Calculus P

Speed and efficiency are two of the

qualities most prized by humanity, and
when one considers the old saying time
is money it is easy to appreciate why
these are especially important to
businesses and transport. The much
sought after optimum operating criteria
for any system are those where the
resources put in are balanced with the
benefits that result in such a way that the
greatest possible benefit is gained per
input. This balancing act is extremely
mathematically
relevant
when
the
properties of polynomials and their
applications as business models are taken
with the principles of calculus, as these
two together allow for not only the finding
of this balance but the exploration of the
effects of variation within the variables.
This folio examines some common
applications
of
this
method
of
optimisation in relation to the movement
and costs of three different transportation
scenarios.

Brodie Parrott

TG10

SACE 901842 W

Brodie Parrott
TG 10
SACE 901842 W

Brodie Parrott

TG10

SACE 901842 W

Part 1 Rocket Car

For a given rocket car, the displacement at any given time is given by the
s (t ) 5t 3 20t 2 15t
model
. By differentiating this model, it is possible to
find the cars velocity and acceleration for any time as well. Through first
principles, the average velocity of the car can be found for an
infinitesimally small interval as the additional h approaches zero.
s(t ) 5t 3 20t 2 15t
s (t h ) s (t )
s' (t ) lim
h 0
h
(5(t h) 3 20(t h) 2 15(t h)) (5t 3 20t 2 15t )
lim
h 0
h
2
2
(5((t h)(t 2th h )) 20(t 2 2th h 2 ) 15t 15h) (5t 3 20t 2 15t )
lim
h 0
h
3
2
2
2
2
3
(5(t 2t h th ht 2th h ) 20(t 2 2th h 2 ) 15t 15h) (5t 3 20t 2 15t )
lim
h 0
h
3
2
2
3
2
(5t 15t h 15th 5h 20t 40th 20h 2 15t 15h) (5t 3 20t 2 15t )
lim
h 0
h
3
3
2
2
2
(5t 5h 20t 20h 15t h 15th 2 40th 15t 15h) (5t 3 20t 2 15t )
lim
h 0
h
3
3
2
2
2
10t 5h 20h 15t h 15th 40th 15h
lim
h 0
h
3
10t
lim
5h 2 20h 15t 2 15th 40t 15
h 0
h
0 0 0 15t 2 0 40t 15
v(t ) 15t 2 40t 15
This answer is verified through differentiation in appendix 1a.
As the equation for this quadratic has a negative coefficient, the parabola
will be positive between the roots if they exist. For the roots of this
equation, the quadratic formula can be used. a is the coefficient of the t2
variable, b that of the t and c the constant. With the roots, a sign diagram
can then be drawn as seen in figure 1a.

Brodie Parrott

TG10

SACE 901842 W

b b 2 4ac
2a

40 40 2 4(15)(15)

2(15)
40 50

30
x 1 / 3,
x3

Figure 1a: A sign diagram of the velocity of the car at

different times. Note that the diagram is meaningless
before t=0 as the car had not started moving then.

The maximum velocity occurs at the vertex of the quadratic and can be
found using the same definitions of a, b and c above to be:
Vertex c

b2
4a

40 2
15
2( 15)
68.333ms 1

and this can be converted to km/h to give

68.333(3600)
246 km/ h
1000

As the velocity is a quadratic, it is symmetrical about the vertex and

because, as found above, the graph is positive between its roots, the
graph must be increasing up until the vertex. This means that for all times
where t is less than 1.333 seconds, the velocity is increasing.
For the first three seconds of movement the rocket car is travelling
upwards with a positive rate of change, reaching its apogee of
displacement at the three second mark, all the while accelerating
downward at an accelerating rate. At t=4s, the rocket car is moving at
67ms-1 back toward its initial position while accelerating at 80ms-2 toward
the initial position.
Similarly to finding the velocity, the acceleration of the car at a time can
be found by differentiating the velocity function. (For proof see appendix
1b)

Brodie Parrott

TG10

SACE 901842 W

s' (t ) 15t 2 40t 15

s ' (t h) s ' (t )
h
(15(t h) 2 40(t h) 15) (15t 2 40t 15)
lim
h0
h
2
2
(15(t 2th h ) 40t 40h 15) (15t 2 40t 15)
lim
h0
h
2
2
(15t 30th 15h 40t 40h 15) (15t 2 40t 15)
lim
h0
h
2
30th 15h 40h
lim
h0
h
lim 30t 15h 40

s" (t ) lim

h0

h0

30t 0 40
a (t ) 30t 40

The acceleration is therefore a linear function, meaning it will have only

one x intercept and as the slope is negative, everything before the x
intercept will be positive. The intercept can be found by rearranging for t
when y equals zero. This gives the sign diagram in figure 1b.

Brodie Parrott

TG10

SACE 901842 W

y 30t 40
0 30t 40
40 30t
t 1.333

1.33

The rocket car turns around at the3 point at which its rate of
change is zero. As the velocity
is1b:
the
rate
of change
in displacement,
the
Figure
A sign
diagram
of the acceleration
of the car at
different
times.
Note
that
the
diagram
is
meaningless
roots of the velocity show where the car turned around. Since this model
before t=0 as the car had not started moving then.
is only concerned with the cars displacement at positive times, the only
sensible root is at three seconds. Substituting this into the equation for
the displacement, it can be found that the rocket car was 90m away.
A motion diagram of the car is shown below (figure 1c). The black arrows
represent the motion of the car.

ALL THIS CALCULUS IS DERIVING ME CRAZY

Brodie Parrott

TG10

SACE 901842 W

Part 2 Fuel Efficiency

A truck travelling interstate, presumably carrying freight of some sort, has
the journey specifications outlined below.

The truck travels at a constant 110km/h for the purposes of analysis

(completely ignoring minor things like towns and speed limits and
therefore lowering this models reasonableness),
For every litre of fuel the truck travels 7km and pays $1.49,
Every 1km/h increase in the speed of the truck causes a 0.1km/L
drop in fuel efficiency,
The driver of this particular truck gets paid a fair wage of $35 an
hour for their work and,
Every hour the truck spends on the road causes $9.50 worth of
damage to the vehicle.

If this truck were to make the 1375km journey from Adelaide to Sydney
with these conditions, it can be found that the cost to the company for this
trip would amount to $848.93 (for workings see appendix 2a-d).
Factor
Amount
110km/h
1375km
Fuel at $1.49/L
196.43L
Wages at $35/h
12.5 hours
Maintenance at
12.5 hours
$9.50/h
TOTAL COST

Cost
12.5 hours
$292.68
$437.50
$118.75
$848.93

While working with four small calculations gives the cost for a trip,
working this way is time consuming and does not allow for easy
optimisation of any factors which could be optimised. For this a model
must be created. For example, the speed of the truck can be easily
changed and modelled. If the truck travels at x km/h,
Factor
Time
Wages and Maintenance
Fuel Efficiency

Function
1375
x
hours
1375
(35 9.5)
x

dollars
7 (0.1( x 110)) 7 0.1x 11 18 0.1x
kilometres per litre

Brodie Parrott

TG10

SACE 901842 W

1375
18 0.1x

Fuel Volume

litres

1375
(1.49)
18 0.1x

Fuel Cost

dollars
From there, the cost of a trip from Adelaide to Sydney is going to be given
by the following function.
C ( x)

1375(35 9.5) 1375(1.49)

x
18 0.1x

This function can be simplified by cross multiplying it to get a singlefraction answer.

1375(35 9.5) 1375(1.49)

x
18 0.1x
61187.5 2048.75

x
18 0.1x
61187.5(18 0.1x )
2048.75 x

x(18 0.1x)
x (18 0.1x )
1101375 6118.75 2048.75 x

x(18 0.1x )
1101375 4070 x

x(18 0.1x )
1375(801 2.96 x )

x(18 0.1x)

C ( x)

C ( x)
Giving a cost

1375(801 2.96 x )
x (18 0.1x)

To find the optimum speed, ie. Where the cost of the trip is balanced with
the speed of travel best, the root(s) of the first derivative of the cost
function are needed. This cost function is fractional with a variable in both
the numerator and the denominator, and so the quotient rule is needed to
solve it.
f ( x) 1101375 4070 x

f ' ( x) 4070

g ( x) 18 x 0.1x 2

g ' ( x ) 18 0.2 x

Brodie Parrott

TG10

SACE 901842 W

1375(801 2.96 x)
x(18 0.1x)
f ' ( x) g ( x) f ( x) g ' ( x)
C ' ( x)
g ( x) 2
C ( x)

4070(18 x 0.1x 2 ) ((1101375 4070 x)(18 0.2 x)

(18 x 0.1x 2 ) 2

(73260 x 407 x 2 ) (19824750 220275 x 73260 x 814 x 2 )

(18 x 0.1x 2 ) 2

73260 x 407 x 2 19824750 220275 x 73260 x 814 x 2

(18 x 0.1x 2 ) 2

407 x 2 220275 x 19824750

(18 x 0.1x 2 ) 2

The roots of this new function can be found through technology (figure 2a)
to be 114km/h and 427km/h. As the truck probably cant quite reach
speeds of 427km/h it is reasonable to take the optimum speed to be
114km/h.
The model created
here, while decent,
is not by any means
perfect. If for
example, the truck
were taken to be
travelling at speeds
of over 250km/h it
can be seen from
figure 2a that the
cost of the trip is
negative and
therefore the truck
company gets paid
to make this trip
Figure 2a: The graph of C(x) in red and C(x) in blue with the optimum operating
before it even sells
speed marked on both.
anything. There is no
factor in the model which accounts for this behaviour, no other person who
would give the money, and so the model must have a limit of use somewhere
before the 250km/h mark. The model is also not useful near zero or when the
speed is negative as in these situations the truck either doesnt move or
somehow goes backwards.
A truck can go back and forth between Adelaide and Sydney all it likes with this
model, but if the load on the truck was changed, the truck would have to work
harder and use more fuel to get to its destination. Assuming that for every new
item of freight the truck carries it loses 0.05km/L in fuel efficiency, the truck will
have a new optimum speed with each addition or loss.

Brodie Parrott

TG10

SACE 901842 W

The original cost function, before simplification, stated

C ( x)

1375(35 9.5) 1375(1.49)

x
18 0.1x

. In this function, the fuel efficiency can be

directly altered as it is still a single set of terms in the equation and this property
makes it more useful for this analysis. For the base scenario the optimum speed
was found to be 114km/h, but adding an extra item causes a drop of 0.05km/L to
the fuel efficiency, making the denominator of the second fraction 17.95-0.1x.
The optimum speed is now 113.6, but continuing with this single step testing
produces too small results. Instead, adding ten items at a time, the graphs of the
optimum speeds are shown in figure 2b.
In the figure the optimum speeds
are marked by black dots. These
values appear to follow a not quite
linear trend. Upon inspection of
extreme values they form an
exponential decay which through
Excel can be found to have the

y 96683 x 1

equation
. This
relationship states that the greater
the load, the lower the optimum
speed and therefore the higher the
cost of the trip.
Figure 2b: The graphs of the optimum speed with increased and decreased loads.
The original case is the red line in the middle.

Brodie Parrott

TG10

SACE 901842 W

Part 3 Monaco Circuit

The Monaco circuit is a tight cornered, narrow
circuit of the Formula 1 Grand Prix each year and
is considered the most dangerous course of the
series. Winding through the tight streets of
Monaco, the drivers must balance their speed
with their own nerve as they navigate this track.
The race of Nico Rosberg, the winner of the
Monaco Circuit in 2014, has been modelled by
300
d (t )
27.275
1 10e 3t
the function
for analysis
where distance is taken with respect to time.

Race Information:
Track Length:
260.52km
Lap length:
3.34km
Laps:
78
Rosberg Race Time:
1h
49min 27s
Rosberg Fastest Lap:
1min 19s

For the velocity of the car at

any time (full workings in
appendix 3a):

v(t )

9000e 3t
(1 10e 3t ) 2

And the acceleration of the car

at any time is given by finding
the first derivative of the
Through the points at
velocity
(see isappendix 3b).
which
acceleration
zero, velocity is at its
maximum and
27000e 3t 270000e 6t
distance
a ( x ) shows in
(1 10e 3t ) 3
which lap this
Figure 3a: Displacement (black), velocity (red) and acceleration (green) of
Rosberg at Monaco.

From figure 3a, the acceleration is zero after 0.768 hours, equal to 46min
4.8s (appendix 3c) into the race. At this time, Rosberg had travelled
122.83km (appendix 3d), meaning he was in his 37th lap (appendix 3e),
and at this point in time had a velocity of 225km/h (appendix 3f).
In his 37th lap, Rosbergs top speed was reached, but his average speed
for this lap is different to this value as the model used is imperfect in
describing the speed at every moment of the laps, and indeed between
the laps themselves (appendix 3g). While different, the average is not
significantly so as this speed was on the inflection point of the
displacement graph, and so the maximum speed on this lap will suffice for
this analysis.
Cornering correctly is essential to getting faster lap times on a track like
this and so for the improvement of Rosbergs performance in the 2014
race, this is what shall be focussed upon. In a diagram of the track
(appendix 3h), the speeds of a single lap of the Monaco track at many of

Brodie Parrott

TG10

SACE 901842 W

the corners are outlined, along with the lateral g force on the cars at those
times. This allows for the calculation of the radius of the bend and with an
assumed coefficient of friction of 1, a maximum cornering speed can be
calculated (appendix 3i, 3j).
Corner
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

% Difference Rosberg
to Possible
0
0
0
47.82
14.98
62.60
0
0
0
0
43.47
14.98
62.60
62.60

Rosbergs average speed for this lap as found above

was 225km/h, 123% of the average for the lap on the
diagram. It can be assumed that Rosberg cornered at
the same relative speeds as in the diagram, so
scaling them up by 123% will give Rosbergs
approximate speeds for the same corners.

From the figure 3b (full table in appendix 3l), Nico

Rosberg took seven of the fourteen corners at the
maximum possible speed, meaning these corners
cannot be improved by going faster. Of the remaining
corners, Rosberg was 15% slower than possible on
Figure 3b: % difference in speeds between
Rosberg and maximum possible speed.
corners five and twelve, around 45% down on corners
four and eleven and 62% slower on six, thirteen and fourteen. From these
results, it is clear to see that improving cornering on those parts of the
track where the maximum possible speed was not reached would improve
performance.
Knowing all this from the mathematical models employed, the real world
situation can now be introduced to compare and show up any
discrepancies between the data.
Bringing back in the original model of Rosbergs race, as discussed briefly
above this shows only an average speed for the times it displays without
showing what the car was doing at any given point on its lap of the
course, meaning it is not reasonable to use this model directly for any in
depth analysis of individual laps. This variance that the model misses can
clearly be seen in the diagram in appendix 3h where the speed of the car
changes rapidly from corner to corner, and the smoothing effect of the
model on individual lap time outliers can be seen in appendix 3g. The
model is still reasonable to use for wider analysis though as it reasonably
well describes the general idea of how the race progressed.
Of the calculated values, there is a lot of room to move with regards to
error margins. The diagram used to calculate the maximum possible
cornering speed only showed the g-forces on the car to two significant
figures, making all of the resulting calculations only that good, though
they are shown here to more. As can be seen in appendix 3l, there are a
lot of corrections to be made to the data in order for it to make sense,
further lowering its reasonableness.
Perhaps the main limitation on the reasonableness of these calculations is
the calculated speeds of Rosberg on the corners of the track. It would be

Brodie Parrott

TG10

SACE 901842 W

remarkable if on his race he travelled those same corners in the exact

same relative speeds as in the diagram and so assuming this to be the
case places huge limitations on the analysis. This lap was presumably
completed under ideal conditions with no other cars on the road, meaning
that for a real formula 1 car to undergo this kind of motion would be
impossible. The use of this assumption is still within reason though, as
these corners have to be navigated at certain speeds and the ratios
between them are unlikely to change too much.
In the context of improving race performance through this model, Nico
Rosberg should, from these calculations, work on his cornering;
particularly on corners six, thirteen and fourteen.

Appendix
1.
s (t ) 5t 3 20t 2 15t
s ' (t ) 3(5t 31 ) 2(20t 21 ) 1(15t 11 )
15t 40t 15
2

a.

Power _ Rule

Sum _ Rule

v (t ) 15t 2 40t 15
v ' (t ) 2(15t 21 ) 1(40t 11 ) 0(15)
b.

30t 40

Power _ Rule

Sum _ Rule

s(t ) 5(33 ) 20(3) 2 15(3)

c.

90m

2.
a.

b.
c.
d.

1375km
12.5hours
110 km / h

1375km
196.43
7km
196.43($1.49) $292.68

12.5hours $35 / hour $437.50

12.5hours $9.50 / hour $118.75

3.

a. Where f(x)=300, f(x)=0, g(x)=1+10e-3t and g(x)=-30e-3t, the

first derivative and therefore the velocity of the car at any

Brodie Parrott

TG10

SACE 901842 W

given time is found through the quotient rule to be as follows.

300
27.275
1 10e 3t
f ' (t ) g (t ) f (t ) g ' (t )
d ' (t )
( g (t )) 2
d (t )

0(1 10e 3t ) (300(30e 3t ))

(1 10e 3t ) 2

9000e 3t
(1 10e 3t ) 2

b. Where f(x)=9000e-3t, f(x)=-27000e-3t (by the power rule),

g ' ( x) 2(1 10e 3t )( 30e 3t )
-3t 2

60e 3t 600e 6t

g(x)= (1+10e ) and

, the second
derivative and therefore the acceleration of the cars
displacement can be found through the quotient rule as
follows.
d ' ' ( x) a( x)
f ' ( x ) g ( x ) f ( x) g ' ( x)
a( x)
g ( x) 2
a( x)

( 27000e 3t (1 10e 3t ) 2 ) (9000e 3t (60e 3t 600e 6t ))

((1 10e 3t ) 2 ) 2

(27000e 3t (1 20e 3t 100e 6t )) (9000e 3t (60e 3t 600e 6t ))

(1 10e 3t ) 3
(27000e 3t 540000e 3t 2700000e 6t ) (540000e 3t 5400000e 6t )

(1 10e 3t ) 3

c.

27000e 3t 2700000e 6t
(1 10e 3t ) 3

0.768(60) 46 min
0.08(60) 4.8s
300
27.275
1 10e 3( 0.768)
122.83km
d (0.768)

d.
e.

122.831
36.776laps
3.34

therefore he was in his 37th lap. (anything

less than 1 but above zero was in the first lap, therefore
anything between two whole numbers is rounded up to the
higher of the two)

Brodie Parrott

TG10

9000e 3t
v (t )
(1 10e 3t ) 2
9000e 3( 0.768)
(1 10e 3( 0.768) ) 2
898.727

1.999 2
225km / h

f.

Nico Rosberg Lap Times

2014 Monaco Grand Prix.
Source: (Collantine, 2014)

g.
h.

Monaco Circuit Map.

Source: (Profile F1 Tickets
LTD, 2013)

SACE 901842 W

Brodie Parrott

ac
i.

TG10

SACE 901842 W

v2
v2
r
r
ac

Centripetal acceleration is equal to the velocity

of the object in ms-1 divided by the radius of the bend. For
example, on corner 1 the velocity is 275km/h. In ms-1, this
275(1000)
76.39
3600
becomes
(take the kilometres to meters and
2
then divide by 60 to get from hours to seconds). The g-force
on this corner is 1.5g which is equal to 14.7ms-2. This then
rcorner1

v 2 corner1
a c _ corner1

76.39 2

1 .5
396.95m

results in:
. This process can be repeated for all
corners on the diagram in appendix 3d.
j. The coefficient of friction of a tyre on the road is 1
(Engineering Toolbox, n.d.), meaning that for a formula 1 car
of approximately 700kg including the driver (various websites)
FFs max s FN
would have a maximum static frictional force of
where the normal force (FN) is equal to the mass by
FFs max s FN
1(700)(9.8)
6860 N

gravitational acceleration (9.8ms-2) gives

per tyre,
resulting in an overall maximum frictional force of 27440N.
The centripetal force generated by the cornering can therefore
not exceed this maximum frictional force else the car will skid.
The equation that describes centripetal force is shown and
rearranged below to find the maximum cornering velocity.
mv 2
r
Fc r mv 2
Fc

Fc r
v2
m
Fc r
v
m

Which gives for corner 1 a maximum velocity

Brodie Parrott

TG10

SACE 901842 W

27440(396.95)
700

124.7 ms 1

of
corners.

. Again, this can be repeated for all

Brodie Parrott

TG10

Corn
er

Velocit
y
(km/h)

Velocit
y (ms1
)

gforce

g-force
(ms-2)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

275.00
133.00
275.00
165.00
65.00
125.00
250.00
270.00
280.00
225.00
170.00
105.00
115.00
110.00

76.39
36.94
76.39
45.83
18.06
34.72
69.44
75.00
77.78
62.50
47.22
29.17
31.94
30.56

1.50
3.00
2.50
0.20
2.00
1.00
0.20
0.00
0.50
4.00
0.20
2.00
1.00
1.00

14.70
29.40
24.50
1.96
19.60
9.80
1.96
0.00
4.90
39.20
1.96
19.60
9.80
9.80

SACE 901842 W

Corner
Radius (m)

k. Diagram velocities at
radius and Nico Rosbergs
The calculations for the corner
are shown above in

396.96
46.42
238.17
1071.78
16.63
123.02
2460.47
Infinite
1234.57
99.65
1137.72
43.40
104.13
95.27

Max
Corner
Speed
(ms-1)
124.74
42.66
96.63
204.97
25.53
69.44
310.56
Infinite
219.99
62.50
211.18
41.25
63.89
61.11

Max Corner
Speed
(km/h)
449.07
153.58
347.85
737.90
91.92
250.00
1118.03
Infinite
791.96
225.00
760.26
148.49
230.00
220.00

Rosberg
Speed
(km/h)
338.25
163.59
338.25
202.95
79.95
153.75
307.50
332.10
344.40
276.75
209.10
129.15
141.45
135.30

Max
Rosberg
Difference
110.82
-10.01
9.60
534.95
11.97
96.25
810.53
Infinite
447.56
-51.75
551.16
19.34
88.55
84.70

%Difference

33
-6
3
264
15
63
264
Infinite
130
-19
264
15
63
63

corners and resulting g-force, corner

assumed speeds for the same corners.
radius and maximum cornering speed
appendices 3i and 3j.

Brodie Parrott

TG10

SACE 901842 W

l. Maximum cornering speeds compared to Nico Rosberg assumed speeds with speed limit of 300km/h on
both maximum speed and Rosbergs speed. Also corrected where Rosberg exceeded the calculated
maximum cornering speed. Corrected values are shown in red.
Corner Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

m.

Max Corner
Max - R
Speed (km/h)
R Speed (km/h) Difference
%Difference R
300.00
300.00
0.00
0.00
153.58
153.58
0.00
0.00
300.00
300.00
0.00
0.00
300.00
202.95
97.05
47.82
91.92
79.95
11.97
14.98
250.00
153.75
96.25
62.60
300.00
300.00
0.00
0.00
Infinite
Infinite
Infinite
Infinite
300.00
300.00
0.00
0.00
225.00
225.00
0.00
0.00
300.00
209.10
90.90
43.47
148.49
129.15
19.34
14.98
230.00
141.45
88.55
62.60
220.00
135.30
84.70
62.60