Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Technical Camaro Topics > Wheels and Tires Talk Sponsored by The Tire Rack


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-29-2013, 07:01 PM   #29
Norm Peterson
corner barstool sitter
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 19 WRX
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 6,990
Those g forces would be the minimum requirements for the grades, so the 0.07 g is at best a rough idea (you could have a AA that tested at 0.55g and an A at 0.51, for example).

But to use your table numbers which assume just-barely-meet-min-spec tires you have to do a little math. Stopping distance is roughly equal to
[MPH]^2 / (30 x mu), where mu is the g-forces in the above tables (Highway Engineering 101) and it is assumed that those g-levels are maintained all the way down to a complete stop.

From 60 mph, the AA would be expected to stop in about 60^2 / (30 x 0.54) , or about 222 feet.

The A tire would take 60^2 / (30 x 0.47) , or about 255 feet

I'll leave your interpretation of the significance of 33 feet (or 64 feet vs 56 feet = 8 feet at 30 mph) up to you. But I think that 0.07g is a lot, and if I ever needed it but didn't have it, it'd be way too late to wish I'd chosen differently.

FWIW, I've found that once or twice per set of tires I really am looking for every bit of grip that my tires (and brake pads on initial bite) can give me. And that's in street driving, not autocross or other performance driving activity.


Norm
Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 07:10 PM   #30
Rhyder


 
Drives: 2012 45 Anniversary Vert
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: atlanta
Posts: 2,511
How would you quantify it when you include all four tires in contact at the same time? Wouldn't that skew the difference down even more?

I mean I've had to slam on my brakes on the highway around 60mph and I wouldn't think it took me 85 yards (255') to stop, most of a football field. I didn't measure it but that seems a long ways. Im guessing the four wheels on contact shorten that.

so in theory the difference between them would be much less.
Rhyder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 07:14 PM   #31
Rhyder


 
Drives: 2012 45 Anniversary Vert
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: atlanta
Posts: 2,511
well the graph here shows all four wheels still equal that, just seems like a long distance. Ill have to try it tonight....


http://www.csgnetwork.com/stopdistinfo.html
Rhyder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 07:40 PM   #32
Norm Peterson
corner barstool sitter
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 19 WRX
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 6,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyder View Post
How would you quantify it when you include all four tires in contact at the same time? Wouldn't that skew the difference down even more?

I mean I've had to slam on my brakes on the highway around 60mph and I wouldn't think it took me 85 yards (255') to stop, most of a football field. I didn't measure it but that seems a long ways. Im guessing the four wheels on contact shorten that.

so in theory the difference between them would be much less.
That 255' is with all four tires contributing. What that g-level really is, is the ratio between the rearward traction force at the tire(s) and the weight carried by each tire. If they're all working at 0.54g and there are no aero lift forces removing car weight from them, the car will decelerate at 0.54g.

Keep in mind that the traction ratings are for wet braking.

The tires fitted to at least SS-level and higher Camaros are good to something a lot closer to 0.9g. But let's be a little conservative and assume that in average hard use youo only achieve an 0.8g overall average rate of deceleration. 60^2 / (30 x 0.8) = 150 feet . . . which ought to "feel" a lot closer to your experience.


BTW, that stopdistinfo link is for dry braking (with nothing-special tires/brake system/pavement/driver).


Norm
Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 01:45 PM   #33
HP_atTheWheels
 
HP_atTheWheels's Avatar
 
Drives: 06 Vette
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: FL
Posts: 230
great info, thanks
HP_atTheWheels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2013, 07:31 AM   #34
sjspat
 
Drives: 2010 camaro
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Corner Brook, NL
Posts: 70
Well, I just ordered the Hankook Ventus V12 EVO K115. Hopw they turn out ok. My Pirellis on the front are down to the wear bars with only 25000km (15000mi) on them.
sjspat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 02:21 PM   #35
73vette

 
73vette's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro LS, 1973 Corvette
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Olathe, KS
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post
That 255' is with all four tires contributing. What that g-level really is, is the ratio between the rearward traction force at the tire(s) and the weight carried by each tire. If they're all working at 0.54g and there are no aero lift forces removing car weight from them, the car will decelerate at 0.54g.

Keep in mind that the traction ratings are for wet braking.

The tires fitted to at least SS-level and higher Camaros are good to something a lot closer to 0.9g. But let's be a little conservative and assume that in average hard use youo only achieve an 0.8g overall average rate of deceleration. 60^2 / (30 x 0.8) = 150 feet . . . which ought to "feel" a lot closer to your experience.


BTW, that stopdistinfo link is for dry braking (with nothing-special tires/brake system/pavement/driver).


Norm

Nice info!!
__________________
73vette is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.