I was reading August issue of Roadracing World and I stumbled upon an interesting article about the new Dunlop Qualifier II. It may have provided the very simple conceptual information necessary to solve the tire "conspiracy" that occurred at the end of the 2007 season.
First things first. The Dunlop article was extremely detailed but most importantly it showed graphs of the actual contact patch under riding circumstances. The contact patch does indeed get smaller as the bike is leaned over, even tires with an aggressive profile like the new Dunlop II. In the article, Dunlop demonstrated that the new Dunlop II has a maximum contact patch at 45 degrees whereas the old tire had a maximum contact patch at 30 degrees. Though both feature sticky rubber, the durability and performance of the new Dunlop II was said to be vastly superior to the older tire. The article was extremely detailed and showed not only the size and shape of the contact patch at various lean angles, but also the cornering forces on each section of the contact patch.
So any way, last year I had surmised that they had made both the Bridgestone and the Michelins more or less spec by regulating the carcass, but I really didn't have any idea how they would pull it off. After reading the Dunlop article, I think I over complicated things. Dorna could very easily have regulated tire profile without having to mandate a spec carcass. Controlling the profile allows them to regulate the contact patch and the levels of edge grip, theoretically. If the governing body was concerned with the growth of conerspeed, what better way to slow the bikes down than to make sure less contact patch is available at full lean?
We know that they eliminated dual compound tires for 2008 thanks to the Bstone press release saying that they were anxious to bring them back from the day they were named single supplier (2008). I now think that Dorna imposed a spec profile on Bstone and Michelin. In addition, I think they may also have regulated tire weight and Dorna may have banned certain materials if one of the manufacturers had a technological advantage stemming from a newly developed carcass material.
Spec profile is a more probable scenario than control carcass. I would have cut costs and controlled performance at the same time. Unfortunately, both Michelin and Bstone had feverish development in 2008. Eventually, Bridgestone developed the super squishy Rossi/Stoner front tire that was probably superior to the Michelins because it enlarged the size of the contact patch at full lean. Pedrosa jumped off of the Michelin ship and Dorna realized their attempts to save the tire war had failed.
First things first. The Dunlop article was extremely detailed but most importantly it showed graphs of the actual contact patch under riding circumstances. The contact patch does indeed get smaller as the bike is leaned over, even tires with an aggressive profile like the new Dunlop II. In the article, Dunlop demonstrated that the new Dunlop II has a maximum contact patch at 45 degrees whereas the old tire had a maximum contact patch at 30 degrees. Though both feature sticky rubber, the durability and performance of the new Dunlop II was said to be vastly superior to the older tire. The article was extremely detailed and showed not only the size and shape of the contact patch at various lean angles, but also the cornering forces on each section of the contact patch.
So any way, last year I had surmised that they had made both the Bridgestone and the Michelins more or less spec by regulating the carcass, but I really didn't have any idea how they would pull it off. After reading the Dunlop article, I think I over complicated things. Dorna could very easily have regulated tire profile without having to mandate a spec carcass. Controlling the profile allows them to regulate the contact patch and the levels of edge grip, theoretically. If the governing body was concerned with the growth of conerspeed, what better way to slow the bikes down than to make sure less contact patch is available at full lean?
We know that they eliminated dual compound tires for 2008 thanks to the Bstone press release saying that they were anxious to bring them back from the day they were named single supplier (2008). I now think that Dorna imposed a spec profile on Bstone and Michelin. In addition, I think they may also have regulated tire weight and Dorna may have banned certain materials if one of the manufacturers had a technological advantage stemming from a newly developed carcass material.
Spec profile is a more probable scenario than control carcass. I would have cut costs and controlled performance at the same time. Unfortunately, both Michelin and Bstone had feverish development in 2008. Eventually, Bridgestone developed the super squishy Rossi/Stoner front tire that was probably superior to the Michelins because it enlarged the size of the contact patch at full lean. Pedrosa jumped off of the Michelin ship and Dorna realized their attempts to save the tire war had failed.
