Simon
|
| posted on 23/9/07 at 07:27 PM |
|
|
Minimum rhs size
Peeps,
If I were to build another car, but this time a nice light car, say with a m/c engine in it (let's just call it a bec shall we , could I
get away with 3/4" rhs all round.
I'd, of course, be going the live axle, 13" wheel route this time with all panelling riveted in place for rigidity.
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
nick205
|
| posted on 23/9/07 at 07:55 PM |
|
|
If you're after weight saving then I would have thought 1"/25mm dia round tube would be a better/safer bet.
If using 3/4" RHS wouldn't you need to up the wall thickness to compensate for strength? Thereby losing any weight saving over thinner
walled 1" RHS?
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 23/9/07 at 08:02 PM |
|
|
Reducing section size not a good idea ---- due to buckling on members under compressive load.
Better to go for thinner wall thickness -- 1.2 mm
[Edited on 23/9/07 by britishtrident]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 23/9/07 at 11:04 PM |
|
|
id do as bt says, and use 19mm round tubes for triangulation. If you are building a low weight bec you can remove an awful lot from the locost
chassis, afterall it was designed to fit a car engine. Mine will be about 18" shorter.
|
|
|
