Avoneer
|
| posted on 1/12/04 at 10:19 PM |
|
|
Side triangulation bars
Havin soon to acquire a book chassis.
Is there any reasons why I should and shouldn't cut out all the side triangulation bars and replace them with round?
Cheers,
Pat...
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 1/12/04 at 11:36 PM |
|
|
yep its a pain in the bum plus in certain situations square is better than round. Do a search as i've definately read all about it on here.
plus i've got to ask ......... why?
|
|
|
Avoneer
|
| posted on 1/12/04 at 11:57 PM |
|
|
Weight???
Shall I leave the square ones in then?
Is it worth it?
Pat...
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 2/12/04 at 12:16 AM |
|
|
I'm no expert but having built my own chassis, i'd reconmend going on a diet.
Its better for you, easier, less hassle, cheeper and for the amount of weight i guess we're talking...... a damned sight more effective!
At most we're talking what, 4 tubes total length less than 2m? the weight difference has to be negligable.... are you using carbon fibre for
everything else?
Sorry i'm coming over really negative but based on pure guess work and not being a trained engineer it just seems like you're making a lot
of work for yourself with little gain.
|
|
|
Fred W B
|
| posted on 2/12/04 at 06:11 AM |
|
|
Tube masses in kg/m (lb/ft)
Square 15.9x15.9x1.6 = 0.73 (0.49)
Square 19.1x19.1x1.6 = 0.89 (0.60)
Square 25.4x25.4x1.6 = 1.21 (0.81)
Round 15.9x1.6 = 0.56 (0.38)
Round 19.1x1.6 = 0.73 (0.49)
Round 25.4x1.6 = 0.94 (0.63)
Round 31.8x1.6 = 1.19 (0.78)
If a 25x25x1.6 square tube space frame weighs 70 kg, and you could change every tube to 25x1.6 round tube, you would save 15.6 kg (34 lb)
Regards
Fred W B
[Edited on 2/12/04 by Fred W B]
[Edited on 2/12/04 by Fred W B]
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 2/12/04 at 10:02 AM |
|
|
Hmm, I just chopped all the tubular diagonlas out of the sides and welded square in! I didn't really like the look of the 16mm tube the
previous owner had used, especialy on the longer runs.
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 2/12/04 at 10:27 AM |
|
|
but we're only talking about the side triangulation bars, i guess 2m worth of steel so that saves .... 400g approx....
as i said before, a diet would be more effective 
|
|
|
Avoneer
|
| posted on 2/12/04 at 12:20 PM |
|
|
I work it out at just under 4 metres and then was planning on doing the whole transmission tunnel in round as well
Fair enough on the minimal weight saving, but this will enable strengthening in other areas.
And if I diet as well (although I'm not that heavy) - everyone's laughing!
I can see why it sounds like a waste of time, but I fancy the challenge!
Thanks for the input...
Pat...
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 2/12/04 at 12:43 PM |
|
|
If you follow Cymtrics' modifications you can make the chassis both stiffer and lighter apparently.
One thing his plans *do* do is uprate the front diagonals (JU1/2???) from round to 1" box because the chassis needs the extra strength.
A complete chassis weighs only 90Kgs or so IIRC. You'd be better off making weight savings with Willwood callipers, ali uprights, ali (Protech)
shocks etc. etc. IMHO.
Cheers,
James
|
|
|
Bob C
|
| posted on 2/12/04 at 01:01 PM |
|
|
lighter uprights & calipers reduce the all important unsprung weight for vastly more benefit than the raw poundage would suggest!
Bob c
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 2/12/04 at 01:03 PM |
|
|
Ah, hold on james whilst i throughly agree with you, he said the most important words on this site ....
I fancy the challenge....... well if thats the case, go for it
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 2/12/04 at 03:44 PM |
|
|
Just add that the welding and fitting of the diagonals has to be perfect -- get it wrong especially on fully built chassis and it would be all too
easy end up with a twist in the chassis when it cools.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 2/12/04 at 03:47 PM |
|
|
Just add that the welding and fitting of the diagonals has to be perfect -- get it wrong especially on fully built chassis and it would be all too
easy end up with a twist in the chassis when it cools.
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 2/12/04 at 05:02 PM |
|
|
i had to move one of mine so ........
i supported the chassis, welded in a temporary diagonal, removed the normal one, fitted the new one, removed the temp.
(by temp i mean welded in another peice of steel!)
|
|
|
Avoneer
|
| posted on 2/12/04 at 05:53 PM |
|
|
Just got some pics of the chassis I am buying in a couple of weeks and low and behold, tubular diagonals - so I guess that's the end of the
post!
As for willwoods and ali hubs etc, I think that would kill my £3k on the road BEC locost budget!
Cheers,
Pat...
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 3/12/04 at 12:43 AM |
|
|
yeah probably, so put it in your post on the road upgrade budget
|
|
|
%20(WinCE).JPG)
