Printable Version | Subscribe | Add to Favourites
<<  1    2  >>
New Topic New Poll New Reply
Author: Subject: MNR Cad Model
ffrgtm

posted on 26/7/12 at 09:42 AM Reply With Quote
MNR Cad Model

Slowly making some progress....



View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
loggyboy

posted on 26/7/12 at 11:14 AM Reply With Quote
Ooo copyright..... lol (joke)





Mistral Motorsport

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
designer

posted on 26/7/12 at 12:35 PM Reply With Quote
That's really good. But why?
View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member
loggyboy

posted on 26/7/12 at 01:03 PM Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by designer
That's really good. But why?


To be fair I did exactly the same (well started) when I bought the striker, just to have as a record and as an 'exercise' for me.





Mistral Motorsport

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
D Beddows

posted on 26/7/12 at 01:27 PM Reply With Quote
quote:

That's really good. But why?



I think everyone who can use CAD has done it at least once (including me) - you come to realise it's a completely pointless exercise really as it takes so long to measure (or get measurements for) parts and then model them (apart from the chassis) you may as well just build the car . Which probably explains why so few people ever bother finishing their CAD models properly!

There are notable exceptions however and if you enjoy it then why not

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
ffrgtm

posted on 26/7/12 at 06:02 PM Reply With Quote
Thanks guys, and I'll agree it can be a huge waste of time... this chassis took forever with all of the tube bends.

I did it simply because I'm running fea to check the results of some frame tweaks... also going to play with the geometry. I have some software than can iterate pickup points to optimize lap simulation times... may as well use it!

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
ffrgtm

posted on 2/8/12 at 11:48 AM Reply With Quote
I've gone a bit further with my cad model...

I've put together a very basic torsional rigidity test using the fixed and loading conditions shown in the wireframe example. I currently have the frame modeled only with beam elements which I don't feel give a very accurate representation. I did my best to model the unusual weld beads that join the bent tubes in an x-configuration... but even normal welds are difficult to simulate.

I have most of the suspension modeled and will eventually run a more realistic simulation... as is the loads aren't entering the frame very accurately... nor are the real suspension structures being tested. Before I get to that point I would like to have the frame modeled with shell elements so I can include the original gussets, suspension tab sheet metal, and test ideas.


The results shown here are displacement, URES is nothing more than sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2). I loaded each of the two points with 500N in opposite directions, while the fixed conditions in the rear allowed individual rotation but no translation.



If anyone has any specific or ideas or requests I'd love to hear them. Like I said... this first test isn't very accurate but it suggests room for improvement.











View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
loggyboy

posted on 2/8/12 at 12:34 PM Reply With Quote
Rollcage bars look very skinny, if they are being used as part of the calcs?





Mistral Motorsport

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
ffrgtm

posted on 2/8/12 at 12:35 PM Reply With Quote
Heres one where I tried some different loading conditions and requested a deformed (exaggerated) result. It helps you visualize how to improve the design.



View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
ffrgtm

posted on 2/8/12 at 12:40 PM Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by loggyboy
Rollcage bars look very skinny, if they are being used as part of the calcs?



I measured them to be 38mm in diameter. I found msa regs that state either 38 or 45mm so I just used the wall thickness from the 38 spec. I might have perspective mode on in that photo as well... that could make it look a little funny.

Anyways, I'm not using the cage in the calcs yet because I have having a hard time getting the mesh where the cage is welded to the gussets on the frame. I hope to get to that point eventually... although I feel like some things could be done to better take advantage of the cage.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
loggyboy

posted on 2/8/12 at 12:43 PM Reply With Quote
Main rollbar and diagnols should 45mm min IIRC.





Mistral Motorsport

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
ffrgtm

posted on 2/8/12 at 12:48 PM Reply With Quote
Crap I'll have to check my frame again.... while we're on the subject, you wouldn't happen to know which 1" diameter tubes are the lighter 18 gauge rather than 16 gauge would you?

[Edited on 2/8/12 by ffrgtm]

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
loggyboy

posted on 2/8/12 at 01:24 PM Reply With Quote
16 gauge is 1.5mm
18 gauge is 1.2mm

So the 18 is lighter (no idea why the higher number is the thinner?!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheet_metal#Gauge


[Edited on 2-8-12 by loggyboy]





Mistral Motorsport

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
ffrgtm

posted on 2/8/12 at 01:30 PM Reply With Quote
I mean which tubes in the MNR chassis are the 16 gauge and which are the 18 gauge. MNR uses the 18 gauge in less critical spots to save weight, I just cant tell exactly which spots those are since they're the same OD.
View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Agriv8

posted on 2/8/12 at 02:38 PM Reply With Quote
I should be able to get that info from MNR next time I am over.

I would also say the plates for the top front arms will strenthen the front, and the rear plate that the hoops bolt onto will also help.

but i am impressed you must have hours even days in the model.

ATB agriv8





Taller than your average Guy !
Management is like a tree of monkeys. - Those at the top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. BUT Those at the bottom look up and see a tree full of a*seholes .............


View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
ffrgtm

posted on 2/8/12 at 03:33 PM Reply With Quote
Thank you agrv8, and I appreciate the compliment! If you do find yourself over at their shop, could you please also snag the wall thickness of the smaller diameter (0.64 about) tube that they use for the front x?

And it's true that I have way too much time into this thing so far.... my CAD skills have gotten a lot better though so it's a "career skill investment"


I definitely do agree that I've left out some critical parts of the frame... to be honest I do have most of that stuff in my model, but getting it to mesh with beam elements is another story... I had to suppress them and just run it before I went insane. I pretty much had to start over from scratch and fully define all my sketches and treat everything as surfaces.

On a side note did you know that the $4000 cad workstation graphics cards ATI and Nvidia sell are exactly the same as their $200 models? The only difference is what drivers they allow you to install...

Solidworks is particularly stupid... I literally just changed the name of my graphics card in my system properties to the FireGL equivalent and models are running 10 times faster.



I need to sleep more often.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
loggyboy

posted on 2/8/12 at 03:45 PM Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ffrgtm
I mean which tubes in the MNR chassis are the 16 gauge and which are the 18 gauge. MNR uses the 18 gauge in less critical spots to save weight, I just cant tell exactly which spots those are since they're the same OD.


Sorry I miss read your post! I thought you said which is lighter, not which ones are the lighter ones!





Mistral Motorsport

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Agriv8

posted on 2/8/12 at 04:26 PM Reply With Quote
Crap -hics drivers are the Whiches work, it will all be to do with Opengl support and other maths that the processor passes to the card to do rather than itself. but yes graphics cards and costs are a funny thing and confising matter.

The small tube at the front ( is it 12/13mm my chassis is to old ) is thick walled poss 2 mm maybe upto 4mm as I have used the tube for other things

I am sure Marc will be happy to assist as its always good to have indipendant maths backing up his own work. The Full Cage is also very structural if fitted !! regardless of the Double bend !!

Keep up the Good work and keep us updated with your analysis.

PS a couple of tube apears to have disapeared where the prop would travel to the Reverse box

ATB Agriv8





Taller than your average Guy !
Management is like a tree of monkeys. - Those at the top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. BUT Those at the bottom look up and see a tree full of a*seholes .............


View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
MK9R

posted on 7/9/12 at 08:48 AM Reply With Quote
Great work, very interesting





Cheers Austen

RGB car number 9
www.austengreenway.co.uk
www.automatedtechnologygroup.co.uk
www.trackace.co.uk

View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member
ffrgtm

posted on 18/9/12 at 08:42 AM Reply With Quote
Thank you

Unfortunately work is at a bit of a standstill right now while I develop the PDM for my team's FSAE car... I'm taking care to make sure I can print an extra pcb or two and use it for the MNR as well



View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
ElmrPhD

posted on 16/10/12 at 09:46 AM Reply With Quote
Hey structural engineers...

My car-engined-car's RT+ chassis lacks the tube that runs from left to right under the gearbox, where the bell-housing ends (middle of transmission). Every other chassis I see on the 'net has something there. Should I be concerned?

Directly above that, where all others seem to have a permanent bar, I DO have a bar that I am to bolt in after the drive train is installed.

I do intend to beat the poo out of this car at the track, so I'm wondering if I need to add a brace (back) under the gearbox. Or does the presence of a factory full roll cage omit the need for that lower cross tube?

Thanks for any advice.

Cheers,
Steve, in the NLs

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
big_l

posted on 31/10/12 at 12:38 AM Reply With Quote
None of this takes into consideration the engine on a BEC us used as a stressed Member ?
Or the floor ?
Ps my 2012 chasis is slightly different to that also..
Very impressive though





Check out my blog mnrvortxhayabusa@blogspot.com

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
big_l

posted on 31/10/12 at 12:38 AM Reply With Quote
None of this takes into consideration the engine on a BEC us used as a stressed Member ?
Or the floor ?
Ps my 2012 chasis is slightly different to that also..
Very impressive though





Check out my blog mnrvortxhayabusa@blogspot.com

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
coyoteboy

posted on 31/10/12 at 01:34 AM Reply With Quote
Lack of translation on the rear elements will give a false stiffness, but it's a reasonable estimation. Nice work. Not sure I'd do it for a kit type car unless I were making mods, but who doesn't make mods?!
View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
Bare

posted on 31/10/12 at 02:46 AM Reply With Quote
Good thing that contraption is "Screen Only"
The tube triangulation at the thing's front is sloppy/ foolish as it the top of the engine bay to upper dash hoop which in itself is in the wrong place to be useful structurally.
IF this is a model of some crap Kit Kar then the makers are Amateurs who really shouldn't be designing chassis.
Harsh? perhaps.. but this is real life and there are some serious precedents to copy.. if unknowing of the craft.
Caveat Emptor applies.. as always.

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
<<  1    2  >>
New Topic New Poll New Reply


go to top






Website design and SEO by Studio Montage

All content © 2001-16 LocostBuilders. Reproduction prohibited
Opinions expressed in public posts are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
the views of other users or any member of the LocostBuilders team.
Running XMB 1.8 Partagium [© 2002 XMB Group] on Apache under CentOS Linux
Founded, built and operated by ChrisW.