oh and w/ 4 holes it keeps the flange closer to the same size as the tube.
As far as the tube inside the flange i would keep it short maybe even 3 inches because it is going to add alot of stress where the inner tube ends
Printable View
oh and w/ 4 holes it keeps the flange closer to the same size as the tube.
As far as the tube inside the flange i would keep it short maybe even 3 inches because it is going to add alot of stress where the inner tube ends
I think WHERE you put the flanges would be more critical than whether or not you "sleeve" them like you're talking about, though the sleeves couldn't hurt.
What the inner sleeves do is give you something else to resist shear forces at the flange other than the bolts. The design of the sleeve would need to consider the sheer force at the parting line of the flanges, and the bearing stress applied to the inside of the main tubes....which could cause the tubes and flange to split.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearhead61
They also help to distribute the bending forces occuring at the flange, as if the tube was one piece.
I could see "where" being a factor if the case was a load that was always applied in a certain direction, but in the case of a roll it can be from any direction.
Yeah I understand why the sleeve would be in there (though that's a very good explanantion anyways!) but he'd mentioned earlier that most people only put them in non-critical areas (i.e. engine compartment where the added support between the shock towers/whatever else would be beneficial, but not necessary for the safety of the rig) so that's more what I was agreeing with. Man that doesn't even make sense to me, and I just wrote it...
Anyways, I understand (I'm actually doing pretty well in CVEN 305 right now) but I guess I just don't have enough experience with this sort of thing to be offering any helpful input haha.
Yeah, that first paragraph is confusing :flipoff2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearhead61
But yes, the sleeve idea is to take the shear forces off the bolts, for added strength in critical areas, like the main legs in a cage.
As for non critical areas, where you put them does play a factor, as it would anywhere else. But the shear forces are of less concern, which is why most people seldom use more than two 3/8 bolts to connect those flanges.
The problem with designing stuff like for our sport is that you can spend all this time working on it, and the cage can still fail. There are just to many variables. A cage may survive a nasty roll, yet fail on a easy flop, just because of the terrian. The bottom bars on my buggy were 2 inch sch 80 (2.375 OD, .220 wall) that really took a beating, yet Rowdy put a nasty dent in them just moving the buggy 20 ft up a trail
You see, no matter what you do, science will never be able to quantitate the "Rowdy" factor. :D
yes
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRaSHnBuRN
i bet you'd be really good at some actual modeling software. the fact that you are so good at paint is just sad though. :flipoff2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRAGOONRANCH
Damn Skippy :flipoff2:
and you wonder why I won't let you drive the jeep
Even I cant **** up the jeep anymore than you can
Well everyone's gotta be good at SOMETHING...Quote:
Originally Posted by DRAGOONRANCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearhead61
Let's just say that nobody is better at being Rowdy than Rowdy. :gigem:
He's got a point there Creighton. :flipoff2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Reckless
****, thats like ten minutes in paint. The drawings on the truck took less than 30 minutes. And yeah, I'm pretty good with most design software, but all I have access to right now is a older copy of autocad that has some problems with it. Not to mention its been so long since I used autocad that I'm pretty rusty. Now if I still had a working copy of Pro E, I would be in business. For some reason I could do stuff with that program that even the TAs couldn't do.Quote:
Originally Posted by agjohn02