Pacejka models differences

[Alessa]

Hi everybody
I am struggling to find a description of each pacejka tire models (e.g. 89, 84 or 96).
I need to know the improvements and differences or each models...
It would help me a lot if someones could advice me a good website, paper or book where I can find that...

Thanks in advance !!

[Alessa]

Hi everybody
I am struggling to find a description of each pacejka tire models (e.g. 89, 84 or 96).
I need to know the improvements and differences or each models...
It would help me a lot if someones could advice me a good website, paper or book where I can find that...

Thanks in advance !!

[exFSAE]

Why? What is the end goal?

In any event... they're all very similar. The basic function is the same, they just keep adding and modifying coefficients to capture the B,C,D,E,Sh,Sv trends with load and camber and such.

[Alessa]

I need to know the detail of each version because the tool I use for simulation can import either model 89, 94 or 96. So I have to justify which is the best for me and which parameters I can get...

So, I have to write a small report, to explain the different versions improvements

thank you, by the way

[exFSAE]

If you're doing this for FSAE, the only Pac model available is '96 [from TTC anyway] so that should take care of that, no?

[Alessa]

em, I am not doing that for the FSAE, but for my firm.

It's quite weird that I can't find any information about that topic

[Zac]

information is out there. there's some ADAMS documentation floating around that gives complete descriptions of everything. But a quick overview (someone else should feel free to correct me as needed, this means you Delft):

89 - Isn't really used much anymore outside of some people in the truck industry. There is an SAE paper available though: 890087

94 - Updated to better match camber and laod trends. I believe there were also some major revisions to the combined case

96 - Lateral Force didn't change much, it includes a relative load term instead of an absolute value but it's the same set of equations. The aligning torque model was changed to a pneumatic trail model, and there were some additional tweaks to the combined case I believe.

For steady-state I don't believe the equations have changed since pac96 so that's probably the "best" one to use if you can get coefficients.

[Alessa]

thanks Zac !

[exFSAE]

Your firm? Which firm is this?

And you're asking a bunch of drunk college kids for technical advice?

[Alessa]

I work for a automotive engineering firm.
Why do you tell me that ? I don't really understand you

[flavorPacket]

Because the most qualified person here is at best a few years out of school. Why not talk to a professional, not a bunch of kids?

[Alessa]

Ok, I see... I'll have a look somewhere else then
thanks anyway

[exFSAE]

Better yet. Talk to Delft Tyre.

Some really sketchy shit around here sometimes. This thread to a degree, but moreso not too far back some Pakistani airline or something wanted advice if some heat treating was acceptable for a part out of spec. I mean really, what gives.

[Hector]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Alessa:
Ok, I see... I'll have a look somewhere else then
thanks anyway </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't let him scare you off, just beware of the information you're given here =)

There's a small handful of people on here (not even including myself in that list) that I would honestly trust without much thought. The rest of us are hit-and-miss.