suparuss
|
| posted on 24/2/04 at 08:44 PM |
|
|
according to this book by forbes aird, square tube has a theoretical buckiing load of about 17% less than round in compression. (in tension, shape
doesnt matter only the amount of material.
it contradicts those calculations that i didnt understand but it makes sense. backed up by the fact that (as far as i know) every race car that uses
tube, uses round tube instead of square, even though its harder to cut (fishmouthing).
correct me if i am wrong as always! 
[Edited on 24/2/04 by suparuss]
|
|
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 24/2/04 at 08:58 PM |
|
|
No i am probably wrong! 
Wouldnt be the first time. Its maths we have just covered in my uni course, that i dont fully understand, but thought that was right.
I have edited my post so it is now correct! Was a misunderstanding of the pricipals that we have just covered in maths :-S. Apologies all
'round'
Cheers
David
[Edited on 24/2/04 by flak monkey]
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
Gazr81
|
| posted on 26/2/04 at 12:03 AM |
|
|
Hi all thanks for all the comments ive reworked the whole chassis with a use-able bulkhead and alot more trianglated sections any more constructive
criticism would be a help
 
Rescued attachment 26threworked1.jpg
|
|
|
suparuss
|
| posted on 26/2/04 at 06:41 AM |
|
|
looks very complicated!
there is however a huge gap in your triangulation, im notsure where the wishbones mount so it may be behind that and not important but it is directly
below what appears to be the upper mounts for the shock absorbers, the trianulation ends forewards of it, and then there is a bit on top, but the
whole rear (wishbone and shock mounts, and possible gearbox mounts if they are far enough back) is held on by four straight tubes. 
saying it looks complicated, id be inclined to rethink and try and make the whole thing more efficient, then again i noticed someone else mentioning
the "birdcage" in the other thread, ive seee nthis in a book and its got more tubes than yours so its been done before.
|
|
|
