pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.13522 · v2 · submitted 2025-11-17 · 🧮 math.OC

A Sequential Convex Programming Approach to Free-trajectory Minimum-lap-time Optimization of Racing Cars

Erik van den Eshof , Wytze de Vries , Jorn van Kampen , Mauro Salazar This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 20:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords minimum-lap-time optimizationsequential convex programmingracing trajectorypowertrain energy managementquasi-steady-state modelconvex approximation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Sequential convex programming computes minimum-lap-time racing trajectories and powertrain settings in seconds.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper derives a quasi-steady-state model of a racing car that treats the spatial trajectory as a decision variable to be optimized together with powertrain operation. It then casts the minimum-lap-time problem in a form whose structure is mostly convex and solves it with a sequential convex programming algorithm. The resulting method is benchmarked against general nonlinear solvers and against minimum-curvature racing-line techniques, demonstrating both large speed-ups and concrete lap-time gains. The framework is further used to manage energy and to check whether energy limits change the optimal path.

Core claim

A quasi-steady-state vehicle model that jointly optimizes trajectory and powertrain can be solved to global optimality for minimum lap time by sequential convex programming; the algorithm reduces run times from minutes to seconds while producing trajectories that are up to 4 percent faster than those from minimum-curvature methods and showing that energy constraints alter the racing line by less than 0.1 percent lap time.

What carries the argument

The sequential convex programming algorithm that iteratively replaces the non-convex minimum-lap-time problem with a sequence of convex subproblems derived from the quasi-steady-state model.

If this is right

  • Minimum-lap-time problems become solvable fast enough for real-time or repeated use during a race weekend.
  • Time-optimal racing lines can deliver measurable lap-time reductions relative to curvature-minimizing lines.
  • Energy-management decisions can be layered on top of a fixed trajectory with only marginal performance loss.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same convex-approximation strategy may apply to other vehicle-control tasks that mix path planning with actuator scheduling.
  • The speed-up could support online replanning when track conditions or opponent positions change.
  • Extending the model to include tire wear or temperature would be a direct next test of the method's robustness.

Load-bearing premise

The quasi-steady-state model accurately represents the car's dynamics when the trajectory and powertrain are optimized together.

What would settle it

A side-by-side comparison of lap times and trajectories produced by the quasi-steady-state optimizer against measurements from a high-fidelity dynamic simulator or instrumented track tests.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.13522 by Erik van den Eshof, Jorn van Kampen, Mauro Salazar, Wytze de Vries.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Optimal racing line and speed trajectory over the Interlagos Circuit. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: 3D-ribbon track model, defined by a central trajectory and a normal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Tire grip envelope of the proposed load-dependent grip coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Origins of the tire cornering resistance. No lateral force is possible [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Convergence of the SCP iterative procedure. Without a warm-start, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The minimum-curvature trajectory yields a faster ”pure cornering” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Racing line visualization through turns 5 to 9 on the Spa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The SCP solution matches the NLP solution. Both solutions match the real-world data well. The minimum curvature racing line method’s limitations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: g-g-v diagram: the optimization model solution (line trace) compared to real-world data (markers). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Three different energy management strategies on a hybrid-electric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper presents a modeling and optimization framework to compute the minimum-lap-time spatial trajectory and powertrain operation of racing cars in a computationally efficient fashion. Specifically, we first derive a quasi-steady-state model of a racing car, whereby the racing line trajectory is jointly optimized. Next, we frame the minimum-lap-time problem and leverage its mostly convex structure by devising a sequential convex programming solution algorithm. We benchmark our method against off-the-shelf nonlinear programming solvers, showing how it can bring computation time down from a few minutes to a few seconds, paving the way for real-time implementations. Moreover, we compare our results to similarly efficient minimum-curvature racing line optimization methods, showing how a minimum-time-based racing line might lead to 4% faster lap-times. Finally, we showcase our framework for optimal powertrain energy management and we validate the common modeling assumption that the racing line is unaffected by energy limitations, showing that this assumption results in marginal lap-time losses of under 0.1%.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper derives a quasi-steady-state vehicle model that permits joint optimization of the spatial racing trajectory and powertrain operation, formulates the minimum-lap-time problem, and solves it with a sequential convex programming (SCP) algorithm. It reports that SCP reduces solve times from minutes to seconds relative to off-the-shelf NLP solvers, yields trajectories approximately 4% faster than minimum-curvature lines, and confirms that energy-management constraints alter the optimal line by less than 0.1% lap time.

Significance. If the quasi-steady-state approximation remains accurate under joint trajectory-powertrain optimization, the work supplies a practical route to real-time minimum-lap-time planning. The concrete timing benchmarks against commercial solvers and the quantitative check of the energy-independence assumption are useful contributions that could be cited in subsequent racing-control literature.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 3] Section 3 (vehicle model): the quasi-steady-state assumption that tire forces and states reach equilibrium instantaneously at each path point is load-bearing for both convexity and the reported lap-time/energy results, yet the manuscript provides no direct comparison of the optimized trajectory against a full transient dynamic simulation (e.g., integration of the slip-angle differential equations along the same path). Without such a check, the 4% improvement and <0.1% energy penalty could be artifacts of the modeling simplification.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 4] Figure 4: the powertrain operating-point plot would benefit from an overlay of the feasible set boundaries to clarify how the optimum respects actuator limits.
  2. Notation: the symbol for lateral tire force is redefined between Eq. (7) and Eq. (12); a single consistent definition would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of the significance of our work and for the constructive major comment. We address the concern about validation of the quasi-steady-state assumption below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section 3] Section 3 (vehicle model): the quasi-steady-state assumption that tire forces and states reach equilibrium instantaneously at each path point is load-bearing for both convexity and the reported lap-time/energy results, yet the manuscript provides no direct comparison of the optimized trajectory against a full transient dynamic simulation (e.g., integration of the slip-angle differential equations along the same path). Without such a check, the 4% improvement and <0.1% energy penalty could be artifacts of the modeling simplification.

    Authors: We agree that the quasi-steady-state assumption is central to the convexity of the formulation and to the reported performance claims, and that the manuscript currently lacks a direct numerical comparison against a full transient simulation. While the assumption is standard in minimum-lap-time literature, we acknowledge that an explicit check would strengthen the results. In the revised manuscript we will add a validation subsection in which the slip-angle differential equations are integrated forward along the optimized spatial trajectory; we will then compare the resulting transient tire forces and states against the quasi-steady values and quantify any difference in realized lap time. This addition will directly address the possibility that the 4 % improvement or the <0.1 % energy effect are modeling artifacts. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper first derives a quasi-steady-state vehicle model from standard dynamics assumptions, then formulates the minimum-lap-time problem as a mostly convex program and solves it via sequential convex programming. All load-bearing steps (model derivation, problem framing, algorithm application) are presented as independent constructions rather than reductions to fitted parameters or self-citations. Central claims are validated by direct comparison to off-the-shelf NLP solvers and to published minimum-curvature methods; these are external references, not quantities defined inside the paper. No self-definitional loops, fitted-input-as-prediction patterns, or load-bearing self-citation chains appear in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on a domain-standard quasi-steady-state simplification whose accuracy is not independently verified within the abstract; no new entities are postulated and no free parameters are explicitly named.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Quasi-steady-state assumption for vehicle dynamics
    Invoked to enable joint optimization of trajectory and powertrain by treating the car as reaching steady conditions at each point.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5486 in / 1234 out tokens · 38999 ms · 2026-05-17T20:33:24.817646+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Efficient Trajectory Optimization for Autonomous Racing via Formula-1 Data-Driven Initialization

    cs.RO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Neural network predicts raceline offsets from local track geometry using Formula 1 data to initialize minimum-time optimal control, accelerating solver convergence on 17 tracks while preserving lap times.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Minimum-lap-time optimisation and simulation,

    M. Massaro and D. J. N. Limebeer, “Minimum-lap-time optimisation and simulation,”Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 1069– 1113, Apr. 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Race driver model,

    F. Braghin, F. Cheli, S. Melzi, and E. Sabbioni, “Race driver model,” Computers and Structures, vol. 86, no. 13–14, pp. 1503–1516, Jul. 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Minimum curvature trajectory planning and control for an autonomous race car,

    A. Heilmeier, A. Wischnewski, L. Hermansdorfer, J. Betz, M. Lienkamp, and B. Lohmann, “Minimum curvature trajectory planning and control for an autonomous race car,”Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 1497–1527, Jun. 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Time-optimal control strategies for a hybrid electric race car,

    S. Ebbesen, M. Salazar, P. Elbert, C. Bussi, and C. H. Onder, “Time-optimal control strategies for a hybrid electric race car,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 233– 247, Jan. 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Three-dimensional fixed-trajectory ap- proaches to the minimum-lap time of road vehicles,

    S. Lovato and M. Massaro, “Three-dimensional fixed-trajectory ap- proaches to the minimum-lap time of road vehicles,”Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 3650–3667, Aug. 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    A convex optimization framework for minimum lap time design and control of electric race cars,

    O. Borsboom, C. A. Fahdzyana, T. Hofman, and M. Salazar, “A convex optimization framework for minimum lap time design and control of electric race cars,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 8478–8489, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Convex performance envelope for minimum lap time energy management of race cars,

    P. Duhr, A. Sandeep, A. Cerofolini, and C. H. Onder, “Convex performance envelope for minimum lap time energy management of race cars,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 71, no. 8, pp. 8280–8295, Aug. 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Optimal endurance race strategies for a fully electric race car under ther- mal constraints,

    J. van Kampen, T. Herrmann, T. Hofman, and M. Salazar, “Optimal endurance race strategies for a fully electric race car under ther- mal constraints,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 818–833, May 2024

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Human-in-the- loop energy and thermal management for electric racing cars through optimization-based control,

    E. van den Eshof, J. van Kampen, and M. Salazar, “Human-in-the- loop energy and thermal management for electric racing cars through optimization-based control,”European Journal of Control, p. 101293, Jul. 2025

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    A three-dimensional free-trajectory quasi- steady-state optimal-control method for minimum-lap-time of race vehicles,

    S. Lovato and M. Massaro, “A three-dimensional free-trajectory quasi- steady-state optimal-control method for minimum-lap-time of race vehicles,”Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 1512–1530, Jan. 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Time-optimal gearshift and energy management strategies for a hybrid electric race car,

    P. Duhr, G. Christodoulou, C. Balerna, M. Salazar, A. Cerofolini, and C. H. Onder, “Time-optimal gearshift and energy management strategies for a hybrid electric race car,”Applied Energy, vol. 282, no. 115980, 2020

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    W. F. Milliken and D. L. Milliken,Race Car Vehicle Dynamics. SAE International, 1995

    work page 1995

  13. [13]

    D. J. N. Limebeer and M. Massaro,Dynamics and Optimal Control of Road Vehicles. Oxford University PressOxford, Sep. 2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Optimal control for a formula one car with variable parameters,

    G. Perantoni and D. J. Limebeer, “Optimal control for a formula one car with variable parameters,”Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 653–678, Feb. 2014

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    Optimal control of a formula one car on a three-dimensional track—part 2: Optimal control,

    D. J. N. Limebeer and G. Perantoni, “Optimal control of a formula one car on a three-dimensional track—part 2: Optimal control,”Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, vol. 137, no. 5, May 2015

    work page 2015

  16. [16]

    An efficient minimum- time trajectory generation strategy for two-track car vehicles,

    A. Rucco, G. Notarstefano, and J. Hauser, “An efficient minimum- time trajectory generation strategy for two-track car vehicles,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1505– 1519, Jul. 2015

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Optimal control of a nascar – specification race car,

    D. J. N. Limebeer, M. Bastin, E. Warren, and H. G. Fensham, “Optimal control of a nascar – specification race car,”Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 1210–1235, May 2022

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Analysis of driving styles of a gp2 car via minimum lap-time direct trajectory optimization,

    M. Gabiccini, L. Bartali, and M. Guiggiani, “Analysis of driving styles of a gp2 car via minimum lap-time direct trajectory optimization,” Multibody System Dynamics, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 85–113, May 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Time- optimal trajectory planning for a race car considering variable tyre- road friction coefficients,

    F. Christ, A. Wischnewski, A. Heilmeier, and B. Lohmann, “Time- optimal trajectory planning for a race car considering variable tyre- road friction coefficients,”Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 588–612, Dec. 2019

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    A free-trajectory quasi-steady-state optimal-control method for minimum lap-time of race vehicles,

    M. Veneri and M. Massaro, “A free-trajectory quasi-steady-state optimal-control method for minimum lap-time of race vehicles,” Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 933–954, Apr. 2019

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    A sequential two-step algorithm for fast generation of vehicle racing trajectories,

    N. R. Kapania, J. Subosits, and J. C. Gerdes, “A sequential two-step algorithm for fast generation of vehicle racing trajectories,” 2019

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Convex relaxations in the optimal control of electrified vehicles,

    N. Murgovski, L. Johannesson, X. Hu, B. Egardt, and J. Sjoberg, “Convex relaxations in the optimal control of electrified vehicles,” in 2015 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, Jul. 2015, pp. 2292–2298

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    Optimal control of a formula one car on a three-dimensional track—part 1: Track modeling and iden- tification,

    G. Perantoni and D. J. N. Limebeer, “Optimal control of a formula one car on a three-dimensional track—part 1: Track modeling and iden- tification,”Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, vol. 137, no. 5, May 2015

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    H. B. Pacejka,Tyre and Vehicle Dynamics, 3rd ed. Butterworth- Heinemann, 2012

    work page 2012

  25. [25]

    Ecos: An socp solver for embedded systems,

    A. Domahidi, E. Chu, and S. Boyd, “Ecos: An socp solver for embedded systems,” in2013 European Control Conference (ECC). IEEE, Jul. 2013

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    J. R. R. A. Martins and A. Ning,Engineering Design Optimization. Cambridge University Press, 2021

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    2025 formula 1 technical regulations, issue 03,

    F ´ed´eration Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), “2025 formula 1 technical regulations, issue 03,” Apr. 2025

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    rfactor 2,

    Studio 397, “rfactor 2,” 2013, racing simulation software. [Online]. Available: https://www.studio-397.com

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    Yalmip : A toolbox for modeling and optimization in matlab,

    J. L ¨ofberg, “Yalmip : A toolbox for modeling and optimization in matlab,” inIn Proceedings of the CACSD Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, 2004

    work page 2004

  30. [30]

    On the implementation of an interior- point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear program- ming,

    A. W ¨achter and L. T. Biegler, “On the implementation of an interior- point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear program- ming,”Mathematical Programming, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 25–57, Apr. 2005

    work page 2005

  31. [31]

    Schaefer, “FastF1,” GitHub repository, 2025

    P. Schaefer, “FastF1,” GitHub repository, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/theOehrly/Fast-F1

    work page 2025