Do 45 RPM records need higher anti-skate setting?

Omsed, If you really want to get pedantic, there is no such thing as "centrifugal force". The force that keeps a body in orbit is "centripetal", or "center-seeking", meaning it has a vector directed radially toward the center (or spindle, in this case). Such a force is necessary to keep a body in orbit, because of Newton's First Law that states that a body in motion will remain in (linear) motion, unless acted upon by a force. The reason we intuit a centrifugal force, I guess, is because of Newton's Third Law. Otherwise, we agree.

12 rpm more

Omsed, you seem to know something about this so perhaps you can explain some things. Doesn't the skating force vary from plus to minus depending on where the stylus is on the LP, assuming an optimally setup radial-tracking arm?

Also, if the platter is at rest there will be no skating force at all. That was the basis for my response above; are you saying there is zero(0) change regardless of rotational speed?

I've had tone arm manufacturers tell me this already (mostly stating that usually too much antiskate force is applied in most setups), isn't it a fact that any skating force setting on the arm is as best an approximation?

TIA :)

Ralph, Re the original question, friction (between the stylus tip and the groove) is the prime source of the skating force, and friction is independent of velocity. It's as simple as that.
The only difference between a 33 and a 45 might be if the two LPs were made of different vinyl compounds that gave different coefficients of friction. There might be an additional very small contribution related to groove tortuosity, as I wrote before Omsed.

Yes, skating force is not constant across the surface of the LP, but not because of the platter speed. Inconstancy has more to do with headshell offset angle and the arc traversed by the stylus as it moves from outer to inner.

Dear Lewm, did you note that my "centrifugal force" is in quotes, thus trying to indicate I am quoting one of the many know-nothings that spout phalse physics ad nauseum, and not using it as a real term?

Now that you'll noice my quotation marks and realize I was showing the ignorance of folks who use the term, could you not now respond and say I spelled "phalse" incorrectly? It's a little pun thing.

Smiling.....not indicating you are pedantic....but you did use the descriptor first!