FSAE Tire Test Consortium -- Round 4

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

We are now actively working toward the 4th round of tire tests, tenatively scheduled for late-August or early-September 2009.

The goal of these tests is to provide tire data similar to the three previous rounds on popular tires currently available to FSAE teams. Compared to the previous rounds of testing we aim to:

+ provide more data at several pressures for each tire (including non-zero inclination angle data at each pressure).

+ reduce the grip on the test machine so that it more directly represents on-road tire performance

+ study tire temperature and wear effects

We are now in the test planning stage. We'd like your feedback on the following:

1. What tires would you like to see tested?

We will try to test as many of the most popular tires as we can. We have already been collecting data on what tires have been run in '09 competitions.

2. What data are you interested in that isn't available from the first three rounds of testing?

Obviously, there are machine limitations, budget limitations, time limitations, etc., so we can't measure everything. That said, we want to provide as useful data as possible to as many members as possible.

3. What rim width(s) would you like to see tested?

Round 3 contained a rim width study. We're considering doing a full test on each tire using two different rim widths.

4. What other feedback can you give us?

We're always interested in your comments about the data, the tests, etc.

We want the 4th round of testing to be the most comprehensive set of tests yet. I'll keep you posted on the progress of our plans both here and on the FSAE TTC private forum at http://sae.wsu.edu/ttc/

[jrickert]

Would love to see the Hoosier R25B and LC0 compound tested. The Hoosier R25A compound is no longer available. There is no Data on either of the other two Hoosier offerings.

A rain test would be extremely interesting. It seems FSAE races are oft plauged by rain.

None of the test so far have explored the effects of speed.

[sbrenaman]

2nd the R25B comment. We are in the process of buying into the TTC and I wasn't aware that the 25B's hadn't been tested yet.

[J.R.]

Originally posted by sbrenaman:
2nd the R25B comment. We are in the process of buying into the TTC and I wasn't aware that the 25B's hadn't been tested yet.

When I talked to a Hoosier Rep a while back, he said the only difference between the A and B compound was longevity, the B was supposed to last longer. Even so, it'd be nice to see if he was correct. I second the 10's in LC0 compound, and also I would like to see the Michelin Radials that Akron? was running to see how far they got in development.

Most of all I would love to see Darmstadt's Pirellis! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Zac]

that was Auburn running on Michelin. Apparently the last time Akron tried to use anything other than Goodyear(which is headquartered in Akron) there was a lot of commotion.

It might be interesting to see an LCO vs. R25B 10" comparison, but I would be a lot more interested in seeing data on all of the various 13" options, particularly the Continental and the Dunlop, but also the new Goodyear tire. Obviously the trade-off is that the more tires we add to the test, the less data for each tire we get.

[MalcolmG]

It seems to really be a toss-up between getting data for picking tyres vs getting data for designing suspension. Detailed data could be collected for the Hoosier R25Bs and the new Goodyears and it'll cover around 90% of people, but chances are that 90% of those people wouldn't use more than the basic data you can pull out of the testing. Testing a wider range of tyres will help people make more informed choices about the tyres they use, but will possibly lack the detail craved by more interested modellers?

[exFSAE]

Few comments...

Rather than just stating "R25B," state the actual Hoosier product code and/or size. There are a LOT of tires, even a lot of FSAE tires, on that compound.

I agree with Malcolm in that there's a lot of performance to be had in doing limited testing of a wide range of tires, and it will work for most of the people. I think we need to just find a good balance of range of tires and how extensive the testing is. Also, more important than the different types of test is assuring the data is good.

And YES. Wet testing would be awesome. Inevitably it tends to rain at least 1 day in Detroit. Lot of points to be gained by having the right wet tires...

[Maverik]

New goodyears for sure

[J. Vinella]

Originally posted by exFSAE:
And YES. Wet testing would be awesome. Inevitably it tends to rain at least 1 day in Detroit. Lot of points to be gained by having the right wet tires...


Let us get this straight. Choosing tires for wet conditions stems more from past experience. Words like awesome and cool make me shudder when it comes to tires. I would rather hear words like useful or worth the money and time.

It rains nine months out of the year in Seattle. I would venture that we have more wet testing that most every other team. I understand that the other teams that do not test in the wet "might" gain some incite into what tire to use construction wise. Wet racing all comes down to how much water is on the track and how much grooving you need. Will the track dry out. Are you looking at the weather passing through. I made our endurance tire choice as we were in fuel. A simple look at the system moving through on the Doppler showed that the rain would pass and it would dry up. I was laughing like a drain sitting in our car watching the top 5 go out for endurance on wet tires. Kim Bucchi took a great shot of me sitting in the car with the biggest grin on my face. She thought I was smiling for the camera. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Several Goodyear engineers were running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Telling people that one corner was wet and that wet tires were still the right choice. I don't mean to sound like a total dick and a know-it-all but I can say that going out on wet tires was not even close to the right call. All this knowledge come from test on a race track not a computer. This knowledge would hard to decern from wet testing data. Without physical testing of your car and tuning for the wet you will not have a clue. Our program has always been quick but we did not have a good testing procedure in place. After going out in the rain a few time and building up a mental notebook (a physical one would be much better)of what setting we went out on the the effects, balance. Remember computer simulations are great but you cannot break the laws of physics in the real world.

A few teams came up to be all week asking about the weather and what tires to go out on. These same teams complained that it never rains where they test. Get a hose, get a large barrel of water and wet down your track. If life gives you lemons, make lemonade and then put that lemonade on the track to make it wet.

I had to plead with the SCCA official not to make it wet conditions for the first part of autocross. I was able to convince him that for our car going out on wets would be slower than drys so why switch.

Enough rambling. Go out and test in the wet before you plead for testing data that might or might not be useful. For the teams that already test in the wet, find a local shop that will grove tires and start coming up with how many grooves you need for conditions and the turn over point from wet tires to dry tires.

[Zac]

Jack,
You need to get your story straight. The Goodyear engineers that were running around like chickens with their heads cut off were telling teams NOT to go out on rain tires. Outside of the three design finalists(who were using hoosier or avon dry tires), most of the teams who tech'd in on Goodyear drys went out on Goodyear drys. There were a couple exceptions as some teams only had one set of usable rims and had switched over to their intermediates before lunch.

That said, there really isn't too much of a difference between the carved and slick D2691's (high net to gross ratio). If a team went out on the D2691, which is Goodyear's current rain recommendation, they probably would have made it through with only minor graining. I noticed Pittsburgh was out on that code and their tire wear was actually pretty good for a dry track.

Really, the only bad calls that could have been made were going through tech on a molded rain tire, and then using that tire in damp conditions. In the conditions they will actually let you run in, a molded rain is the kiss of death. When there's enough standing water to make the molded rain a better choice, Mr. Royce is probably going to be stopping the event soon due to lack of visibility.

Two other tire tips:

1. Don't run on 2 year-old rain tires that feature pretty substantial dry cracking.
2. Don't show up with tires that have been carved by anyone other than a race tire distributor(comp tire for example). They really don't want students designing their own grooving patterns or carving their own tires.

[Mark_W]

I would like to see faster slip angle rates. Back to back with a slow sweep would be nice.

[J. Vinella]

Zac,

You engineers might have been telling teams after the first 10 cars, but I was sitting right next to Akron and heard what I heard. I also talked to a few of the GY teams after words and got there story on why they made the call to go out on the tires they did. Just more testament to why personal experience is sometimes better than a whole heap of data or a design engineer. When the shit hits the fan I would rather be a race engineer, the design engineers can go back a sit at there computers. I apologize if I have offended any of the GY engineers. We loved using your tires the past two years and all our previous phone discussions have been more informative than the Hoosier engineers.

I agree with Mark_W something more representative of what the actual tire is doing would be interesting. I would also like to see more simulation of heat up time for an event like the autocross. Starting out dead cold and the tire behavior.

Something that simulates the acceleration event with different pressures with the tires listed below.

I would like to a majority of test focus on the Hoosier 20.5X7.0-13 R25B and the new compound Goodyear 20.0X7.0-13, as MalcolmG stated that will cover of the interested teams.

[Jersey Tom]

Originally posted by J. Vinella:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by exFSAE:
And YES. Wet testing would be awesome. Inevitably it tends to rain at least 1 day in Detroit. Lot of points to be gained by having the right wet tires...


Let us get this straight. Choosing tires for wet conditions stems more from past experience. Words like awesome and cool make me shudder when it comes to tires. I would rather hear words like useful or worth the money and time.

It rains nine months out of the year in Seattle. I would venture that we have more wet testing that most every other team. I understand that the other teams that do not test in the wet "might" gain some incite into what tire to use construction wise. Wet racing all comes down to how much water is on the track and how much grooving you need. Will the track dry out. Are you looking at the weather passing through. I made our endurance tire choice as we were in fuel. A simple look at the system moving through on the Doppler showed that the rain would pass and it would dry up. I was laughing like a drain sitting in our car watching the top 5 go out for endurance on wet tires. Kim Bucchi took a great shot of me sitting in the car with the biggest grin on my face. She thought I was smiling for the camera. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Several Goodyear engineers were running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Telling people that one corner was wet and that wet tires were still the right choice. I don't mean to sound like a total dick and a know-it-all but I can say that going out on wet tires was not even close to the right call. All this knowledge come from test on a race track not a computer. This knowledge would hard to decern from wet testing data. Without physical testing of your car and tuning for the wet you will not have a clue. Our program has always been quick but we did not have a good testing procedure in place. After going out in the rain a few time and building up a mental notebook (a physical one would be much better)of what setting we went out on the the effects, balance. Remember computer simulations are great but you cannot break the laws of physics in the real world.

A few teams came up to be all week asking about the weather and what tires to go out on. These same teams complained that it never rains where they test. Get a hose, get a large barrel of water and wet down your track. If life gives you lemons, make lemonade and then put that lemonade on the track to make it wet.

I had to plead with the SCCA official not to make it wet conditions for the first part of autocross. I was able to convince him that for our car going out on wets would be slower than drys so why switch.

Enough rambling. Go out and test in the wet before you plead for testing data that might or might not be useful. For the teams that already test in the wet, find a local shop that will grove tires and start coming up with how many grooves you need for conditions and the turn over point from wet tires to dry tires. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ultimately there is more to rain racing than just how many grooves to have on your tire. It is expensive and time consuming enough just to have a good, legitimate dry tire test. Few teams have the money and time just to do that, much less a wet tire test. Speaking from the other end of the spectrum, in Boulder in the summer it is hot and sunny 99% of the time. Even if you can put some water down on a parking lot, with it 90F and 0 humidity, that dries out mighty quick. Impossible to do a good controlled test without specific facilities.

Ultimately a big question is ... which wet tire do you tech in with? There are many options, just like there are many dry options. Some that have tremendous dry traction have very little even when its slightly damp. Some with tremendous wet traction absolutely fall apart when its hot and dry.

Bottom line, I wouldn't rule out wet tire testing as useless just yet. Personally I see a lot of value in it, and if I were back on a FSAE team I'd want to see it. It may not be very good for determining on a given day to go out on a wet or dry tire, but that wouldn't be the intent. It should certainly open some eyes and weed out which tires have poor wet traction and which have excellent grip.

As was said previously, there are often days when it's completely wet at Detroit. At that point it's not a question of wet or dries or how to optimize some setup.. but just which tire is going to hook up!

Of course that's just my humble opinion as a FSAE alum who now does tire engineering as a living. Ultimately it's up to the collective group of students what they'd like to see. Constructive discussion is good!

I'd also encourage all the TTC members to bring this discussion to the TTC-specific forum as well.

[ben]

I'm glad someone mentioned the Dunlop's :-)

Basic situation with the tyre now is that we're on to spec 3. Spec 1 was used early last year, but we were firmly on spec 2 by FSG last year. Birmingham and a number of German teams will be on spec 3 for FS and FSG this summer.

Currently available on request from me (or to be posted here by someone) are:

Rolling tyre spring rate data at 3 pressures, 2 cambers and 2 road speeds
Profile drawing in dxf format or CATIA V5 solid model
Raw Fy vs. Slip angle at 40km/h, 0.8 & 1.2 bar, 0, 2, and 4 degrees camber

We don't have a flat-trac that can do drive and brake, so being part of the TTC would be fantastic. If anyone wants to use the tyres for next season I will aim to order tyres in our factory around September.

If we do get included in the TTC I will try very hard to donate tyres.

Ben

[RacingManiac]

Jersey Tom brings up a good point on the comp. You are ultimately only allowed to run the wet tire that you tech correct? And that happens on Wed or Thur(usually accompanied by heavy rain in Michigan comp), and you are trying to make a pick for Saturday. In the end you are stuck with whatever wet you brought. Even if you have good data between the differet wet construction and compound, if you are on the wrong tire you are stuck with it throughout. Forecast works the way it does its next to impossible to call the weather here in MI 3 days in advance, on top of deciding where you will run in enduro or AutoX. Personally I think unless we have freedom to use an "intermediate" or "full-wet" on our term the wet tire data is more of a nice-to-have vs a must.

I don't know about the others, but it is good to do some wet testing though beforehand for the drivers to know what they are going into...I had my first wet lap at comp in 2006 and it wasn't the best place for it...lol

[Jersey Tom]

What I had been thinking more for use of wet data... rather than picking between full wets and inters or when to use slick vs when to use rain tires.. is just to sort which tires to generally go for and stay away from.

Ie there are a lot of tire options. If I have to buy a set of rain tires every year with limited test time, and my options are Avon, Hoosier, and Goodyear... where do they shake out for general wet grip level? Are they all close? Or is there one to either REALLY go for or REALLY avoid?

But that's just my thought on how someone could use it, before it's totally written off. Ultimately it doesn't matter to me, it's up to the current TTC members to say what they'd find useful.

Again, if you guys haven't checked out the secure forum.. try it out. I feel that's where most of the specific discussion and choices will be made.

[DougMilliken]

While I plan to watch this FSAE.com topic, there is a more detailed discussion about test planning on the TTC members forum. Register at:
http://sae.wsu.edu/ttc

Thanks again to Brian and WSU for setting up the server and forum.

-- Doug Milliken for the TTC

[acbart]

Hey there,

we @ Conti would be very interested in supplying the Conti FS tires for the next round of the TTC, if there's interest by the teams..

In the past the tires could not be bought (so it might've not made so much sense) but starting soon the tires will be available for purchase. With the goal to be one of the "normal" supplyers somewhen next year.

The number of teams driving on Contis will already increase this year with around 15 teams on Contis at the several European events.

How and when will the decision be actually made?

Regards,
Ann-Christin

[DougMilliken]

we @ Conti would be very interested in supplying the Conti FS tires for the next round of the TTC, if there's interest by the teams..

Please contact the TTC organizers, our home page is at http://www.millikenresearch.com/fsaettc.html or email me directly.

-- Doug Milliken for the TTC
doug.milliken (at) gmail (dot com)

[CGYounk]

When will you be conducting/publishing the round 4 data?

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

As mentioned in the first line of this thread, we're targeting tests in late August or early September. Data will follow ASAP afterward.

[DougMilliken]

See the first post in this thread. Also, the TTC secure forum has more details.
-- Doug Milliken for the TTC

[DougMilliken]

Originally posted by DougMilliken:
While I plan to watch this FSAE.com topic, there is a more detailed discussion about test planning on the TTC members forum. Register at:
http://sae.wsu.edu/ttc

Thanks again to Brian and WSU for setting up the server and forum.

-- Doug Milliken for the TTC

Update--we've been bumped back by some of Calspan's commercial (full price) customers and are now looking at a fairly firm date for testing during the week of October 5th, 2009.

An update to the Round 3 test plan has been submitted to Calspan for their price quote and once we know what we can afford we'll sign the contract and move ahead.

In addition to the "usual suspects" of Goodyear and Hoosier, we are hoping for tires from several other suppliers including Michelin, Dunlop UK, and Continental.

-- Doug Milliken for the TTC
doug dot milliken at gmail

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

Testing update: We're scheduled for the week of October 19th at Calspan. Data will be distributed to members ASAP following the tests. FSAE TTC members can get much more information on the upcoming test at the FSAE TTC secure forum: http://sae.wsu.edu/ttc/ If you're a FSAE TTC member but not on the secure forum you're encouraged to join--signup is easy.

[crzycav86]

Thanks. Looking forward to using fresh data for this year's suspension design.

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

Everything is still a "go" for testing to start on October 19th. Students are welcome to attend the tests. Please contact me for details.

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

And note that my University e-mail address is now kasprzak@buffalo.edu (they got rid of the "eng.". I just updated my signature to reflect this.

[Matthew Bell]

Is the FSAE TTC secure forum even active? I registered on September 22nd and my account still hasn't been activated. Who should I contact about this?

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

Yes, the secure forum is alive and well. We'll get in touch with Brian Seater (who runs the secure forum) to see what happened with your registration.

[brettd]

Hey Matt,

What happened to me with the TTC forum is that my account was activated at some point but I never received an email saying so.

So I spent a little waiting for the forum to let me know and then signed in randomly one day to see what was going on and it worked.

[Brian S]

For some reason some people have not been receiving the emails when their accounts are activated. Most of the time I get the accounts active within a few days of when you register.If you have made an account and not received an email, try logging in. If that doesn't work, send me an email and we'll figure it out.

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

Round 4 of FSAE TTC testing is currently underway. One Dunlop, one Goodyear, one Michelin and three Hoosiers are being tested, all 13 inch tires and each on two different rim widths.

FSAE TTC Members can get a lot more information from the secure forum at: http://sae.wsu.edu/ttc

[R. Alexander]

I've been cross referencing the non-dimensionalized matlab functions with the raw data and they seem inconsistent. The two data points I've checked so far I've found to be off by like 20lbs lateral force.

Has anyone found similar? It's from round 3 data.

[exFSAE]

Fit data is never the same as raw data...

[Zac]

Originally posted by exFSAE:
Fit data is never the same as raw data...

+1

try plotting all of the data

[ben]

Originally posted by Zac:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by exFSAE:
Fit data is never the same as raw data...

+1

try plotting all of the data </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+2

Ben

[ben]

Originally posted by R. Alexander:
I've been cross referencing the non-dimensionalized matlab functions with the raw data and they seem inconsistent. The two data points I've checked so far I've found to be off by like 20lbs lateral force.

Has anyone found similar? It's from round 3 data.

To be more helpful, the fit is going to send an average curve through the middle of a huge hysteresis loop. In this way tyre models like Pacejka and MRA will always be "inaccurate" because they don't consider temperature effects, and 90% of the interesting things race tyres do are temperature related.

George Box applies - the models are "wrong" but useful...

Ben

[R. Alexander]

Thanks for your response.

I looked at it a bit more, and it looks like the sweep with increasing slip angle produces different amount of lateral force compared to the sweep with decreasing slip angle.

Sometimes the fit line is in the middle of the two lines and sometimes it follows the bottom line.

Do you mean to say that you think the difference is most likely due to tire temperature change? I'm trying to see tire temp change to see if it's correlated.

Next step is to determine if the upper or lower set of data points is more appropriate in my calculation... or maybe just go with the fit data so I can move on to something else.

Anyway, thanks again.


Originally posted by ben:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R. Alexander:
I've been cross referencing the non-dimensionalized matlab functions with the raw data and they seem inconsistent. The two data points I've checked so far I've found to be off by like 20lbs lateral force.

Has anyone found similar? It's from round 3 data.

To be more helpful, the fit is going to send an average curve through the middle of a huge hysteresis loop. In this way tyre models like Pacejka and MRA will always be "inaccurate" because they don't consider temperature effects, and 90% of the interesting things race tyres do are temperature related.

George Box applies - the models are "wrong" but useful...

Ben </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

This discussion has reached the right conclusions. Any model will differ from the raw data due to the modeling assumptions, influence of uncontrolled (or poorly controlled) variables and simple things like measurement noise.

As noted, the tire forces show different values on the upsweep and the downsweep, largely a function of temperature (the tread increases in temperature throughout the upsweep, so is warmer on the way back down).

Putting my MRA hat on for a minute: The MRA model supplied with the data is a simplification of our more detailed tire models. It does not have any temperature influence. It attempts to represent both the upsweep and downsweep reasonably well. We expect there to be differences between the raw data and the model. We also expect the model to behave smoothly and consistently across the full tire operating range. Thus, it's a useful model, but there's a lot more in the raw data that could populate a more advanced model.

[ben]

At the risk of advertising a competitor, this paper from Michelin outlines some of their thermal modelling to capture the physics of the hysteresis loop at the peak of Fy vs. alpha.

Edit - Link would have helped! Thanks Edward. http://www.ipg.de/uploads/media/15_Fevrier_02.pdf

Ben

[Shashi]

Hello All.

We would be joining the TTC in a week or so. I was just curios to know which tires have been tested in this round.

[BillCobb]

Remove the hysteresis loop with a cross correlation function which identifies the phase shift necessary to equilibrate the up and down sweep. This phase shift (converted to distance traveled) is useful and informative in dynamic vehicle response modeling, especially shock absorber tuning (Among other things...) I may have some Matlab code to share laying around here somewhere. Lemme see...

[BillCobb]

I found an older PowerPoint presentation of mine with the methodology I just posted on. Is there a way to share this with all of you? It describes the benefits of post processing the raw data to eliminate the hysteresis.

[BillCobb]

Try this:

http://my.engineering.com/pg/f...f-hysteresis-removal (http://my.engineering.com/pg/file/zzvyb6/read/219822/surf-tirf-hysteresis-removal)

[BillCobb]

Try this:

my.engineering.com/pg/file/zzvyb6/read/219822/surf-tirf-hysteresis-removal

[DougMilliken]

Originally posted by Shashi:
I was just curios to know which tires have been tested in this round.

I believe the following is correct, but I don't have the tires in front of me to check:

Dunlop 175/505R13
Goodyear 20.0x7.0-13
Hoosier 20.5x6.0-13
Hoosier 20.5x7.0-13
Hoosier 20.0x7.5-13
Michelin 16/53-13 S6B

Continental almost sent tires, but weren't quite ready.

Final list will be posted on the TTC website with additional details:
http://www.millikenresearch.com/fsaettc.html
-- Doug Milliken for the TTC

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

Calspan delivered the Round 4 data yesterday. It will take me a day or two to do some quick checks and organize it for distribution. We'll release the raw data first, and the models (Stackpole, Milliken) will follow when they're ready. Stay tuned....

Edward M. Kasprzak

[R. Alexander]

What's the current status?

[Stocky Fast 1]

I signed up for the TTC website and have been waiting for about 6 weeks to get the approval e-mail from the administrator. Any news on why this would take so long. It was recommended earlier in the forums to sign up there to keep track of the status and such, but I have been forced to try to keep up to date here.

[Edward M. Kasprzak]

Status Update: Calspan delivered the last of the data files to me this morning. When I checked through their initial delivery I found a few small problems. We'll finish putting the distribution package together and get it out as soon as we can.

As for sign-up problems on the secure forum, I'm not happy that I keep hearing stories about sign-up difficulties. Please contact Brian once again about registration. Doug Milliken has been working directly with Brian (I haven't), so I'll ask Doug to see what the story is.

My apologies for the difficulties. We're trying to make things easier/better, not worse!

Edward M. Kasprzak

[Brian S]

All of the TTC forum registrations are approved (or flagged as spam and deleted) within a week of the account being created.

For some reason that I have not been able to figure out some people aren't receiving the confirmation emails. There isn't anything in the server logs about it.

If you have made an account, try to log into it. If you can't, email me and I can work with you to get access. With the exception of accounts made in the last few days, all accounts have been activated or deleted.

[RyMan]

@Stocky Fast 1

Have you tried logging on? I could be mistaken, but I don't recall recieving an email confirming my registration. I just tried logging in a few days after submitting my registraion and was able to get in.

[DougMilliken]

TTC Round 4 data is now available and TTC members are encouraged to check the TTC Secure Forum for details.

The TTC home page has been updated with a list of the tires/constructions tested as well as a free download that describes Round 4 in more detail. Also includes instructions to find the Forum. Start here,
http://www.millikenresearch.com/fsaettc.html

Note--I've also posted this note in the Round 3 thread...and it would be nice if the FSAE.com moderators made this Round 4 thread sticky (and turned the Round 3 thread back to normal.)

-- Doug Milliken for the volunteers that run TTC
doug dot milliken at gmail

[R. Alexander]

The new data is pretty sweet.
I've just picked our tires!
Sticky?

[Bobby Doyle]

Any information on when the Pacejka '96 model will be posted?

[DougMilliken]

Originally posted by Bobby Doyle:
Any information on when the Pacejka '96 model will be posted?

I can't speak for Stackpole Engineering who have donated Pacejka models in the past.
We (Milliken Research) still intend to donate our Nondimensional models in Matlab, when we have time to create them.

-- Doug Milliken

[erau_paul]

I cannot seem to answer the "Confirmation of Registration" question correctly. For the question "What does TTC Stand For?" I answered "Tire Test Consortium" and for the question what is the maximum engine size I said "600". I can't seem to get through?

[SNasello]

Read the rules again.

[erau_paul]

I compete in Formula Hybrid, so I am not 100% familiar with the Formula rules. Why is my TTC answer wrong?

[Zac]

I don't know if your TTC answer is right or wrong, but your engine size answer is incorrect.

[Brian S]

I'll give you a hint, its 610 Just don't tell anyone else or I'll have to change it...

Is it asking both questions? I guess I had assumed it would randomly pick one to ask, so if you did get one wrong you could try again and get the other. Good thing I didn't add a bunch like I was planning on.

Brian

[erau_paul]

Haha, thanks. I looked up the rules and got it. It didn't ask me both but asked me the other when I got the first wrong. I passed now.

[Brian S]

Just checked, your TTC answer was wrong because I had it entered as "testing" not "test" Both are now valid answers

[erau_paul]

Ohhh! Alright! Thanks!

[DougMilliken]

TTC Update -- as of earlier today, TTC has 250 members!

The member list (spreadsheet) is posted on the home page,
www millikenresearch com/fsaettc
(dots, and trailing dot-html, removed to avoid posting delay)

If you are looking for more detail on TTC, you can download the SAE Paper by Kasprzak and Gentz [pdf], it's linked on the home page.

Members are encouraged to join the TTC secure forum at, sae wsu edu/ttc/ -- Note that the auto emails don't always work. Our volunteer webmaster Brian normally approves new members within a week, so just keep trying to log in after you register on the site.

The secure forum is the place to post detailed questions, plots of tire data, etc. Because the site is private, you can post without violating the terms of the TTC License--summarized on the home page under, "USE OF THE DATA".

I think it's fair to say that TTC is wildly successful, thanks to all that have made it possible.

-- Doug Milliken for the TTC

[DougMilliken]

TTC Update -- as of earlier today, TTC has 250 members!

The member list (spreadsheet) is posted on the home page,
wxx millikenresearch c o m slash fsaettc slash h t m l
(points removed, spaces added, to avoid posting delay)

If you are looking for more detail on TTC, you can download the SAE Paper by Kasprzak and Gentz, it's linked on the home page.

Members are encouraged to join the TTC secure forum at, sae wsu e d u slash ttc slash -- Note that the auto emails don't always work. Our volunteer webmaster Brian normally approves new members within a week, so just keep trying after you register on the site.

The secure forum is the place to post detailed questions, plots of tire data, etc. Because the site is private, you can post without violating the terms of the TTC License--summarized on the home page under, "USE OF THE DATA".

I think it's fair to say that TTC is wildly successful, thanks to all that have made it possible.

-- Doug Milliken for the TTC
(this is my second attempt at posting, the first attempt was blocked by "trigger words"...so the original version may appear later?)