TTC update?

[Jeff The Pyro]

I havent heard anything new about the tire testing consortium in quite some time. I was looking at the budget and noticed there was $9500 in the account and I was curious if there were any plans to do another run of tests anytime soon, and if so what tires were on top of the list. I was hoping someone around here was in the loop and could tell me what's going on (i wasnt sure if doug milliken ever posts on this forum).

[Jeff The Pyro]

I havent heard anything new about the tire testing consortium in quite some time. I was looking at the budget and noticed there was $9500 in the account and I was curious if there were any plans to do another run of tests anytime soon, and if so what tires were on top of the list. I was hoping someone around here was in the loop and could tell me what's going on (i wasnt sure if doug milliken ever posts on this forum).

[Jersey Tom]

It would be nice to get some data from that new Goodyear compound/construction.. and some data on rain tires in the wet!!

[Paul Garcia]

I second testing for the new Goodyear D2692.

We are finally adding our names to the TTC list. I'm not sure whats taken us so long but that will drive that number up to $10,000!

[Alan]

As soon as the TTC wants to do another round we'll send them a set if thats what the consortium wants to test.

[pablo180]

$10000 will be there soon. We just sent the check out today. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I third the notion of getting data on the new Goodyear compound.

[Steve Yao]

Don't know if others had noticed, but there are also differences between what Hoosier originally provided to the TTC and what they sell now. For instance, Outer diameters. The 20 X 6 and 20 X 7 are now 20.5 X 6 and 20.5 X 7...and they come indicating directionality where-as they did not previously.

So it seems something changed in the construction.

[fade]

The newer Hoosiers (20.5" dia) were tested during the second round in the same sizes as the older Hoosiers(20.0" dia.). It would be nice if there were updated Pacejka coefficents for the newer tires. I would also like to see data on the new Goodyears.

[Paul Garcia]

Bump...

The Jayhawk's check goes out in the next day or two.

[RacingManiac]

my support goes to the new Goodyear as well, though I am also interested in those radial Avon's that Penn State were running and some judges were talking about....knowing Avon though we'll probably not get those tire for TTC....

[Jersey Tom]

I was under the impression the Avon A45 radials were done in the 2nd round of testing.

[RacingManiac]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jersey Tom:
I was under the impression the Avon A45 radials were done in the 2nd round of testing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only Avon that was tested was the bias-ply Avon that us from Toronto provided.....we were there for the test as well....

[kwancho]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RacingManiac:
my support goes to the new Goodyear as well, though I am also interested in those radial Avon's that Penn State were running and some judges were talking about....knowing Avon though we'll probably not get those tire for TTC.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only radials I know of are the Michelins Auburn and some others were running. Looked nice. Small slip angles.

[Jersey Tom]

Checked out the balance sheet for the hell of it just now

Up to $20,000. That's a damn good chunk of change. Update? Maybe time for another 'testing interest' vote? Wet testing would be so awesome. As an aside I'm fairly curious what Goodyear's plan is for their intermediates and full wets. Grooved 2692 as-is, or in the R065, or maybe something cool I don't even know about.

If anyone knows whats up these days, post it up. Think I'm going to email Ed anyway about a couple related things and see what the latest is.

[Jersey Tom]

Latest from Ed Kasprzak -

Currently in negotiations for Round 3 testing at TIRF. Looks like there will be a new survey for existing TTC members as to what gets tested.. with the now $22,500.

[Jenner Collins]

Hi All,

As far as we are aware, Avon are constructing a four ply tyre with a compound somewhere in between the A40 and A45. This may be something the TTC may want to test.

On another note, does anyone know how old the Avons were that were tested previously? We understand that they were quite old relative to the other tyres and therefore the data produced showed the Avons to be not all that good.

Regards,

[Jersey Tom]

Nothing old about the Avons that were tested as far as I'm aware. Their old FSAE tires were the A41 compound, but those arent the ones that were tested. Tested were the 6.2 and 7.2 x 20 - 13 in A45.

[Ben C-M]

Jenner,
By old, do you mean a previous generation tire or a tire that has been sitting around for a year? Where did you hear that the Avon's were old?

From what I know, Avon isn't willing to donate tires to the TTC for testing, so the University of Toronto provided sets of tires for the test.

It sounds to me like someone doesn't like the results of the test and is trying to make up an excuse.

/Ben

[Jersey Tom]

Ok so what have been the recent tire developments? I might be sending some emails out to some tire manufacturers and see whats up if no one knows..

Goodyear<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Dry - D2692 in R075(??) compound: Specifically designed for FSAE car
<LI>Intermediate - Still the grooved D1385 in R065??: Rain compound, old FF/FC construction
<LI>Wets - D1883 in R065: Rain compound, full molded open tread
[/list]
Avon<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Dry - Something other than the 6.2x20-13 or 7.2 in A45?
<LI>Intermediate - ??
<LI>Wets - ??
[/list]

Hoosier<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Dry - The 20.5 x __ - 13 in R25a was released within the past year or so, but this has already been tested
<LI>Intermediates - Do they even make these??
<LI>Wets - ??
[/list]

Michelin
Do they make FSAE-ish slicks? I was under the impression the only Michelins I saw at Detroit were F-BMW tires.

LeCont
Anyone?

[VinceL]

Hi All,

Just to clear some things up...

Jenner, we donated the Avon 7.2" tires that were tested in the second round. They were pretty new. We had just got them in from our supplier in the US, who had just got them in from Avon. So they were by no means old. I can't speak for the 6.2" because I can't remember where they came from.

Tom, Michelin do make FSAE slicks that are not F-BMW or F-Renault. If I recall correctly Auburn was running special Michelin radials developed for them. Also, if I recall correctly, at least one person from Auburn was wearing a Michelin hat. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It would be nice to see those tires tested along with the Avon radials used by Penn State.

[ben]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jenner Collins:

On another note, does anyone know how old the Avons were that were tested previously? We understand that they were quite old relative to the other tyres and therefore the data produced showed the Avons to be not all that good.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In what sense were they not as good?

Ben

[Jenner Collins]

Hey All,

First up, Ben C-M, no one is making excuses - merely trying to gain more information for proper judgements. As far as I am aware our team did some calling around to find the source of the Avons so I am trying to clarify this for everyones benefit.

By 'old' I meant as in a long time from production to testing. As I understand it tyres do go 'off' and therefore the age will have a bearing on the test results.

Vince, do you mean 7.2"=width? I think I am refering to the 6.2" tyres, which may be where the confusion is coming in.

Ben (Dunlop), the data was fine, but the data said they may not have been best choice. I will get back to you on what parameters I am talking about in particular.

I will also try and get on to Avon to see if they will donate a set of their latest tyres.

By the way, when is this next round of testing likely to take place?

Thanks,

[Jersey Tom]

Don't know when exactly the testing is going down. They're still trying to figure that out.

These race tires as far as I'm aware have a shelf life of about a year so I wouldn't be all that concerned about it. And even if the ultimate level of grip had degraded slightly you'd think that the overall shape of the force curves wouldn't change appreciably.

[Gareth]

Plot the raw data from the tire testing. If you look at the surface temperatures for the tires tested in the second round of testing you'll see that they're much lower. I suspect that the belt heater was not on. That or the compressed air used in the air bearing was much colder. The second round of testing happened in the winter as opposed to the first round that happened in the summer. I'm sure this has a significant affect on the results...

[Cherian Thomas]

Auburn are in partnership with Michelin to develop FSAE-spec radial tyres. Georgia Tech's 2006 car was sporting Michelins as well.

Auburn's car is set up with a LOT of static negative camber, at least by FSAE standards. It'd be quite interesting to compare the data on these to the current crop of FSAE tyres. I'd love to see the 2692s and the Avon radials tested as well.

Cheers,

Cherian

[Ben C-M]

Jenner,
I didn't mean to suggest you were making excuses, just whoever told you the Avon's were older and therefore the data was skewed. Unless the tires were left in the sun for several days (which they weren't), I doubt age plays a significant role in the results of the test. I'd imagine there are more significant factors that are ignored then tire age, such as optimum temperature, variation between sets, wear rates, etc.

Anyways, all I hope for is that we don't waste any money on testing wets/intermediates. I'm pretty sure most of the data we get from that is going to be meaningless. Calspan is great for helping us out, but they only do very basic tests for us and I doubt they are going to do tests of different dry/wet levels that are necessary to evalutate the performance of wet tires...

/Ben

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jenner Collins:
First up, Ben C-M, no one is making excuses - merely trying to gain more information for proper judgements. As far as I am aware our team did some calling around to find the source of the Avons so I am trying to clarify this for everyones benefit.

By 'old' I meant as in a long time from production to testing. As I understand it tyres do go 'off' and therefore the age will have a bearing on the test results.

Thanks, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jersey Tom]

I think wet testing would be very valuable, even if its just at one wet setting (though I'm sure they can do a bunch). Know nothing about the relative performances of the different manufacturers wet tires, or how any number of factors change from dry to wet. Given that for some of us wet testing time is very difficult to come by (for example here where it is either sunny or snowy with verrry little rain), the data would be huge.

[Marshall Grice]

I also am not thrilled about wet testing tires through the TTC. We have no trouble getting the local fire dept to come out and hose down our parking lot for us to do wet testing if we need it.

[ben]

I am very concerned that some of you are contemplating testing wets. My gut feeling is, don't waste your money.

It is very important to remember what rig tests are good at doing and what they're not.

Whenever we validate constructions at CALSPAN (emphasis on the word construction, not compound) we use hard compounds that generate less heat. The soft slicks you guys have already tested are probably below the soft end of sensible as it is. You have already come across the joy that is excessive surface temperature spoiling the party.

Wet grip (to the best of anyones knowledge) is very track surface dependant. I just don't think it's feasible to use a flat track tester with a nominal surface to rank wet tyres in this way.

Indeed if you haven't validated the tyre test data against a track test to compare peak friction levels I would question the benefits you're claiming if you use the data.

Ben

[Boston]

No wets please.

[pablo180]

Our team would not be interested in the wet tire data. Mainly looking for the new Goodyear 7" wide.

[Martijn]

Hi!

This is my first post here, but technically I'm not really new, I've been reading here for quite some time. Just never felt the urge post, that's all. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I'm from the Delft team. I participated in 04, 05 and 06 and I'm currently working on a full vehicle model of the DUT06 racecar.

Delft is seriously considering joining the TTC, but for us, it would be realy nice to see soms more 10 inch tyres being tested. LeCont's would be very nice of course, but any 10 inch would be great for comparisons and indications.

I don't think testing wets would be a very sensible thing to do. IMHO, in the rain, more than anything, you need a driver that keeps the car on track and a car that can stand huge amounts of water (FSG'06!!). I'd be much much more interested to see more slick tires being tested!

Cheers,
Martijn
Delft UT Racing

[JHarshbarger]

The lack of 10 inch tires on the TTC has kept me from buying into it in the past. The certain Hoosier tires that we use are not one of the tires that you test.

If a few more 10 inch tires were tested, I wouldn't hesitate to join the TTC.

[Jersey Tom]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I also am not thrilled about wet testing tires through the TTC. We have no trouble getting the local fire dept to come out and hose down our parking lot for us to do wet testing if we need it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't get it. By the same token cant you just go out on a dry parking lot and test your dry tires?

My question to you guys is - why do you want tire data at all? Isn't one of the major reasons to be able to evaluate a wide variety of tires for relative grip and load/position sensitivity in a semi-controlled environment, rather than having to spend the time and money testing it yourselves? Basically looking out there and finding the best tire.

How are wets any different? It always rains in Detroit for competition. Or at least as far back as I have knowledge.. 04, 05, and 06 all had cold, wet, crappy days. 04 and 06 certainly had major events driven in the rain, and in 06 in particular there were HUGE gaps in points scored, in skidpad and acceleration especially, because of the rain and the overall slow times being put down. Would there not be a considerable competitive advantage if you picked a rain tire that had particularly good grip and stood out above the rest?

Given that for many times wet testing is usually a secondary priority and get caught with their pants down (we sure did) when it rains for days straight at competition, I'd think there would be even more reason for wet tire testing.

[FryGuy]

Im with Jersey Tom on this one. Why wouldn't you want to test rain tires. I understand fully that it is completely dependent on track conditions, but it would be nice to at least have a ballpark or range for the rain/wet tires. We personally were on our rain tires for more of the competetion than the dry tires, and everyone knows theres always a chance of rain at Detroit. Its almost more likely than there not being rain. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif We spent the entire week before competition testing in the rain and the data would have been really nice for setting up our rain setup.

I would at least like to see one rain tire tested, if more for curiosity and piece of mind than anything else. In my opinion, the rain tires are just as a valid choice as anything else.

PS Has the ballot for the next round been sent out yet?

[ben]

Fry Guy / JT:

Does it always rain in Detroit? Yes

Would a ranking of wet compound grip levels be useful? Yes

Can you get this ranking reliably from a constrained belt test? No

I'd be interested in Edward Kasprzak's opinion on this, but my view is that ranking compounds on a flat track is not a valid exercise.

You are right to want this data. You are wrong IMHO about thinking you will get it from this form of test.

Ben

[Jersey Tom]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We've also talked about doing a wet test. It'll cost a bit more, but I'd like to see it happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> - Ed Kasprzak, Sep 26 2006

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd really like to do some wet testing! </div></BLOCKQUOTE> - Ed Kasprzak, Jan 12 2007

Oh snap!

So what all are you saying, Ben.. tryin to figure this all out..

Flat track testing is worthless for comparing compounds, or just wets? What about construction? Would it not be good to see how the Avon radial rain construction fairs against the Goodyear bias ply for example?

We're all going to be driving on the same smooth track surface at Detroit. Don't know how it is at the other Formula events. If all the tires are tested on the same belt with the same amount of water on the same day (or weekend, whatever) with the same ambient conditions, is that not a good controlled comparison? Or is it more like.. the Hoosier rain tire might outperform the Avon radial on one type and roughness of surface, and it might be completely different for another type of surface (say actual asphault), in similar amounts of water?

Wouldn't the wet tire testing, even with whatever element of variability, be more valuable and interesting than nothing at all? Especially at this level where we have this rare opportunity to learn more about how tires perform?

Is there a better way to get this data, other than testing all the different tires on a track? What about the huge level of driver variability at this level? As well as drying track conditions, etc.

There's wayyy more money in the TTC account than there ever has been before a round a testing. Might as well make the most of the opportunity to do different things, no?

[Martijn]

Well, you see... My team have been using 10" tires for the last couple of years and will probably continue to do so for a while. (not my decision, but I'd say it's likely)
Therefore, I'd prefer to have some more data on 10" tires way before having data on some rain tires! Right now, all 10" data available is a GY that's no longer available and a Hoosier that has been updated since the measurements.

Also, we'd like to use tire data as input during the design of our cars. No matter how likely it is that there'll be rain in Detroit, we'll most probably be designing our car for slick tires, not wets.

Finally, I'm no expert, but I'd say that the overall performance of a rain tire depends both on construction & compound AND on the combination of groove pattern & amount of water on track. I'd say that any tire that performs excellent in one set of conditions, will easily be outperformed in another, totally different set of conditions, but that's just a feeling I have, I can't prove it right now.

So, concluding, I'd say that rain tire data would be nice, but for me & my team, more slick tire data would have much much more priority, especially 10" tire data!

[ben]

If there's that much money I would probably decide on 1 Hoosier, 1 Goodyear and 1 Avon spec and test three examples of each spec. And see what magnitude of variation you get in the same tyre compared to the variation you get between the different manufacturers.

As to the question of whether some information is better than none on wets. Problem is you won't know unless you validate the flat track data against track test data.

Have you done that for the slick data yet?

Ben

[VinceL]

If after all of the new tires are tested there is still some left over money, there are other things I would test before wet tires. For example the effect of pressure on camber sensitivity. That is different pressures at multiple inclination angles, something that wasn't done last time. Also, combined slip data would be nice.

[Marshall Grice]

as has already pointed out, we're not designing cars for wet running. Even if we had wet data I wouldn't be designing my kinematics around a wet setup. Our team isn't, and i suspect other teams are not, using the tire data to develop the race day setup/alignment specs. We use track testing for that, wet or dry. There are still plenty of dry tests to be run before wet testing becomes a priority in my opinion.

[flavorPacket]

Agreed, Marshall. Why not get more in-depth dry data (frequency response, combined loading, etc)? Wouldn't that make the judges happier than saying, 'oh yeah, we also have wet tire data that we did not use in our design?'

[Jersey Tom]

Or.. "We also have wet tire data we used in our design to take advantage of the wet conditions you see outside"

Do Pacejka or other fitting methods exist for combined slip? Are you going to be able to take advantage of tire frequency response and such things?

[Martijn]

Yes, the Pacejka 2002 model is capable of handling combined slip. Indeed, it would be very, VERY intersting to have such data, especially for simulations.

As far as I know, Pacejka's models are actually steady state models. There are also other models, such as a multi-purpose dynamic tire model called the SWIFT model (Short Wavelength Intermediate Frequency Tire Model), covering various application areas such as handling, ride comfort and durability.

[Jersey Tom]

Well. I have my opinions on all this. Guess we'll see what happens when some official interest survey goes out.

[flavorPacket]

Tom, what are you going to change design-wise to take advantage of the wet that you wouldn't find out from testing? Unless you make everything (ackermann, rch, etc) adjustable, I don't see the point. And if you make all that adjustable, why wouldn't you do that regardless of having wet tire data?

As for your questions, my team's simulations could certainly benefit from combined slip data, and in a year or so from frequency stuff.

[ben]

Pacejka and the Milliken non-dimensional model both handle combined slip.

I'm not fully aware of the test programme run first time around, so if that didn't include a lot of combined slip work that would definitely be a good idea.

Ben

[J. Vinella]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Marshall Grice:
...we're not designing cars for wet running. Even if we had wet data I wouldn't be designing my kinematics around a wet setup. Our team isn't, and i suspect other teams are not, using the tire data to develop the race day setup/alignment specs. We use track testing for that, wet or dry. There are still plenty of dry tests to be run before wet testing becomes a priority in my opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely agree with this. Testing the wets would be a waste. I'm not saying this because it rains nine months out of the year in Seattle and we have plenty of chances for wet testing. I am not going to take the data into account designing the kinematics.

If we have money left over, save it for next year. There are always new tires coming out.

[Martijn]

Delft is currently in the process of joining the TTC. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Does anyone have an update on a possible next test? We'd be very happy to see LeConts tested obviously!