Uh... Not as easy as I thought. I am actually working in an opposite workflow.
I calculate the compression of the spring using the distance between the 2 points as current lengths and subtracting it from rest length. Than I use the compression to gain the force. After that I use the position difference between the points, normalize it and get the normal vector for the force. And than I apply the force. Dividing it by mass of the vertex gives acceleration. This is assigned to velocity(v += a*dt). Than the position is updated(pos += v*dt). This, however, doesn't work fine. It's the neptune case. However, what's shown there is that I actually need to know the new velocity before applying new compression? :huh: I can not know velocity without acceleration. Acceleration needs force. Force needs compression. I'm lost at this point - how can spring work in opposite direction?
There is one more problem(which Brian Beckman also describes in one of his videos, but in a different example). The tire is made out of a vertex network. Each of them acts on multiple other vertices. And in real life they does at the same time. However, computer does calculate it in an order. Although my system already calculates forces for every vertex and only than applies motion(this way the forces netting often matches up), it can still be interesting to find out how the system would change if I changed the order of vertex calculations. Maybe I'm false(in my case I could be), but possibly it does matter.