how about the increased load that a banked corner places on the outer shoulder of tire? Its amazing how you can read anything to fit your pre drawn conclusion.WhiteBlue wrote:
Michelin officially blames special dynamic effects of turn 13 to generate loads far superior to the maximum estimation of their engineers.
What do you think was this special dynamic effect if it wasn't resonance?
Gas pressure supports load
The increased load that a banked corner places on the outer shoulder of a tire isn't special at all and would not have been overlooked by Michelin. They knew the track from years ago and they knew the downforce their customer teams produced that year. They knew the speeds probably down to 3-5 kph. They even knew how different cars would use the tyres differently. How could they fail to take something so simple into account in their physical model.flynfrog wrote:how about the increased load that a banked corner places on the outer shoulder of tire? Its amazing how you can read anything to fit your pre drawn conclusion.WhiteBlue wrote:
Michelin officially blames special dynamic effects of turn 13 to generate loads far superior to the maximum estimation of their engineers.
What do you think was this special dynamic effect if it wasn't resonance?
Sometimes you hit the nail on the head. Different tyre pressure was never a parameter to the solution of the Indy 2005 problem. Even if we assume that the tyre is a non linear spring damper system the spring rate would not change drastically enough in the small pressure range of an F1 operating window to avoid a resonance if they designed an Eigen frequency into that range.strad wrote:.. It is not the gas that supports the load and adding pressure doesn't act as increasing the spring rate...Gas pressure supports load
What caused this lateral oscillation?WhiteBlue wrote:
The one thing they did not know and could not foresee was the lateral oscillation which Michelin called bobbing and that occurred on the side wall. That was the only special physical effect.
the fact that corner has way more banking than any other corner in F1 id say that would be a special dynamic situation.WhiteBlue wrote:The increased load that a banked corner places on the outer shoulder of a tire isn't special at all and would not have been overlooked by Michelin. They knew the track from years ago and they knew the downforce their customer teams produced that year. They knew the speeds probably down to 3-5 kph. They even knew how different cars would use the tyres differently. How could they fail to take something so simple into account in their physical model.flynfrog wrote:how about the increased load that a banked corner places on the outer shoulder of tire? Its amazing how you can read anything to fit your pre drawn conclusion.WhiteBlue wrote:
Michelin officially blames special dynamic effects of turn 13 to generate loads far superior to the maximum estimation of their engineers.
What do you think was this special dynamic effect if it wasn't resonance?
The one thing they did not know and could not foresee was the lateral oscillation which Michelin called bobbing and that occurred on the side wall. That was the only special physical effect.
resonanceWilliamsF1 wrote:What caused this lateral oscillation?WhiteBlue wrote:
The one thing they did not know and could not foresee was the lateral oscillation which Michelin called bobbing and that occurred on the side wall. That was the only special physical effect.
Come on! How would that affect a physical model of the dynamic forces? Not at all!! You simply dial in higher forces with more banking. To create an additional new load you have to assume that a new effect was introduced and not a gradual increas of existing loads.flynfrog wrote:the fact that corner has way more banking than any other corner in F1 id say that would be a special dynamic situation.WhiteBlue wrote:The increased load that a banked corner places on the outer shoulder of a tire isn't special at all and would not have been overlooked by Michelin. They knew the track from years ago and they knew the downforce their customer teams produced that year. They knew the speeds probably down to 3-5 kph. They even knew how different cars would use the tyres differently. How could they fail to take something so simple into account in their physical model.flynfrog wrote:how about the increased load that a banked corner places on the outer shoulder of tire? Its amazing how you can read anything to fit your pre drawn conclusion.
The one thing they did not know and could not foresee was the lateral oscillation which Michelin called bobbing and that occurred on the side wall. That was the only special physical effect.
