward speed. Note that in both models the difference between the two slip angles 1 2 is zero when the lateral acceleration goes to zero.

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 p , necessary to

Fig. 5 Handling diagram: constant forward speed manoeuvre.

Constant turning radius manoeuvre This manoeuvre is also known as the steering pad test. 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.

Finally, like in the constant turning radius manoeuvre, for lateral acceleration close to zero, the handling diagram does not intersect the origin of the axes.

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 with time. This happens when the following two conditions are satisfied [2]:

Note that in this case the lines (continuous for a kart and dashed for classical model) have the same slope, meaning that the same understeer gradient characterizes the two linear models, according to Eq. (28). However, it can be observed how, decreasing the turning radius, the continuous lines (kart model) shift to the left 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 more goes through the origin of the axes; the value of 1 2 (for zero lateral acceleration) is higher the lower the cornering radius. Manoeuvre with constant steer angle The handling diagram obtained by a constant wheel steer angle manoeuvre is shown in Figure 7. Note that increasing the wheel steer angle (which however is fixed during each manoeuvre) the lines of the 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 difference between the two slip angles 1 2 depends directly on the steer angle, according to Eq. (29). 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).

handling stability Re (1 ) < 0 and Re (2 ) < 0 ,

(32) in which

matrix A defined earlier and Re (i ) represents their real part. Actually, the handling stability can be studied without computing the eigenvalues but only considering the following conditions for matrix A :

1 and 2

represent the eigenvalues of the

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

(33)

tr (A ) and det (A ) mean, respectively, the trace and the determinant of the matrix A . Since the trace of A is always negative, the handling stability is
where determined only by the second condition.

u cr is defined as the possible value of the longitudinal speed u , above which det (A ) becomes
The critical speed negative. The analytical expression for the critical speed can be obtained, from det (A ) and is given by:

ucr =

C1C2l 2 +C2 (C1 +C2 ) m(C1a C2b)

2 t2 t2 C2 (C1 +C2 ) 2 4 = uc 2 + 4, cr m (C1a C2b)

( )

(34) in which,
c u cr represents the critical speed of the

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.

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 which showed

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, Citt 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 steadystate 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.

M z2 was obtained,

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 1 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.

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