Hi Gary,
The data I have seen is all from measurements. In a large number of
tests conducted for the gummint for the study of Electronic Stability
Control (ESC) ==> http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf91/312464_web.pdf .
Vehicles were subjected to highly transient, robotically controlled
steering inputs up to 270 degrees and over 1100 deg/second steering
rates (even faster than Manny Papendreas in a wild slalom!!). In
looking at data for over 100 test configurations (all on street
tires), the 20-25% observation for peak versus steady state lat accel
was made. It looks like Byron and Jay confirmed what I have seen
when they ran their estimator on your car.
Sorry for the additional geekage, but at least it did not cost $3.95/minute.
John
At 06:21 PM 2/26/2006, Gary Thomason wrote:
>Guys,
>
>This 20-25% difference you mention is interesting, John. Was this
>arrived at mathematically or empirically? In an earlier post I
>mentioned that 1.63g sounded unlikely unless talking about a
>transient. I had originally written "brief transient", and then
>changed it thinking that brief and transient were redundant. Given
>that I think we can all agree that a slalom of a spacing likely to
>be used in a SOLO course is made up entirely of "transients", at
>what point does a transient become steady state in your opinion(s)?
>What spacing would be needed to call the "turns" in a slalom
>steady state?
>
>Thanks for you thoughts on the subject,
>Gary
JACircuits Autocross Timing Systems
http://www.jacircuits.com
- Timing the SCCA Solo II Nationals since 1985
***********
|