As long as the reference tire diameter cell matches off with what you want, you can fake in whatever width/ratio numbers you want to get to your actual known diameter. That reference diameter cell is what the calculations reference for the math part of things.

holy shit. Thats incredibly smooth.

here's my ST4 map that was slapped together. I desperately need a retune. (6spd/3.9/245)
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...e2aaeb8980.png

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...85d23499e1.png

Your curve doesn't really seem all that bad at glance. Your torque dips off hard the last 250rpm, so you aren't gaining time by revving out to that speed unless it means you are saving a shift prior to a braking zone, but the main meat of the graphs from 55mph+ look pretty strong. short shifting 4th and 5th may be a slight benefit if the track layout allows.

Ok sure, ill retract the "desperation" from my comment, but in our region (Norcal ST4) I think you really need to optimize everything to be competitive. Is it a bad graph, yeah not really, but if I can smooth out the overlap I can use all the gears to whittle down lap time/keep up with the podium guys.

Here's my dyno sheet for context. Its a torque monster in the mid range, but I think I need to put the squaretop back in to let really breathe up top, as you can see it shits the bed after 6500.
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...6eeb7ca5d0.jpg

Yeah, it's just not a particularly flat power curve. Flat looks like this:

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...20a1e0ea9d.png

--Ian

Yeah, hence why it needs to go back on the dyno. Ill need to play some tricks to optimize for st4 hp avg, so it wont look like that, but I have a few ideas.

Always nice seeing articles from HPA that reinforce exactly what I stated in the OP. This is good for a nice little read if you still have questions on how to interpret tractive force graphs.

https://www.hpacademy.com/technical-...ractive-force/

Good evening, Padlock.
I downloaded your spreadsheet and I'm very impressed with it. I added some elements to it to see how everything relates. However, I added a line of the max traction force at the two rear axles(=(weight in kg)( % of weight at rear)(g)(u of static friction)(0.224809 lbf/Newtons). Somehow, according to the chart, first and second gear produce forces that break traction which doesn't happen in real life. Am I doing something wrong with my calculations, how would you add this max tire traction line? I added a picture for reference. Thank you.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...d3c34cc976.png

Well your maximum traction line is a perfectly level straight line/threshold which doesn’t seem to account for weight transfer, which would probably be most pronounced in the lower gears. So in those lower gears with weight transferring to the rear under heavy acceleration, you’ve got more weight on the rear tires and thus a higher static breakaway force.

wow - don't know how I missed this - Padlock - this is good stuff. I'm going to play with the ZF8 ratios. Thanks for putting it together!

wombat

I think a key miss that you have is assuming the normal force is a constant (it isn't). As a vehicle accelerates, it transfers weight to the rear end, which provides more traction than you'd calculate in the static condition. How much gets transferred depends on the chassis/suspension setup. Aero on the vehicle will also influence this as speeds get higher. coefficient of friction will also vary depending on road surface, road/ambient temperature, tire compound, tire contact patch, etc.

Completely modeling a traction curve would be fairly involved, but testing it is as easy as a test drive. If you want to get really involved, plotting traction circles with G-force data logs is the best way to understand the grip you have available. I have an example shown here. Lots of examples online to research into if you are curious.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...7bc58444a7.jpg


No problem. Glad to help.