Hensley Arrow: How does it REALLY work?
There have been several discussions on this hitch that have become somewhat 'controversial'. I am NOT trying to stir this controversy/bashing back up. Instead, I'd like to see a good, intelligent di...
Forum Discussion
Ron Gratz wrote:
Ed, There is a difference between tire static friction (when the tire is not rolling) and the lateral force generated by a tire when it is rolling. A rolling tire does not generate lateral force unless is has some degree of "slip angle" relative to the direction of travel. This is why a moving TT swings when subjected to a lateral force. The TT must develop enough yaw angle to generate sufficient side force to counteract the imposed lateral load. The side force is proportional to the tire's cornering stiffness, the load on the tire, and the amount of yaw.
Ron
I agree with you Ron. But before we can get into sliding friction, we have to get past static friction. Now I'm not claiming to be an expert on tire dynamics, but even though the contact patch is moving (forward), I'm thinking it has a static friction coefficient in the lateral direction (sideways).
I assumed that some force was induced on the side of the TT forcing the TT to move sideways (much of which could be momentum) and that if the static friction coefficient (sideways) was merely 0.05 (I'm thinking conservatively), causing the TT to "break loose" the lateral forces on the TT would have to be 400# minimum. Until the point of "break loose" occurs, we're not into the sliding friction coefficient.
It is only after the TT has broken loose that it can apply any translation or turning movement to the rear bar of our 4-bar system. Forces yes, but movement of the rear link without tires going sideways - can't happen.
I'm very interested in your take on this postulation.
Ed B
