Landracing Forum Home
May 23, 2012, 11:44:08 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
BACK TO LANDRACING.COM HOMEPAGE
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "06" Lake Gairdner traction  (Read 10199 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
stayt`ie
Guest
« on: May 05, 2006, 05:12:23 PM »

this is a question to the u.s. racers and visitors that were at our 06speedweek event,,, " at what surface friction coefficient would you rate our salt this year smiley "
Logged
landracing
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2006, 09:32:44 PM »

about the same as wet salt here.... Slippery....

Jon
Logged
joea
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Rapid City SD
Posts: 1134


« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2006, 05:11:40 PM »

yep......similar to Bonneville when wet..........

similar to many entities..........."slippery when wet"........
Logged
stayt`ie
Guest
« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2006, 05:27:36 AM »

yes it was slippery Smiley , but how slippery?  i noted that your bikes didnt run near the speeds that you do on  "wet" salt at bonneville,  this may  have been due to other factors?,,   what i am trying to establish here ( what was asked in my initial post) that is, salt friction coefficient #.    ok,  .6 is the accepted number for good salt, then it can varie all the way down to .2, you fellas have had many years running on various "wet" salt conditions, soooo,,,, "what would you rate our 06 salt at" smiley
Logged
Dr Goggles
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 161
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 1764


The Jarman-Stewart "Spirit of Sunshine" Bellytank


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2006, 07:43:52 AM »

Hi ronnie
there must be a pretty simple way of standardizing the traction coeficient .....a strain guage , a standard weight and a standard surface area of a known compound ( say smooth rubber) would be a reasonably simple way for to get a "feel" for the actual figure....anyone?

or to put it another way , dad how does this work?......does someone out there have a simple explanation of how the C of traction is calculated and how a basic device could be built to give relative readings.
Logged

Few understand what I'm trying to do but they vastly outnumber those who understand why...................

http://thespiritofsunshine.blogspot.com/

Current Australian E/GL record holder at 192.015mph
Sumner
Global Moderator
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Age: 68
Location: Blanding, Utah
Posts: 2839


Blanding, Ut..a small dot in the middle of nowhere


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2006, 10:12:41 AM »

Quote from: stayt`ie
yes it was slippery Smiley , but how slippery?  i noted that your bikes didnt run near the speeds that you do on  "wet" salt at bonneville,  this may  have been due to other factors?,,   what i am trying to establish here ( what was asked in my initial post) that is, salt friction coefficient #.    ok,  .6 is the accepted number for good salt, then it can varie all the way down to .2, you fellas have had many years running on various "wet" salt conditions, soooo,,,, "what would you rate our 06 salt at" smiley


The friction coeffiecient will even change during the day.  What appears to be the same salt at 8 in the morning and 2 in the afternoon is not.  I guess you just have to work with what you got when you get to the front of the line wink .

c ya, Sum
Logged

stayt`ie
Guest
« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2006, 05:51:34 AM »

that you do sum Smiley , it can also varie from start to finish at any time of the day..  but this is all part of the generaliziation of the conditions at the time, thus we have a coefficient number that gives us a level/figure of grip/slipperyness ie. traction to work with ...
Logged
Seldom Seen Slim
Administrator
Hero Member
***
Offline Offline

Age: 64
Location: Skandia, Michigan
Posts: 7320


Nancy -- 201.913 mph record on a production ZX15!


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2006, 08:10:59 AM »

Okay, okay, so somebody come up with a repeatable set of test conditions, do your coefficient testing and determine some number, and report both the result of the test and the conditions.

For instance:  Test 1:  Bonneville Salt Flats, 9 AM, 78 F/12% humidity, sunny all day yesterday, no rain for XX days (months), salt generally described as "good", test made at the four mile:  Result was Coeff/ Traction = .63

Test 2: Lake Gairdner, 3 PM, 34 C/8% humidity, partly cloudy today, rain squalls last Monday, salt generally described as "okay but not great", test made at the start line:  Result was C/T = .38

All tests performed by dragging a "standard" (brick, old tire, case of diet coke, whatever) weighing "so many pounds/kg" and measuring the resistance in pounds/kg/slugs/whatever and converting by a set factor.  

Or whatever -- the idea is to define the conditions enough that the results are at least somewhat repeatable, by defining as many of the variables as possible no matter what they might be at that moment.  If we all know what those basic conditions are -- we could all interpret the results.

Yes, of course the conditions vary all over the Salt, and yes, anecdotal reports are very subjective -- so a set of conditions for a test help resolve those conditions into something from which all could benefit.

Okay, let the arrows fly!
Logged

Jon E. Wennerberg
 a/k/a Seldom Seen Slim
 Skandia, Michigan
 (that's way up north)
2 Club member x2
Owner of landracing.com
Sumner
Global Moderator
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Age: 68
Location: Blanding, Utah
Posts: 2839


Blanding, Ut..a small dot in the middle of nowhere


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2006, 12:10:27 PM »

Quote from: Seldom Seen Slim
Okay, okay, so somebody come up with a repeatable set of test conditions, do your coefficient testing and determine some number, and report both the result of the test and the conditions.


I nominate that "Seldom Seen Slim" guy Cool , do I hear a second huh ,

Sum
Logged

dwarner
Guest
« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2006, 12:12:49 PM »

Why don't you just get in/on it, push or twist the throttle, keep the tire/tires under it and read the time slip?

DW
Logged
Rick Byrnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Age: 68
Location: Dearborn Michigan
Posts: 350



« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2006, 01:25:23 PM »

I like that Warner
Logged

Rick
Sumner
Global Moderator
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Age: 68
Location: Blanding, Utah
Posts: 2839


Blanding, Ut..a small dot in the middle of nowhere


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2006, 02:16:08 PM »

Quote from: dwarner
Why don't you just get in/on it, push or twist the throttle, keep the tire/tires under it and read the time slip?

DW


When you get to the head of the line that is about your only choice, isn't it Smiley ,

Sum
Logged

Seldom Seen Slim
Administrator
Hero Member
***
Offline Offline

Age: 64
Location: Skandia, Michigan
Posts: 7320


Nancy -- 201.913 mph record on a production ZX15!


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2006, 02:55:49 PM »

I do it Dan's way -- I was just trying to offer a way of quantifying the situation for anyone that does't choose to so do.
Logged

Jon E. Wennerberg
 a/k/a Seldom Seen Slim
 Skandia, Michigan
 (that's way up north)
2 Club member x2
Owner of landracing.com
edweldon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Age: 73
Location: Los Gatos, CA
Posts: 128


« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2006, 03:41:37 PM »

This is a real interesting subject.  Engineers like me like to put numbers on things.  It might be interesting to run some simple friction coefficient tests and see if there's any correlation with the way the cars run.  I think I'll bring my 2000# sherline scale (see attachment) and some smaller ones with me this year and in the meantime think about how to set up some simple tests.  Any ideas anyone?
Ed Weldon
Logged

Captain Eddie's Day Old Fish Market -- home of the Bonneville Salt Fish
Featuring the modern miracle of mechanical refrigeration.
Sumner
Global Moderator
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Age: 68
Location: Blanding, Utah
Posts: 2839


Blanding, Ut..a small dot in the middle of nowhere


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2006, 04:02:08 PM »

Quote from: Seldom Seen Slim
I do it Dan's way -- I was just trying to offer a way of quantifying the situation for anyone that does't choose to so do.


I thought you said we could shoot arrows at you shocked .  Guess we didn't give you enough time to get your vest on wink .



Well looks like you are out of the woods.  This guy already developed the device to measure traction.  Only problem is he used 5 different surfaces, but none were salt cry . I learned some from his site ( HERE ), but some of this still confuses me huh .  

One interesting thing was
Quote
....increasing wheel number decrease weight per wheel, keeping vehicle traction constant....
.  He noted the exception to this is
Quote
Of course this applies only on a solid, reasonably even ground. More wheels may be needed to spread load on a larger surface (mud, sand...), but to maintain pulling capability as many of them as possible should be driven.
.  So does this mean a wider tire with more footprint won't increase traction since the weight will decrease per square inch of footprint?

So when it is all over if you are spinning your tires you need weight and if not you need HP and you are still stuck with the current conditions when it is time to go, so just follow Dan's instructions Tongue .

c ya, Sum
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!


Google visited last this page May 17, 2012, 11:06:17 PM