For years auto racing has been more and more restricted due to the safety concerns involving high speeds. Cars from the 60's were able to reach 200mph+ and today cars are not likely to exceed that due to the design of courses and rules of car construction.

This road course is a long track (4-6 miles)designed to be built in a desert area where good weather and open spaces are prevalent. The course makes use of large run-out areas, thick foam safety walls and some banked corners. Elevation changes will have to be gradual to prevent cars from going airborne.

The course is the perfect setting to implement the often conceived idea of having the cars "drive on the ceiling". A large concrete tunnel or a tunnel carved into a hill could serve as a "3-D" track where cars can drive upside down with the downforce they create.

This track would allow car builders to make the most of technology and run speeds up to or over 300 MPH.
-- KineticKill, Apr 02 2008

Ultimate Race Tracks Ultimate_20Race_20Tracks
"...if the car is moving fast enough...it can literally climb the walls of the tunnel...and drive along the roof...upside down..." [phoenix, Apr 03 2008]

What if Formula One racetracks were loop-shaped instead of flat? http://auto.howstuf...a-one-racetrack.htm
[Ander, Apr 03 2008]

(?) Go Speed Racer, Go! http://speedracerth...trailer_02_480.html
Supa-fast, supa-cool, sometimes upside down. [Noexit, Apr 04 2008]

This sounds new --- a totally unlimted formula...

Let me guess the rule book has one rule...
-- madness, Apr 04 2008


More of a pamphlet really.
-- theleopard, Apr 04 2008


//where cars can drive upside down with the downforce they create//
sp. "upforce"
-- coprocephalous, Apr 04 2008


Shirley up and down are relative?
-- calum, Apr 04 2008


Really, half sisters then --- you meant to ask who was the father?...

Question is would bikes be allowed cause they are clearly faster --- if only they had ground effects...

Now that is worthy of a new idea....
-- madness, Apr 04 2008


An interesting thought, [madness]. I wonder if leaning the bike to steer would still be possible?
-- david_scothern, Apr 04 2008


This could very well work. Although F1 cars generate enough downforce to drive inverted at only 200 mph. it would be quite entertaining to be a spectator.
-- stpizzay, Apr 05 2008


I wonder about this possible myth of creating enough downforce to run upside-down.
The downforce in normal running must be greater than an equivlaent weight of more than twice the normal static weight of the car, otherwise, subtracting one times the weight of the car due to gravity in inverted mode would mean that the car would gradually slow down, lose down (up, whatever) force and eventually fall off the ceiling.
Or something.
-- AbsintheWithoutLeave, Apr 05 2008


[absinthewithoutleave] There is no myth involved with this concept of downforce. of course the downforce would have to exceed the weigh of the car by a sufficient amount to ensure traction is maintained. Also keep in mind that as speed increase the downforce generated increases non-linearly. At about 80 MPH an F1 car generates its own weight in downforce, at 120 it is generating 2x its mass and this continues as speed increases.

As long as there is sufficent power to maintain speed then the car can run upsidedown indefinately. The bigger issues involve lubrication and fuel delivery as gravity and G forces are the only things that control fuel flow. When the fuel pools on the top of the fuel tank then the pickups would be exposed and so some sort of pressure fed bladder for fuel would be required, as would a similar system for Oil delivery as most are a conical gravity fed type of system.
-- jhomrighaus, Apr 05 2008


//At about 80 MPH an F1 car generates its own weight in downforce, at 120 it is generating 2x its mass //
So 120mph is approaching c?
-- AbsintheWithoutLeave, Apr 05 2008


The same problems affected WWII fighter planes - some engines couldn't run inverted, some could run for a limited time; the later designs didn't have limitations on inverted flying.

I'm wondering about some sort of "cat" system - I mean, if something forces you to slow down, you'll fall off the track, and you don't want to fall upside down. (Buttered toast on bottom?)
-- lurch, Apr 05 2008


Keep in mind that this is a idea for a large, safe, and REALISTIC track with the *possibility* of having a section of tunnel that could provide the opportunity to drive inverted. The rest of the track is of standard design. This track is not something out of a video game or cartoon, its not like the other ideas posted on the site.

If drivers didn't think their cars could create the downforce to stay inverted they could always go through the tunnel flat or on the side. The tunnel is the perfect passing zone.

Motorcycles are not faster than F1 cars, their tires are limited and do not provide the grip an F1 car can, but they could still run the track normally.

Millions of dollars are spent on R&D and production of F1 cars, they would have no problem incorporating the technology that keep aerobatic planes fed with fuel and oil in 7G maneuvers and inverted.
-- KineticKill, Apr 06 2008


Oh, I would surely love to see a transparent racetrack with cars passing by having their brightly painted, legibly numbered underside.(+) How about everyone else? Would you?

As a rule, they have to run with translucent silicone tires only, so not to mar the surface of that track.
-- rotary, Apr 06 2008


As far as I know, downforce serves 2 porpoises, extra traction on corners and preventing take-off over bumps. So, at full speed going down a smooth straight, downforce would actually slow the car down considerably for no benefit and the car would go faster upside down when gravity and downforce are not working in the same direction.

Of course it would be a moo point if the rules allowed variable aerofoils, which F1 banned. You could even allow short periods of flight for overtaking, basically making it like the Red Bull Air Race but not allowing vehicles to stray off the track, making wheeled cornering preferable. Hmm, seperate idea perhaps?
-- marklar, Apr 06 2008


theres already enough problems with drag cars going over 300mph. it would be a death wish the make track cars go over 300. even at a little less than half that speed it is difficult to see whats coming up in front of you on a long strait road.
-- F_R_O_G, Apr 07 2008


/Question is would bikes be allowed cause they are clearly faster/

In the same way that domestic cats are 'clearly faster' than horses.
-- Texticle, Apr 07 2008


It is undeniably cool idea for the cars to go inverted. The problem I see is track curvature causing loss of down/up/side/"butter side up" force. My guess is that even a .25" height change of the center pod would be significant so you'd need a large radius on the tube.
-- MisterQED, Apr 07 2008


I don't think it is as sensitive as you think it is. The key is keeping the attitude of the wings below neutral. The bulk of the force is generated by the wings themselves. It is not suction that is pulling the car down. as long as the flow is controlled then there are no issues. I think if you sat down and calculated the radius of the tube that the car could function in and then incorporated G forces you would find the limiting factor to be the Gforces the driver can handle and not the change in clearance of the undercarrige.
-- jhomrighaus, Apr 07 2008


Better yet, have the entire race in a series of 'giant-hamster' tunnels.

Now THAT would be entertaining.
-- kuupuuluu, Aug 04 2008


the end of the tunnel poses just a small probem with three of four cars side by side forcing cars to the topside of the tunnel. say- one of them is forced to come out of the tunnel inverted is airborne and is subsequently smashed onto the cars topside into a obliterating mass of twisted metal traveling at 300miles per hour
-- yuridasuks, Aug 04 2008


<transplanted annotations>

[Texticle], consider roller coasters. You wouldn't need that much forward speed to generate enough centripetal force to stick the car to the track. The passengers experience reduced g on the corkscrew sections, but they don't fall out.

Semi-aerobatic aircraft have fairly basic fuel systmes but can still perform loops and Immelmann turns without losing the engine.

Support struts might be avoidable of the track was made stiff enough to ber self-supporting

The critical points of the corkscrew rotation will be reached when the track reaches first 90 degrees to horizontal and then again at 135 degrees.

At 90 degrees the aerodynamic downforce must be such that the 1-g horizontal force on the vehicle is counteracted entirely by the F= mu * R frictional force between the vehicle and the track.

At 135 degrees, the aerodynamic downforce must equal at least 1.414 * the mass of the vehicle to satisfy the vector equation, and even then the occupant will be experienceing near-zero g and may risk losing traction due to lack of downforce on the wheels; in which case, to maintain normal driving parameters, the force needs to be 2.414 G.

When upside down, the "upforce" needs to be 2g; 1g to resist the weight of the vehicle under gravity, and a further 1 g to provide "stable" normal running traction conditions for the propulsion system.

An engine failure would have unfortunate consequences. Any loss of speed would produce a proportioate loss of traction, and further speed loss, resulting in even greater loss of traction. This then becomes a catastrophic failure mode in which reducing speed also reduces upforce, decreasing traction, and causing the vehicle to plummet upside down to the ground while still travelling at substantial forward velocity .........

[Texticle] is right about needing pressurised fuel and lubricant systems if the vehicle is held up purely by aerodynamic forces.

Stub or variable-geometry "wings" and a parachute systme would seem to be sensible additions to the car.....
-- 8th of 7, Aug 04 2008


If we are worried about a 300 mph race causing cars to be inverted, why not set a track that is similar to the C02 dragsters? Have a set of cables running the full length of track that the cars have to hook on to from underneath so that way they don't have to worry about steering or inversion.
-- Jscotty, Aug 05 2008



random, halfbakery