Safety and Lateral Dynamics Improvement of a Race Car Using Active Rear Wing Control
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">As the forward speed of a car increases, the safety of the vehicle and the driver becomes a more significant concern. Active aerodynamic control can effectively enhance the lateral stability of high speed vehicles over tight cornering maneuvers. A split rear wing has been proposed. By means of manipulating the attack angles for the right and/or left parts of the split rear wing, a favorable yaw moment may be achieved to ensure the lateral stability of the vehicle. However, active control of the split rear wing has not been adequately explored. This paper proposes a novel active split rear wing, which can improve the lateral stability over tight cornering maneuvers, and will not degrade the longitudinal dynamics of the vehicle. A Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) based controller for the active split rear wing is designed using a linear vehicle model. In order to examine the performance of the active split rear wing, Numerical simulation is carried out using the LQR based controller and a yaw-plane vehicle model designed in MATLAB. The effectiveness of the proposed active split rear wing is demonstrated by the results derived from the numerical simulation.</div></div>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it