L34 wrote:Since 2009 which teams' data have Bridgestone been using to develop their tires?
Sure they will say all the teams, but would one teams data be easier construct a tire for than the rest?
Or are the BS tires a good compromise for most and the teams have built their bikes to suit the them with the excepton of Ducati who simply could not find a fix for their front end woes?
L34 - welcome to (as motomania has said eloquently elsewhere) - the asylum.. Great to see new people coming aboard because they appreciate the effort the forum members put into 'intelligent debate' rather than the slanging match opportunities of some other sites.
As far as particular manufacturer input to the BS tyres goes, in theory
with the control tyres it's supposed to be a level playing field. I rather suspect that in practise BS take more note of certain teams but as far as I know they are not saying which ones. Used to be Ducati - culminating in the '07 triumph - and I would assume that the relationship established over some years there would still have some validity, but AFAIK it's a well-held secret now. There are probably others out there who have more inside info - anybody??
ducati1098s wrote:The traditional alu beam frame must allow flex along its length and therefore presumably flexes underneath the rider, allowing him to feel much more of whats going on underneath him. If the flex permitted is only in that v short space around the headstock/airbox then that must surely be flex which is much more remote from the rider being further away?
I have no idea whether the rider can feel the flex from the beam itself through the calves - I'm about three or four levels of ability below that as a rider to make any comment. I'd have thought it is more a feedback through the bars akin to the way that one can detect changes in the road surface through differences in pressure being not what one expects / knows instinctively ought to be happening - in crude terms, that 'disconnect' between the bars and the tyre reaction. There are guys here who race who can, I'm sure, provide way better information - Gustav, for one.
The flex in a short structure thing - it's sort of like, if you take a ruler and put a length of it hanging out the end of the bench, clamp it down, and then add a weight to the free end until it snaps. A wooden ruler will bend a bit and then snap at the bench, a metal ruler will basically bend as it reaches the material yield point and (if it's not a very brittle metal) mostly fold rather than break.
If you put a short length of the wooden ruler out and load it, there will be only a small deflection before it snaps (and if you tap the assembly, it will vibrate at a very fast rate but very small amplitude). Put more of the ruler out and you get more bend and slower rate of vibration with more amplitude. Of course, to carry the same weight acting through a single point ( i.e. the headstock) you have to increase the thickness of the material (because of leverage). However, with clever design you can carry the force (the weight, if you like) out into the beam over a distance so the beam 'thinks' the weight is more evenly distributed along its length - hence the emphasis on lay-up and thickness in c/f. You can do the same thing with metal alloys by mechanically or chemically varying thickness over a distance so the local stress level is kept below the yield point everywhere: any abrupt change in thickness will cause a rise in stress at the point of the change.
I'm being very long-winded here, but to try to be more succinct: with c/f each layer has finite thickness so you can't manage an infinite taper, it will be a series of changes. Pretty obviously, in a short beam there just isn't the room to spread out those changes over much distance, hence the limitations on the amount of compliance that can be inbuilt.