Proceeding Paper

Performance Optimization of a Formula Student Racing Car

Using the IPG CarMaker, Part 1: Lap Time Convergence and
Sensitivity Analysis †
Dominik Takács and Ambrus Zelei *

Department of Whole Vehicle Engineering, Audi Hungaria Faculty of Automotive Engineering, Széchenyi István
University in Győr, 9026 Győr, Hungary; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]
† Presented at the Sustainable Mobility and Transportation Symposium 2024, Győr, Hungary, 14–16 October 2024.

Abstract: It is increasingly common for simulation and AI tools to aid in the vehicle design process.
The IPG CarMaker uses a multibody vehicle model and a learning algorithm for the virtual driver.
The goal is to discover the behavior of the learning algorithm from the point of view of reliability and
convergence. Simulations demonstrate that the lap time converges reliably. We also report that small
changes in the vehicle parameters induce small changes in the simulated lap time, i.e., the lap time is
a differentiable function of the vehicle parameters. Part 2 of this paper explains the aerodynamics
and Drag Reduction System optimization.

Keywords: lap time simulation; optimization; IPG CarMaker

1. Introduction
Simulations, especially finite element analysis (FEA) [1], multibody dynamics (MBD) [2,3],
and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) [1], are key elements that can help engineers
be more effective in designing a brand-new commercial vehicle or a race car. The design
process is usually an iterative process that aims at an optimal result [4], with multiple
Citation: Takács, D.; Zelei, A.
optimization goals, such as the lap time of a race car. The growing computational capacity
Performance Optimization of a is essential to save time during both the conceptual design and prototype testing once a
Formula Student Racing Car Using proper simulation model is constructed. This work focuses on the lap time optimization
the IPG CarMaker, Part 1: Lap Time of a formula student (FS) race car. A simulation model that is capable of reliable lap time
Convergence and Sensitivity Analysis. prediction should generally contain all the fundamental components and properties of
Eng. Proc. 2024, 79, 86. https:// a car, including chassis stiffness, steering characteristics, suspension kinematics, a brake
doi.org/10.3390/engproc2024079086 system, tire properties, inertias, and aerodynamic properties [5,6]. All these parameters
are handled at a certain modeling level in the IPG CarMaker 11.0 software [7], which is
Academic Editors: András Lajos Nagy,
Boglárka Eisinger Balassa, László
mainly developed for predicting the dynamic behavior of four-wheeled vehicles. These
Lendvai and Szabolcs Kocsis-Szürke
computational tools have been used by the Arrabona Racing Team (ART), which was
established in 2014 at the Széchenyi István University of Győr.
Published: 12 November 2024 The IPG CarMaker software is used in the automotive and motorsport industries
for the development of new vehicles. The simplified virtual representation of the vehicle
can be defined in the software to analyze the behavior of it regarding the principles of
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
vehicle dynamics. Further sub-systems, such as the virtual representation of the road
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
and the virtual driver, are also parametrized in the IPG CarMaker software [7]. The
This article is an open access article software was used for designing the steering strategy of an FS car that uses four-wheel
distributed under the terms and steering [8]. An enhanced Kalman filter scheme is developed in [9] to estimate the sideslip,
conditions of the Creative Commons the heading, and the longitudinal velocity of a vehicle, and the proposed design is tested
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// by simulations using IPG CarMaker. A novel robust optimal controller is developed for
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ active suspension systems to enhance a vehicle’s ride comfort and handling performance
4.0/). in [10]. The effectiveness of the controller is verified through simulation results using the

Eng. Proc. 2024, 79, 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2024079086 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/engproc

Eng. Proc. 2024, 79, 86 2 of 7

IPG CarMaker software. Similarly, in [11], the IPG CarMaker vehicle dynamics software
was used for the demonstration of the efficiency of a newly developed controller. The
research works in references [9–11] shows that the IPG CarMaker is considered a reliable
tool for scientific purposes.
The reliability of the vehicle model and the accuracy and precision of the simulation
methodology were examined in this study. The first aim was to analyze the convergence
properties of the lap time, which includes the optimization of the driver’s behavior in
the IPG CarMaker. The second goal in this paper was to assess the sensitivity of the
simulated lap time in relation to the vehicle parameters. The main results of the validation
are also presented.

2. Methodology
2.1. Lap Time Simulations and Driver Model
A vehicle is generally simulated using MBD simulation tools when its dynamic be-
havior is in focus. A specific area in the motorsport world which also uses MBD is lap
time simulation, which means that the theoretically possible fastest lap on the racetrack
is predicted by assuming a perfect driver who does not make any errors and that the
limitations of the vehicle are completely exploited, e.g., the traction budget is completely
covered, or in other words, the lateral and longitudinal acceleration is maximized. This
involves tire friction capabilities, engine capabilities, and the properties of the brake sys-
tem. The key role of the aerodynamic package in the traction is considered as well. The
aerodynamic map of the vehicle is presented in the second part [12] of this paper. Any
change in the huge number of vehicle parameters yields a change in the simulated lap time.
However, more importantly, the lap times in physical reality also change statistically. One
can say “statistically”, because the actions of a real driver are always subjected to stochastic
factors [13].
The simulations rely on a complex driver model built in the IPG CarMaker [7]. At
the first adaptation stage, the driver model adapts to the vehicle: the vehicle limits, the
engine speeds for shifting, and the controller dynamics are automatically determined. A
set of different maneuvers are carried out in a huge, empty, plain ground using the current
vehicle model. The trained driver model actuates the steering system, the gear shifting,
the throttle, and the brake with an aim to be as fast as possible. In the second adaptation
stage, the driver model learns the specific racetrack. Here, the learning rate (LR) is an
important factor set by the user. It is identical to the LR used in neural networks. The
driver adaptation is carried out during 15 laps along the track in our study. During that,
the driver model parameters (invisible to the user) are being tuned to adapt to the specific
racetrack. What the user sees is that the lap time is gradually decreasing. Each racetrack
requires a unique driver adaptation procedure.

2.2. Vehicle Model

The vehicle model contains (a) the chassis of which the inertial parameters, the bend-
ing, and the torsional stiffness were experimentally measured; (b) the multilink suspension
together with the steering mechanism and the anti-roll-bar, represented by a detailed ge-
ometry, as Figure 1 shows (the IPG CarMaker has its own tool to define the geometry and
kinematics of the suspension system); (c) the tire model, which relies on the RealTime Tire
model, in which the measured characteristics of the tire are stored in a Tire Data Exchange
Format (TYDEX); (d) aero components represented by the aerodynamic map [12] originat-
ing from CFD simulations; (e) the engine, represented by the throttle–torque rotation speed
map; and (f) the drivetrain, including all gears. The model validation helped to adjust the
model parameters in such way that the simulated lap time is in the 1–2% vicinity of the
actual lap time measured on the same track.
 Eng. Proc. 2024, 79, 86 3 of 7
Eng. Proc. 2024,
Eng. Proc. 2024, 79,
79, 86
86 3 of 7
3 of 7

Figure 1. The steering mechanism and suspension model of the ART_X vehicle (the ART’s own
Figure 1.
1. The
property). Thesteering
steeringmechanism
mechanismand suspension
and model
suspension of the
model ART_X
of the vehicle
ART_X (the ART’s
vehicle own
(the ART’s
property).
own property).
2.3. Lap Time Convergence, Parameter Sensitivity Analysis, and Validation
2.3. Lap Time
2.3. Lap Time Convergence,
Convergence, Parameter
Parameter Sensitivity
Sensitivity Analysis, and Validation
The analysis of the convergence of the lapAnalysis,
time andand theValidation
driver adaptation was carried
The analysis
Theinitiating
analysis 15of
of the
the convergence
convergence of the lap time and
and the driver adaptation was carried
out by consecutive laps ofonthe
thelap time
track while the driver adaptation
registering the lap time was carried
data. The
out
out by initiating
by initiating 15 consecutive
15 consecutive laps on the track while registering the lap time data. The
question is whether the lap timelaps on the
reaches track while
a plateau afterregistering the lap of
a certain number time data.
laps. TheThe lap
question
question is whether the lap time reaches aa plateau after a certain number of laps. The lap
time afteris15whether the is
iterations lap timethe
called reaches
best lap plateau
time. after a certain number of laps. The lap
time
time after
after 15 iterations is
is called
called the best lap time.
In the15sensitivity
iterations analysis, the
the best
goallapwastime.
to analyze the change in the best lap time in
In
In the
the sensitivity
sensitivity analysis,
analysis, the
the goal
goal was
was to
to analyze
analyze the change
thepurpose,
change in in the best
bestoflap time in
response to the change in the vehicle parameters. For this thethe
mass lap
thetime
chassisin
response
response to
to the
the change
change in
in the
the vehicle
vehicle parameters.
parameters. For
For this
this purpose,
purpose, the
the mass
mass of
of the
the chassis
chassis
varied: starting from the actual value, it was increased and decreased with 3 15 kg steps.
varied:
varied: starting from
starting from thethe actual
actual value,
value, itit was
was increased
increased and and decreased
decreased withwith 3 1515 kgkg steps.
steps.
The best converged lap times were compared. The parameters which can3influence the
The best converged lap times were compared. The parameters which can influence the
The best performance
driver’s converged lap times
were setwere
to ancompared.
equal levelThe parameters
in all cases, usingwhich can influence
15 laps for the driverthe
driver’s performance were set to an equal level in all cases, using 15 laps for the driver
driver’s
model toperformance
adapt to thewere set to an equal level in all cases, using 15 laps for the driver
racetrack.
model to adapt to the racetrack.
modelThe to adapt to the racetrack.
IPG CarMaker simulation results were validated by carrying out telemetry data
The IPG CarMaker simulation results were validated by carrying out telemetry data
The IPG
collection CarMaker
during realtest simulation
test driveswith results
with were validated
thephysical
physical prototypeby carrying outtracks
telemetry data
collection during real drives the prototype onon the
the test
test tracks [14].[14]. Lon-
Longi-
collection
gitudinal during
and realacceleration
lateral test drives with data, the physical
together withprototype
throttle on the test
position data,tracks
were [14]. Lon-
collected.
tudinal and lateral acceleration data, together with throttle position data, were collected.
gitudinal and lateral acceleration data, together with throttle position data, were collected.
3.3.Results
Results
3.
3.1.Results
3.1.Convergence—Virtual
Convergence—VirtualDriver DriverAdaptation
AdaptationProcess
Process
3.1. Convergence—Virtual
The
TheLR
LRwas
wasset
setto Driver
tofour
four Adaptation
different
different Process
values
valuestotogain
gaindetailed
detailedinformation
informationon
onthe
thedriver’s
driver’s
The LRprocess:
adaptation
adaptation was set 0.75,
process: to four
0.75, 1, different
1, 1.25, andvalues
1.25, and 1.5. to gain
1.5. Figure detailed
22 shows
shows the information
the diagram
diagram ofofon the
the
the driver’s
lap
lap times
times
adaptation
achieved by process:
the 0.75,
virtual 1,
driver 1.25,
duringandthe1.5. Figure
adaptation 2 shows
process, the
withdiagram of
different
achieved by the virtual driver during the adaptation process, with different LR values. LRthe lap
values.times
The
achieved
obtained by
lap the
timesvirtual
are driver
very closeduring
to the the
valuesadaptation
measured process,
in with
physical different
tests with
The obtained lap times are very close to the values measured in physical tests with expe- LR values.
experienced
The obtained
drivers.
rienced The lapThe
mean
drivers. times
value are
mean very
in value close
the real thetois
intest the values
about
real test 79.5measured
s. 79.5 s.in physical tests with expe-
is about
rienced drivers. The mean value in the real test is about 79.5 s.

Figure2.2.Driver
Figure Driveradaptation
adaptationprocess
processwith
withdifferent
differentlearning
learningrates
rates(the
(theART’s
ART’sown
ownproperty).
property).
Figure 2. Driver adaptation process with different learning rates (the ART’s own property).
 Eng.Proc.
Eng. Proc.2024,
2024,79,
79,86
86 44 of
of 77

3.2.
3.2.Parameter
Parameter Sensitivity
Sensitivity
The
Thereference
referencevalues
valuesforforthe
thebody
bodymass,
mass,total mass,
total mass,and best
and laplap
best time are are
time 55 kg,
55 250 kg,
kg, 250
and 79.6279.62
kg, and s, respectively. TheThe
s, respectively. extreme values
extreme are,are,
values respectively, 40 kg,
respectively, 235235
40 kg, kg,kg,
and 76.85
and 76.85s
and
s and7070
kg,kg,
265 kg,
265 and
kg, and81.96
81.96s. s.Figure
Figure3 3shows
showsthe thelap
laptimes
timeswith
withthethedifferent
differentbody
bodyand
and
auxiliary
auxiliary masses.
masses. A A polynomial
polynomial curve curve was
was fitted
fitted to
to the
the results
results to
to be
be able
ableto
toexamine
examinethethe
impact of this parameter on the results. The results show close-to-linear
impact of this parameter on the results. The results show close-to-linear behavior, behavior, which
whichis
also expected in reality if the vehicle chassis mass increases or decreases.
is also expected in reality if the vehicle chassis mass increases or decreases.

Figure3.3.The
Figure Thelap
laptime’s
time’simpact
impacton
onthe
thebody
bodyand
andauxiliary
auxiliarymasses
masses(the
(theART’s
ART’sown
ownproperty).
property).

3.3.
3.3.Validation
Validation of
of IPG
IPG CarMaker
CarMaker Simulations
Simulations
During
During anan FS FScompetition,
competition, two twosessions
sessionswere wereused
usedin inthis
thisstudy:
study:(i) (i)standing-start
standing-start
acceleration
accelerationon onaa7575mmstraight
straighttrack
track upupto toroughly
roughly 95 95
km/h,
km/h,which
whichis useful
is usefulwhen
whenvalidating
validat-
the longitudinal behavior (see Figure 4); and (ii) a 250 m long skid
ing the longitudinal behavior (see Figure 4); and (ii) a 250 m long skid pad test with a pad test with a direction
switch
directionin the middle
switch in the(a middle
test track(a made of two
test track made connecting circles) [14],
of two connecting which
circles) is relevant
[14], which is
for lateral vehicle properties (see Figures 5 and 6). These two maneuvers
relevant for lateral vehicle properties (see Figures 5 and 6). These two maneuvers are pre- are pre-defined
in the IPG
defined inCarMaker. The setup
the IPG CarMaker. Theof setup
the vehicle
of theis the same
vehicle is thein same
the real-life test casetest
in the real-life andcase
in
the simulation. However, there are parameters that strongly affect
and in the simulation. However, there are parameters that strongly affect vehicle perfor- vehicle performance
but
mancecannot
but be clearly
cannot be defined, such assuch
clearly defined, weather conditions,
as weather tire wear,
conditions, tireand track
wear, andconditions.
track con-
For
ditions. For the minimization of these factors, test data were chosen from awith
the minimization of these factors, test data were chosen from a day day average
with av-
weather and track
erage weather andconditions with a with
track conditions freshabut freshnotbutnew
notset of tires.
new set ofThe physical
tires. data were
The physical data
collected with the
were collected withdatathe
logger
data provided by MoteC.
logger provided by The simulated
MoteC. longitudinal
The simulated acceleration
longitudinal ac-
in Figure 4 in
celeration fitsFigure
well to the well
4 fits measured
to thedata.
measuredHowever, data. at the present
However, stage,
at the we could
present stage,not
we
affect the gearshifts in the IPG car maker: it can be seen in the graphs that the real and the
could not affect the gearshifts in the IPG car maker: it can be seen in the graphs that the
virtual drivers changed speeds at different time intervals. Figure 5 shows that the lateral
real and the virtual drivers changed speeds at different time intervals. Figure 5 shows that
accelerations of the simulations and the measurements match. However, the logged data
the lateral accelerations of the simulations and the measurements match. However, the
are a bit noisy. Some minor difference is noticeable during the right-hand section, as the
logged data are a bit noisy. Some minor difference is noticeable during the right-hand
virtual model is reaching around a 1.6 G value, while the recorded real data averages about
section, as the virtual model is reaching around a 1.6 G value, while the recorded real data
1.4–1.5 G. This difference is due to the driver, as making a right-hand turn is a less natural
averages about 1.4–1.5 G. This difference is due to the driver, as making a right-hand turn
maneuver for the drivers. In Figure 6, the throttle pedal position is displayed during a skid
is a less natural maneuver for the drivers. In Figure 6, the throttle pedal position is dis-
pad test. The IPG driver can keep a more consistent throttle pedal position, while the real
played during a skid pad test. The IPG driver can keep a more consistent throttle pedal
driver is a bit more “nervous” with the throttle pedal, but the difference is not considerable.
position, while the real driver is a bit more “nervous” with the throttle pedal, but the dif-
ference is not considerable.
Eng.
Eng.Proc. 2024,79,
Proc.2024, 79,86
86 55 of 77
Eng. Proc. 2024, 79, 86 5 of 7
Eng. Proc. 2024, 79, 86 5 of 7

Figure4.4. Longitudinal
Figure Longitudinalacceleration
accelerationdata
datacomparison
comparisonfor
formodel
modelvalidation
validation(the
(theART’s
ART’sown
ownproperty).
property).
Figure 4. Longitudinal acceleration data comparison for model validation (the ART’s own property).
Figure 4. Longitudinal acceleration data comparison for model validation (the ART’s own property).

Figure 5. Lateral acceleration data comparison for skid pad test (the ART’s own property).
Figure5.5.Lateral
Figure Lateralacceleration
accelerationdata
datacomparison
comparisonfor
forskid
skidpad
padtest
test(the
(theART’s
ART’sown
ownproperty).
property).
Figure 5. Lateral acceleration data comparison for skid pad test (the ART’s own property).

Figure 6. Throttle pedal position data comparison for skid pad test (the ART’s own property).
Figure 6. Throttle pedal position data comparison for skid pad test (the ART’s own property).
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Throttle pedal position data comparison
comparison for
for skid
skid pad
pad test
test (the
(the ART’s
ART’s own
own property).
property).
4. Discussion and Conclusions
4. Discussion and Conclusions
4.
4. Discussion
The newly
Discussion and
and Conclusions
designed
Conclusions combustion engine FS car prototype is developed in the IPG
The newly designed combustion engine FS car prototype is developed in the IPG
The
CarMaker newly
The newlyvirtualdesigned
environment
designed combustion engine
to be able
combustion engine FS
FS car
to analyze prototype
car its is
is developed
overall performance,
prototype developed suchin
in the
theasIPGthe
CarMaker virtual environment to be able to analyze its overall performance, such asIPG
the
CarMaker
effect of the
CarMaker virtual
virtual environment
suspension geometry
environment to
to be
and
be able to
stiffness,
able to analyze its
inertial
analyze its overall
parameters,
overall performance, such
and the aerodynamic
performance, such as
as the
the
effect of the suspension geometry and stiffness, inertial parameters, and the aerodynamic
effect of
of the
settings,
effect on suspension
the the traction geometry
and the vehicleand
and stiffness,
performance. inertial Theparameters, and
and the
main dimensions aerodynamic
the and limits are
settings,
settings, on suspension
on the traction
the traction
geometry
and
and the
the vehicle
vehicle
stiffness,
performance. inertial
performance. Theparameters,
The main
main dimensions
dimensions
aerodynamic
and andlimits are
limits
controlled
settings, for
onfor the
thethe sake
traction of
andfair competition
thecompetition and
vehicle performance. safety [14].
The The
main physical
dimensions tests and
and simula-
limits are
controlled
are controlled sake
for sake
thethe of
sake fair
ofcompetition
fair competition and safety
and [14].
safety The
[14].physical tests and simula-
tions make possible
controlled of near-optimal parameter choice
[14].from theThe physical
range allowedtests byandthe
tions makefor
simulations
the
possible
make the
possible
fair
near-optimal
the near-optimal
and safety
parameter
parameter choice The
from
choice
physical
the range
from the
tests and
allowed
range
simula-
allowed by the
by
rules.make possible the near-optimal parameter choice from the range allowed by the
tions
rules.
the rules.
rules.A fundamental finding of this work was that the lap time converges reliably similarly
AAfundamental
to any
fundamentalfinding
iterative search
findingof ofthis
algorithm.
thiswork
In
workwas wasthat
reality, the
thatthethe lap
driver’s
lap time
time converges
converges reliably
behavior
reliably similarly
determines
similarly
a huge por-
A
to any fundamental
any iterative
iterative search finding of
algorithm. this work
InIn was
reality, that
thethe the lap
driver’s time converges
behavior reliably
determines similarly
a huge por-
to
tion of the overallsearch algorithm.
performance [13]. reality,
Professional driver’s
racing behavior
drivers determines
therefore spend a huge
years in
to any
tion ofiterative
the search
overall algorithm.[13].
performance In reality, the driver’s
Professional racing behavior
drivers determines
therefore a huge
spend yearspor- in
portion
practice, ofgoing
the overall
through performance
many series[13]. Professional
until they are racing drivers
experienced therefore
enough to spendthe
reach years
phys-in
tion of thegoing
practice, overall performance
through many [13]. until
series Professional
they are racing driversenough
experienced thereforeto spendthe
reach years
phys-in
practice,
ical limitsgoing
of through
a certainmany series
vehicle onuntil they aretrack
a certain experienced enough toconditions.
under different reach the physical
practice,
ical limits going
of athrough
certainmanyvehicleseries
on until they are
a certain track experienced to reach theIn
enoughconditions.
under different
IPG
phys-
In IPG
ical limits of a certain vehicle on a certain track under different conditions. In IPG
Eng. Proc. 2024, 79, 86 6 of 7

limits of a certain vehicle on a certain track under different conditions. In IPG CarMaker,
this process takes minutes. One can observe in Figure 2 that LR = 0.75 meant that the virtual
driver was not able to find the track limits with this vehicle model. The convergence stops
after three laps, and the lap times are far away from the best simulation and real-life results.
LR values of 1 and 1.25 result in much better lap times and good convergence. Still, the lap
times are 1.8 s and 0.7 s longer than the measured average. An LR = 1.5 results in faulty
simulations, i.e., the vehicle drifts off the racetrack, which is handled as an error in the IPG
CarMaker software. The conclusion is therefore that 1.25 is the optimal value for the LR on
this track with this vehicle. An LR of 1.25 provides stable, reliable, repeatable, and realistic
results. We emphasize that the learning process is always dependent on the vehicle with
which it is performed and the tire model selected. As in real life, different vehicles and
tires require different driving styles, and the driver must adapt to the car in some ways.
If the virtual driver is placed in a more stable, easier-to-drive vehicle, the convergence
characteristics is much steeper, and it easily finds the limits even with a lower LR value. In
an unstable car, which requires careful driving, the lap times will decrease in smaller steps.
As a second finding, the lap time simulations in IPG CarMaker led to the conclusion
that small changes in the vehicle mass induce small changes in the simulated lap time.
Hence, the lap time is a continuous and differentiable function of the vehicle parameters.
Part 2 of this paper [12] gives more information on the parameter sensitivity related to
aerodynamic performance.
The reliability of the IPG CarMaker simulations were checked by means of validations.
Measurements on the physical prototype were carried out. The acceleration data, the
throttle actuation by the virtual driver, and the lap times were compared to the physical
test results.

Author Contributions: D.T. performed the calculations and analysis. A.Z. edited the manuscript. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This publication was created under the framework of the Széchenyi István University’s
VHFO/416/2023-EM_SZERZ project entitled “Preparation of digital and self-driving environmental
infrastructure developments and related research to reduce carbon emissions and environmental
impact” (Green Traffic Cloud).
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study did not require ethical approval, as it did not
involve humans or animals.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable, as the study did not involve human participants.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting the findings of this study are contained within
the article.
Acknowledgments: This work has been supported by the Arrabona Racing Team of the Széchenyi
István University, located in Győr, Hungary.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to this study.

References
1. Stein, E.; de Borst, R.; Hughes, T.J.R. Encyclopedia of Computational Mechanics, Vols. 1., 2., 3.; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2004; ISBN 0-470-84699-2.
2. Pacejka, H.B. Tire and Vehicle Dynamics, 2nd ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: London, UK, 2006; ISBN 980-0-7506-6918-4.
3. Shabana, A. Dynamics of Multibody Systems; Cambridge University Press: New York, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-0-521-85011-7.
4. Press, W.H.; Teukolsky, S.A.; Vetterling, W.T.; Flannery, B.P. Numerical Recipies—The Art of Scientific Computing, 3rd ed.; Cambridge
University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-0-511-33555-6.
5. Crolla, D.A. Automotive Engineering—Powertrain, Chassis System and Vehicle Body; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2009;
ISBN 978-1-85617-577-7.
6. Gillespie, T.D. Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics, Revised ed.; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2021; ISBN 978-1-4686-0356-9.
7. IPG Automotive GmbH. Index Page. Available online: https://www.ipg-automotive.com/en/ (accessed on 1 July 2024).
8. Allwright, J. Four Wheel Steering (4WS) on a Formula Student Racing Car. SAE-A Veh. Technol. Eng. 2015, 1, 1–12. [CrossRef]
9. Leung, K.T.; Whidborne, J.F.; Purdy, D.; Barber, P. Road vehicle state estimation using low-cost GPS/INS. Mech. Syst. Signal
Process. 2011, 25, 1988–2004. [CrossRef]
Eng. Proc. 2024, 79, 86 7 of 7

10. Fallah, S.; Sorniotti, A.; Gruber, P. A Novel Robust Optimal Active Control of Vehicle Suspension Systems. IFAC Proc. Vol. 2014,
47, 11213–11218. [CrossRef]
11. Hegedűs, T.; Fényes, D.; Szabó, Z.; Németh, B.; Gáspár, P. LPV control design based on ultra-local model for trajectory tracking
problem. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2022, 55, 175–180. [CrossRef]
12. Takács, D.; Ambrus Zelei, A. Performance Optimization of a Formula Student Racing Car Using IPG CarMaker—Part 2: Aiding
Aerodynamics and DRS Package Design. Eng. Proc. 2024, in press.
13. Luo, Y.; Chen, Y.; Lu, K.; Chen, L.; Zhang, J. Modeling and analysis of heterogeneous traffic flow considering dynamic information
flow topology and driving behavioral characteristics. Phys. A 2024, 637, 129521. [CrossRef]
14. Formula Student Germany Rulebook for 2024. Available online: https://www.formulastudent.de/fileadmin/user_upload/all/
2024/rules/FS-Rules_2024_v1.1.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2024).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.