rec.autos.simulators

stupid licensing ruins everything

Asgeir Nesoe

stupid licensing ruins everything

by Asgeir Nesoe » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:03:58

A radial tyre will have a much more peakier slipangle/grip curve than a
diagonal tyre. Because the radial tyre makes the patch constant, until it
collapses very quickly. The slipangle/grip curve will rise fast with
increasing angle, and then flatten  somewhat at the peak, and then drop very
quickly (or in other words, very difficult to recover once overstepped). I
think that the peak slip angle for a racing radial tyre is 7 or 8 degrees,
probably 12-15 degrees on a road tyre made for longevity.

A diagonal tyre, however, has a contact patch that degrades more slowly,
decreasing in size with greater angles, and yielding less grip. So, a radial
tyre has a much flatter slipangle/grip curve. Especially on the "far" side.
Making it easier to recover. But with less grip.

But when that is said, the tires in GPL just give too much grip on the far
side of the slipangle/grip curve, and this enables us to drive with the rear
sticking out 30 degrees lap after lap. They didn't drive that way back in 67.
Well, they did, if they made a mistake. We focus on the footage, but we see
only the close shave cuts, I think.

My main complaint about GPL is that there is no way telling if a tyre is
sliding or gripping. This is fundamental in all road racing, and should have
been treated more thoroughly by Papy.

---Asgeir---


> In fact, after reading this very informative article,

> http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> I am even more convinced that this is so. The sidewalls in a bias ply
> tyre (which is what mainly affects the behaviour at low slip angles) are
> probably even harder than in a comparable radial tyre, which means that
> the cornering stiffnesses of both the radial and the bias ply tyre could
> be comparable.

> The radial tyre, on the other hand, since its sidewalls may be soft but
> the contact patch is very rigid, will probably have linear
> chracteristics in a far longer range of slip angles (should the
> deformation of sidewalls remain at least somewhat linear), and would
> also let go much more suddenly for the same reason.

> Could anyone with more knowledge shed some more light on the subject
> (Doug, are you around :) ) ?

> -Gregor

Asgeir Nesoe

stupid licensing ruins everything

by Asgeir Nesoe » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:06:40

No, no, Gerry, it would make it much bigger than a 21 incher. It would
fill your FOV with more than 90 degrees. And this is indefinitely bigger
than the mere 10-12 degrees of a 17 inch screen placed a fair distance
from your eyes. And most importantly, your eyes would focus on something
far away, so it means the eye strain would be less as well.

---Asgeir---



> > So... what would a fresnell do for a poor and inadequate 17?

> Make it equivalent of a 21"!

Gerry Aitke

stupid licensing ruins everything

by Gerry Aitke » Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:00:47


> No, no, Gerry, it would make it much bigger than a 21 incher. It would
> fill your FOV with more than 90 degrees. And this is indefinitely bigger
> than the mere 10-12 degrees of a 17 inch screen placed a fair distance
> from your eyes. And most importantly, your eyes would focus on something
> far away, so it means the eye strain would be less as well.

So how big then?

Gerry

Asgeir Nesoe

stupid licensing ruins everything

by Asgeir Nesoe » Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:31:08

If I presume that you'd get a field of vision of about 90 degrees, you'd get a
virtual 2 meter wide screen (or a 100 inch (diagonal) screen) screen at a 1
meter distance. Overawing, that's for sure. :-)

---Asgeir---



> > No, no, Gerry, it would make it much bigger than a 21 incher. It would
> > fill your FOV with more than 90 degrees. And this is indefinitely bigger
> > than the mere 10-12 degrees of a 17 inch screen placed a fair distance
> > from your eyes. And most importantly, your eyes would focus on something
> > far away, so it means the eye strain would be less as well.

> So how big then?

> Gerry

Gerry Aitke

stupid licensing ruins everything

by Gerry Aitke » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:29:31


> If I presume that you'd get a field of vision of about 90 degrees, you'd get a
> virtual 2 meter wide screen (or a 100 inch (diagonal) screen) screen at a 1
> meter distance. Overawing, that's for sure. :-)

Indeed, I've been looking through mine for three years now, and it still
overawes me <G>.
BTW, 90 degrees is bang on, I just measured it.

Gerry


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.