So I opened MS5.TBC and started looking values, I excepted to see something that shows that braking is most efficient wheel locked, as I have seen in studies of braking with biasply tires, but slip angles look almost the same as anything else, as is almost every other parameter, I would like to learn from wiser guys now where those tires has been set so that they would meet reality of studies I have seen? From my poor memory, there was also some statements of bias-ply tires easily to achieve slip of 30 degrees or even more in same situations where radials are under 20, but bias-ply peaking at full lock. I would like to achieve this to tires I'm making, but from looking TBC for me at this moment it looks like 60's series cars are not set up quite so, or am I mistaken again and if I'm mistaken which parameter(s) define peak to be more than few degrees? Slip step 0,009 * location of peak at slip table 13 *(360/3,14) = 13,41 degrees if I'm not mistaken. These two then alter the place of peak based on load, longitudal peak under load of 9600N (~978kg) would be then at 10 degrees if that is inverse sin of 0.174, but if it is rads, then it is 19.9 degrees, it is in documentation that for lateral is sin needed and longitudal closely matches SAE definition, so for me they can be either rads directly or not. LatPeak=( 0.126, 0.216, 9500) // Slip range where lateral peak force occurs depending on load LongPeak=(0.100, 0.174, 9600) // Slip range where longitudinal peak force occurs depending on load I make often errors and I'm glad if someone can point me towards right direction about how to calculate these things. Here is link that contains data about bias-ply tires testing and results: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/1080/2/29271.0001.001.pdf
Little mistake in your rad/degrees conversion. 180/3.1415 For small angles, sin is almost the same as the angle in radians. 0.174 is the sin of 10.020 degrees=0.17489 rads I suppose the slip angle used like in rfactor 1 is normalized, sin(angle). But as it is a small angle, it is very close to the direct angle expressed in radians. Difference between sin and angle in radian is less than 1% for such angles.
Oh yes, forgot to mention that I rounded things a bit, me lazy typing, as for this purpose error of 1 degree is not so important. Of course when doing actual tires one need to use all decimals too. For me those 60's tires look almost the same as tires of other ISI cars, having racing slicks, there are few small differences, but everything for me looks very subtle, nothing as drastic what I have read, so this of course makes me curious about what actually makes them separated from for example radial tires? Also it can be that those are not final tires on those cars, maybe kind of place holders which would make learning from them impossible. Any hint is welcome of course if someone gets an idea.
