Braking power: What’s the biggest stop of the Formula 1 season?
Posted By:   |  22 Dec 2017   |  7:55 am GMT  |  123 comments

To go quickly in F1 in terms of lap time, you need to be good at stopping; it sounds odd but it’s true. At some venues almost a quarter of the lap is spent standing on the quiet pedal.

Other venues are more flat out. We all know the highest top speed of the F1 season, but what is the biggest stop of the year and was the braking more intense with the new high downforce F1 regulations?

Italian brake manufacturer Brembo has released figures on how the new 2017 F1 cars braked for each circuit, including the amount of time spent on the brakes and the highest recorded values of deceleration.

Brembo completed a clean sweep of race wins in 2017 with the teams and drivers it supplies in F1.

Unsurprisingly, both Monaco and Singapore require the most use from the brake pedal, with 23% of their respective laps spent under braking thanks to the stop-start nature of the complex street circuit layouts.

The Hungaroring is the next with 22%, while Mexico and Shanghai both require 21% of the driver’s time to be spent using the brakes.

Spa and Monza require the least amount of time off the accelerator, requiring just 12% each of the lap spent under braking as both include a number of high-speed areas.

As a result, Monza requires the most effort from the brakes, sustaining an average deceleration of 5.5g – almost 0.9g higher than Sochi, the next most demanding circuit. In particular, the Parabolica creates a maximum deceleration of 6.6g, where the driver exerts a maximum load of 232kg on the brake pedal to reduce the overall stopping distances.

At the other end of the scale, Suzuka’s fast, flowing arrangement produces an average deceleration of just 3.3g, as drivers spent very little time on the brakes.

Not surprisingly Silverstone, Spa and Monza are at the bottom end of the scale of the times spent braking at between 12 and 13%.

Brembo has also categorised the most “difficult” circuits on braking, taking into account environmental factors and track characteristics.

Thanks to the high altitude and time spent using the brakes, Mexico is one of four circuits identified as the most challenging. The Singapore, Abu Dhabi and Canadian Grands Prix also offer the largest difficulty to Brembo, thanks to their collective heavy braking zones.

Where’s the biggest stop of the season?
The Number 1 hardest braking zone of the year was Turn 8 at Abu Dhabi, the tight left hander at the end of the long back straight, requiring drivers to drop from 204 to 44mph in the space of 73 metres. The peak deceleration was 5.2g, the same value as with the 2016 cars.

Meanwhile the peak deceleration of the season was that produced at the final chicane at Montreal at 5.6g, due to distance constraints, as the cars have to halve their velocities in less than 50 metres.

The 2017 calendar’s other most demanding corners also include the first turns at Monza and Bahrain, both producing about 5.2g of deceleration as drivers drop from their maximum speeds to about 50mph, while the braking zone at the end of the Shanghai circuit’s back straight takes cars down to about 41mph as drivers drop from eighth gear to second.

To cope with these demands, teams often drill holes in the curved face of the brake discs in order to improve heat dissipation. When the brake caliper makes contact with the disc to slow the car, a huge amount of heat is produced during a braking scenario.

This means that the carbon disc is subject to thermal expansion and, if not kept within an ideal temperature range, may deform under load. With any sudden deformation, a brake failure is usually imminent, and so the engineers must monitor these temperatures carefully.

What do you make of this? Leave your comment in the section below

Featured Innovation
technical innovation from tata COMMUNICATIONS
Share This:
Posted by:

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the Login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry that something went wrong, repeat again!

Is the full data set on 2017 braking available? Pretty sure it would make an awesome infographic! It would also be interesting to see a team by team comparison of braking performance, or car vs car within a team. Though Brembo might be shy about sharing, there were a fair number of retirements due to brakes, including a couple of brake “explosions.” Set the data free!!!


I’ve always found the braking ability of these cars to be one of their most fascinating aspects, especially when you see them live. I’m curious if the current cars brake as hard as the prior, lighter V10/V8 era cars? Also, I thought Parabolica was a corner, and one which there is little or no braking into? Perhaps you’re talking lateral G forces?


Very Interesting! Thanks! To both Mr. Allen and the folks at Brembo.


Totally off thread but i’d like to wish all at JA on F1 a merry xmas and a big thanks for providing us with a platform upon which to air our various opinions on all things F1 …and sometimes beyond!. To all the posters, [well nearly all ] i wish the same. We may not agree very often but the debate is what matters. The sport/business of F1 transcends petty altercations…… eventually.


Oh….thanks for changing the thread Kenny! (I remember when these chats were fun!)
All the best to you and yours. Here’s to “something different” in 2018!


As someone who can’t even stomach your garden variety fairground roller-coaster ride, I can only imagine the physical stresses F1 drivers are subject to under heavy braking and cornering. Familiarity breeds contempt, but when you hear them having a conversation with their race engineer during a 90 minute grand prix it is truly amazing what these guys can do.


Off topic.
But can’t we just have the following for 2021.
Back to 1993 regulations.
Imagine the power of 3.5l v10. 1200bhp anyone.
Back to kerb weight of 500 -550 it’s.
Traction control. Abs. Active ride.
And v10 screams.


It’s interesting that the peak braking g reading recorded was the same this year as last year. Did the harder tyre compounds negate the effect of the wider contact patches?


The cars themselves are also heavier, so more difficult to slow down.


There is no way they are pressing 200kgs on the brake pedal with 1 leg. Have you seen the drivers legs. Ie. Ocon. He couldn’t squat that with both legs. Think the figures are way off. I could see maybe 50 -60 kgs. But not 230kgs.
They must mean pressure at the master cylinder perhaps. If drivers had to exert 230kgs of pressure to stop the cars they would all be going off at the first corner.


When the brake caliper makes contact with the disc

That’s usually when sparks are followed by flames and a quick retirement


Since when is pressure measured in kg! You don’t blow your tyres up to 5kg. It’s bar or psi.


Yeah but you can exert KGs of weight/pressure/leverage on a pedal.


come james, please change the kilograms to newtons and multiply the number by 10.
under influence of the earths gravity, 1kg mass would exert a force of 10 newton.


It also takes some amount of alcohol to round that up to 10.
Cheers! ;o)


aveli, you’ve written multiple comments griping about this, but if you”l just relax, take a step back, and drop the Sheldon act for a second it’s actually really, really simple:

Imagine the brake pedal is a scale (the weighing kind, not the fish kind).

Now imagine putting a big bag of potatoes that weighs about 232 kg on that scale.

Still with us?

The force that is being exerted onto that scale by the big bag of potatoes is how much force the drivers are applying to the brake pedal at times.

See? Simple 🙂


Please do not insult Sheldon by comparison with such mediocracy.


Well said Random 🙂


He won’t understand Random.


I did get a reply from him Nick, and – long story short – that’s an affirmative 🙂


😄 Merry Christmas Random.


Cheers Nick, you too 🙂


9.8N = 1kgf.
Nothing wrong with the article.


That’s only correct for masses in a gravitational field.


@ JBL …. and where do we find a non gravitational field ?


JBL – thanks for the clarification regarding the source(s) of this article. As I imagine you are finding out, the units of measurement are important. As a former university instructor incorrect units are an immediate red flag when marking etc. If the units aren’t correct, the error is more than a number issue, something fundamental is wrong. A Newton, is a Newton, is a Newton, whether that is generated by a mass being acted on by gravity, a jet of fluid impinging on a plane, or a wing passing through a fluid, it’s still a Newton. Put a mass by a brake pedal and nothing will happen. The only thing wrong with trying to shed light on an often overlooked area of automotive technology is incorrect enlightenment.


that is not true..acording to sir izaak newton, every body has gravitational field, the strength of which depends on it’s mass. the earth’s gravitational strength is 9.81kg/n which i rounded up to 10kg/n.
not just any gravitational field but the earth’s gravitational field.
i can’t see kgf above, all i see is kg.


That’s only correct if you’re measuring how much force a brake pedal exerts on a weighing scale. Force is a product of mass and acceleration, and dealing with the horizontal components of force exerted by the driver means that gravitational field is completely negligible in this argument. So, here, you don’t just get the force by multiplying it by ten, you’d have to look at what the driver applies and how quickly the pedal moves per second.


hamilton wouldn’t accept this quality of work.
wrong use of units?
no chance!
he’d be asking for perfection.


we are talking Alexander Hamilton here, aren’t we?


He’s the only one who faces to the left in his portrait, so he’s obviously a NASCAR fan instead of F1. 😀


What a disappointingly muddled article. Overlooking the confusing units (mass instead of force) the values quoted are contradictory (peak deceleration(s)?).
I would also query if the teams really are the ones drilling the ventilation holes in the brakes, I would assume this was an area of supplier development.
I would also caution against the concept of brakes getting hot. Brakes are more accurately a mechanism of converting kinetic energy to thermal. Peak temperatures are a complex interplay between material limits, rate of dissipation, aerodynamic cooling, and the curveball of tyre temperature management. There are many other parameters here (friction coefficient, calliper cooling, brake fluid circulation, emissivity, material strength etc, etc) and my criticism is not the completeness of the article, rather the accuracy of what is stated. Unusual for this typically impeccably sourced publication. Can’t win them all and just my personal opinion.
Have a great winter break all members of the JAonF1 team!


The figures were supplied by the folks at Brembo, and so we’ve made no adjustments to units or anything like that. While I agree that the figures would be more accurately expressed as force or acceleration values, they’ve been left as they were supplied since they’re in a more accessible format.


@ JBL…I’m quite surprised that brembo said that teams drill additional holes in the circumferential surface area! I was under the impression that the cooling holes were an intricate part of the manufacturing process and for any team to add further holes at their discretion would void any ‘guarantees’ by brembo regards the integrity of their product.


I believe Brembo are directed to drill the holes by the teams, rather than it being done by the teams themselves. It’s probably a gross oversimplification on my part, so apologies if that’s the case, but as far as I know teams devise the changes according to their cooling requirements and hand the documentation to Brembo to be manufactured by them.


@ JBL….all cool.


which driver pulled the most g under braking?


Gimme a brake…


A driver exerting pressure on the brake pedal is not at all like lifting weights or doing leg presses. With their huge amounts of downforce the initial stab on the brake pedal can be very high with little chance of lock up. As the speed decreases very rapidly so does the downforce hence the driver decrease the pedal pressure equally rapidly. This is why we often see cars locking up front wheel as the apex approaches, decreased load on the inside wheel and decreased downforce. With the driver not decreasing the brake pedal pressure to match.

With the above in mind, the need for the high brake pedal pressure is over a very short time span, less than a 10th of a second. As a result it’s more like kicking a football than doing a double leg press. Or comparing the force of a boxer’s punch with how much he can lift.


Allow me to disagree. It is very similar to leg presses. It is in the second(s) range the max force to apply.

I remember Adelaide at Magny Cours, and mentally count close to 2 secs at 100kg, to the release and trail break a bit just as you describe.


I don’t know if your example is time accurate, but assuming it is, the maximum pressure would be held for less than 10% of the time ie; 2/10ths of a second. From that point on the pedal pressure would need to be decreased logarithmically to prevent look up. In tune with the decrease in downforce.


Perhaps yet another area where drivers might exhibit their skill and ability with car control, should a return to less “tech” and recovery become available? With, perhaps, cost reductions as well? Road relevance, at the same time, might be more arguable than where aero is concerned.


Indeed, many F1 aficionados have long argued for a return to ‘steel brakes’ as a way of encouraging more overtaking. ‘Diving up the inside on the brakes’ is becoming a lost art as braking efficiency improves.


@ Baron…but some drivers can still do it effectively and when they do WOW!!!!!!


232kg on the brake pedal seems incorrect. That is doing a 500lb leg press with one leg. Is there a misunderstanding somewhere?


A 70kg driver subjecting himself to a 5g deceleration produces 350kg of force which he channels through the brake pedal. Automatic servo effect.


Eh, no. The driver and brake pedal are moving at the same speed as the car, so there is no relative acceleration between the three. The figure is either wrong, or accounts for the brake pedal an/or the hydraulic pressure ratios. It is definitely not the pressure applied to the pedal by the drivers foot!


When the car brakes the inertia of the driver has to be restrained by something otherwise he would continue to travel at unabated speed. This is initially the seat belts but there is movement as the submarining in the cockpit shows. The inertial load of the drivers mass is transmitted through the leg bones into the brake pedal.


i wonder how they got the job in the first place.


it is incorrect because force is not measured in kg.
i don’t understand how a professional brembo employee can collect a set scientific from f1, the pinnacle of motorsport with revenues of about a billion, not know the correct units for the measurements they carry out.
this is a disgrace.


I think something has been lost in translation between the Brembo engineers, the Brembo marketeers that put out this end of season information, and the journalists who regurgitate it to the masses.

I suspect that the issue lies with the later two, not the engineers, who can distinguish between a unit of mass and a unit of force 🙂


9.8N = 1kgf


yes but only in a vertically downward direction.


Its kgf of course.


To cope with these demands, teams often drill holes in the curved face of the brake discs in order to improve heat dissipation.

Great insight and awesome analysis! But how do the teams know exactly how many holes to drill in the brake disc? Does this depend on the pressure the driver exerts on the brakes? – as different drivers will exert different amount of pressure, leading to varying amounts of heat generation.

Wold this be why a driver may experience a brake temp issue, whilst his team mate does not? Or is the amount of holes drilled simply based on the characteristics of the car/ circuit?

Can anyone shed some light on this? Thanks.


There was an awesome article in Racecar Engineering a few years back on how Carbon discs are made .. and why they take about 2&1/2 months to make. Talks about the holes as well.. was a bit more accurate than this article too.
Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find a link to it again.


They don’t – Brembo undertake this with incredible precision during manufacture. The number holes increased this year I believe through increased diameter and improved techniques. The number is pretty much the maximum possible for Collins while retains strength.


Given trained individuals can leg press approx. 2 to 2.5 times body weight with two legs the statement that “the driver exerts a maximum load of 232kg on the brake pedal” with one leg could do with some more explanation please!


it is impossible to exert 232kg onto anything.


I think they are missing the boat on non-movable aero surfaces. Remember the Stirling Moss in the Mercedes SuperLight in the 1950’s with the big air brake flap-scoop that popped up behind the driver at the end of the straight? Or even more innovative was the Cyclops Super Sport (Stan Mott’s in Road & Track) who used the FIA mandated suitcase at LeMans to pop up vertically behind the driver and haul it down!! . . Good design is something that accomplishes more than one thing. Unfortunately good design is ignored these days in F1.


To Baron,
I don’t blame Gordon Murray for the accident; I love Gordon Murray designs and think he is brilliant. The car lost the air pressure under the car holding it to the track when the rear wing became detached. Elio deAngles sic, (I see you spelled his name correctly – did you have to look it up? I do this from memory, and I don’t have to Google everything to become an expert.) Also from my memory, he was an accomplished pianist. Phil Hill by the way, was into classical music. Ever hear of him? Some of these former drivers were well rounded men. They were not merely technocrat kids good with fingers on video games.


of any design is good, it would be incorporated, not ignored.


Ahh Yes, Jim Hall. And the sucker car, with the snowmobile engine powering the fan. Wouldn’t that drive the FIA nuts today!


Let’s not forget Jim Hall and the Can-Am Chaparral’s moving wings unveiled at Pacific Raceways in Kent, WA back in the ’60’s. Was quite sight to see that happen going into the “Big Indy” (Turn 2) at the end of the long S/F straight.


Did I read that right? The driver physically has to push 200+kg into the brake pedal? That is quite amazing but what’s the reason for it being so high?


200kg of what, potatoes?


Thank you for asking “200 potatoes?”. This article is a bit of a letdown in its use of units. It’s the highly technical F1 we are discussing here.


was this a cut and paste press release job


james is wearing quite a smile though. the kg used has braught on more of a conversation than otherwise.
i feel sorry for turkeys right now.


No, 200 kg of lead or was it 200 kg of feathers…
Stop pontificating please.


Red Bull and specially Ricardo, looks like he can outbrake anybody… I Wonder if there is data to show which car descelarates faster than others, taking into consideration tires, and other factors, there must be one team that brakes harder than the rest.
James is there such a data, my vote is for redbull cars, first and then mercedes, mclaren, Ferrari, etc. Last is williams.


2008 data showed hamilton pulling 1g, under braking, more than anyone else.


No-one cares!


i hope you asked them all.
the 2018 season starts in march so enjoy it while it lasts. more to come from march onwards..


I did and unsurprisingly it was a unanimous decision.


Interesting piece. I must admit one of the most amazing sights in the modern era, is not the way an F1 car accelerates, it’s the way it stops, or scrubs off high speed. Television simply doesn’t do it justice, you have to see it to believe it.


Even better, I recommend trying the two-seater F1 experience if you attend one of the races where they offer it!
I know its a bit pricey and the car is not exactly matching the latest F1 car specs, but the experience is hilarious and very impressive. If your health is up to it and you feel more venturous second time around, ask the driver to be harder on the pedals for the ultimate deaccelleration experience. In the package you also have two paddock passes for Saturday & Sunday, so a great treat for yourself and a friend to experience F1 up close.


I think Red Bull May have a special oil that is squirted onto the discs. It’s not the same oil as being burned in the ICE, this is a high-grip oil developed by Total Oil.


,one assumes that they did not use the special oil this season since their contract with Total finished at the end of 2016 and RBR’s lubricants partner is Exxon/Mobil


Fascinatiting info James. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
I must however admit that I didn’t fully understand some of the stats on the first attempt 😊


It’s interesting data but can someone please explain to me how peak deceleration is different to maximum deceleration and why it should be less.

“the Parabolica creates a maximum deceleration of 6.6g”

“Meanwhile the peak deceleration of the season was that produced at the final chicane at Montreal at 5.6g”

The only thing I can think of is that one of them is an average for the corner but then it shouldn’t be classified as peak or maximum.


the problem is most journalists aren’t used to units and their significance.


Wait, and you are? Maybe you can write an article explaining it for everyone….


good idea sarsippious.


It is a great idea Aveli isnt it. You should send your resume into James, sorry I mean your school report card.


It is one of the lesser researched parts of this interesting sequence.

If you think teams are drilling holes +1000 of them in the curved surfaces of the disks with full knowledge of Brembo or anyone else let alone apply 260kg of force hundreds of times per lap without a lever, then I have a bridge etc. Shame really because this is a hugely interesting area of development.

Still all good interesting stuff


I think you’ll find that the manufacturers, Brembo & Carbon Industries (or whatever they call themselves now a days) do the drilling of the discs, which is done for cooling purposes not primarily to mitigate against disc warping.
Initially there was a lot of trial and error on the best format for the holes… fewer big holes or lots of smaller ones. Eventually is was determined that lots of little holes worked best, so now most discs will have around 1000 holes.


I think there are some issues with the numbers. I also can’t believe that the drivers are exerting 232kg of force on the brake pedal. A strong athlete will squat (using both legs) around 2-2.5x their own body weight, so this number seems off the charts given that the drivers generally weigh 65-75kg and it is a single leg effort….


forget the numbers but you are right about force being a vector quantity with magnitude and direction. kg on the other hand only has magnitude and no direction. kg only exerts a vertically downward force. it is wrong to use kg to represent a force and you know that. mass is measured in kg and mass is a scalar quantity. even wikipedia knows as much.


I totally agree, Red, and I’ve read at other times of what seems to be excessive pedal pressures required in F1, but I wonder if they mean the pressure exerted on the master cylinder piston, via the pedal reduction ratio, roughly 4 or 5:1. Or they might mean PSI, but I think the PSI would be much higher.
If I was driving the car I would deffinately modify the pedal ratio or the m/cylinder diameter to make it require less pressure on the pedal which would also make it more progressive alowing more precise control.


force is never measured in kilograms in the first place. sounds like a blind leading the blind.
force is measured in newtons.
kilograms is for measure an amount of material, which force most certainly, is not.


I feel like I’ve heard kg used before. I’ve always took it as drivers and their trainers relating it to their weight lifting. In other words, the force applied to the brake pedal equals the force applied to a weight lifting machine for the legs to move it when X kg is set on the machine. In that way, the trainers push the drivers in the gym by saying they need to be able to push that weight once every minute and a half for about 90 minutes.

For the record about Newton’s, the definition is “One newton is the force needed to accelerate one kilogram of mass at the rate of one metre per second squared in direction of the applied force.”

or n = kg * m/s^2


Yes, technically you are right, but its implicit that they mean Kgf – the force exerted by 232 kg mass under standard gravity (9.81m/s/s) = 2,276N

To be honest I have seen the units kgf used quite often.


i believe you have seen them quite often but they shouldn’t be abused in that manner..


i know you’re aware that kg exert a vertically downward force, which doesn’t affect break pedals..


@aveli … eh, so a force only acts in the direction of gravity? Its simple really; 1kgf is the force of gravity on a mass of 1kg at the Earth’s surface. Force is a vector, so it has magnitude as well as direction, which isn’t necessarily towards the centre of the earth 🙂

If you’re struggling, you may want to ask a high school physics teacher to give you a refresher on Newtons laws 😉


“The blind leading the blind”? ;o)

Come on guys, its Christmas, be nice to each other for once!


i didn’t say a force only acts in one direction.
i said the force exerted by a mass due only to it’s mass acts vertically downwards. it never acts in any other direction.


The SI unit of force is the Newton, and the SI unit of pressure is N/m2, often called Pascal (Pa). However, engineers often use the non-SI metric unit of force, the kilogramme-force (kgf), loosely referred to as kg. The corresponding pressure is then kgf/m2 or often kgf/cm2 (kg/m2, kg/cm2). The Imperial units are pounds (lb) and lb/square inch (psi). So the engineer is not wrong to quote force in kg, but it is an imprecise unit, and I agree it would have been better to use SI units.
I don’t believe that a driver exerts a force of 232 kg (2.28 kN) on the pedal. That is the equivalent of a 232 kg (511 lb, 36.5 stone) man standing on one leg. A sight to behold.


You are all correct. The numbers in the article for pedal force make no sense.

Typically, the force in the pedal is equivalent to 80, 100kg on a heavy breaking point (1000N). Gym training will enable that. No need for an Olympic champion :).

It is actually easier than that for me. As soon as you get hard on the pedal, you feel the Gs as if you would be ‘falling’ only held by the harness, so your entire body goes against the front and hence pedal relative force is not that big.

Amateurs find it counterintuitive and difficult, so usually do not press hard enough.

Not to say it is simple at all, since you usually trail brake into the turn, so you have to keep force while steering and controlling the car unde Gs.

How this article passed proof reading, is not easy to imagine.

I’d have guessed turn 1 at monza and 1 at bahrain would have been the strongest.


They maybe produce 232 Kg of pressure/force, but it must have been through some sort of leverage that multiplies the force, especially given they do it with one leg alone, Or they get so much force on the square cm of the brake piston, once they press it as hard as they can?

If you think about it, okay, they don’t have to lift their own weight (as we all do while doing squats), but still 232 Kg cannot be correct.
I was an Olympic athlete competed in rowing, weighted (at my last Olympics) 100 Kg, while my max deep squat was 210 kg.
If one subtracts weight of my legs, from my body weight, I was probably lifting 260-270 kg.
That’s barely more than what’s listed in this article, and done with both legs. :-))))
I’m sure I was by far stronger than any of the drivers on the grid. 🙂

While I’m on topic of confusing numbers in this article, how Parabolica can create more braking power, compared to, say, first chicane on the same track. Parabolica is driven throug with 200 or so km/h, so braking from 340-50 to 200-ish cannot be as hard as braking from 360 to 80 for the first chicane.

Parabolica is listed here as max deceleration with 6,6 G. How’s peak deceleration of the season in Abu Dhabi with 5,2 G, when average in Monza is 5,5 G?????
Can someone explain? Jake Boxall-Legge, please tell us how did you get all this from Brembo and make it so confusing? 🙂


I’m going to suggest that the Parabolica’s max deceleration is as a result of the corner being taken differently to the first chicane. The run to the first chicane, and the subsequent braking zone, is entirely in a straight line and therefore produces a given deceleration to attain the correct speed for corner entry.

For the Parabolica, the driver is braking in a slight arc shape. From the exit of the Variante Ascari, the driver drifts from one side of the track to the other before braking for the corner. Braking under an arc will generate deceleration components in different directions, creating a high peak value.

Perhaps we didn’t convey this more clearly, but it doesn’t actually say that the 5.2g experienced at Abu Dhabi is a season high.

Acceleration (and deceleration, by association) can hit peak values, but a sustained period of high deceleration results in a shorter stopping distance compared to a high peak value. Braking for Turn 8 at Abu Dhabi will require more consistent pedal use rather than the braking pattern for the Parabolica, for example.


@ Jake …

“Braking under an arc will generate deceleration components in different directions, creating a high peak value” …. Eh?! Braking force is longitudinal (x), and there will be a lateral acceleration component (y) because you are in a corner, so the resultant force acting on the tyre will be greater (assuming its not limited by the friction circle), but the longitudinal deceleration will be not be any greater than that in a straight line….!


pressure is measured in pascals or newtons per square metres. never in kilograms.
this is so strange!


what about psi?
I haven’t studied physics so I genuinely don’t know,


You havent heard of kgf ?


those letters kgf fo not appear in the article above..


The brake pedal itself is a lever. It’s also focusing the pressure on a single point which is then probably activating hydraulics to further increase the pressure applied to the brakes themselves.


….and, given the need to go as quickly as possible for as much of the lap as possible, why would drivers choose to use less of their available braking power on some turns than they could?

Top Tags
SEARCH Innovation