Response to Reviewer 1

Abstract

Thank you for taking the time to study this paper and provide valuable constructive criticism which we believe has helped develop and strengthen this work. I have laid out all of your comments below and responded each of them in turn. Some comments touch upon the overall goal of this work and so the opening of the response has been written to clarify the main goals and overall narrative of the paper. Having received feedback on the paper we now realise that this was not outlined clearly enough in the original manuscript and so we will also be making this clearer in the updated paper. If more information is required or we have misinterpreted any of your comments, then C1 WESD Interactive comment Printer-friendly version Discussion paper please don't hesitate to get in contact and we will be happy to provide extra information to remedy this. Best regards, James Stirling (Lead author) Review Comments and Author Response Opening: Recent work which has demonstrated important and unusual load behaviours in wind turbine main bearings has used simplified analytical representations of the drivetrain. Such simple representations will be necessary if this type of analysis is to be performed for large numbers of load cases, incorporated into fleet wide wind turbine digital twin models, used in wind farm simulation software or as part of industry standard BEM programs such as Bladed or FAST. Analytical models of these type are therefore important and already utilised in some instances. However, to date a detailed assessment of how effectively these models represent wind turbine drivetrain load reaction at the main bearing (including different bearing types) has not yet been carried out and it is therefore important to scrutinise the validity of these models and where they might apply. comment Printer-friendly version Discussion paper analysis of a 10-MW medium-speed drivetrain for offshore wind turbines, Wind Energy,