Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

  • Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Costin and Phipps Appendix I question

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pcar928

Electrical
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
28
Location
US
I have a question regarding the methods used to analyse a frame in the appendix. You are suppose to take a safety factor of 1.5 and then multiply it by 3 to simulate a 3g bump at the wheel. I thought 3g's was very low for the given example of hitting a curb. No damper or spring rates were given to make sense of the effects of the forces at the wheel on the frame. I must be understanding this incorrectly because this is just not right. I was hoping someone had a copy of this classic and could provide some guidance.
 
Good question. Firstly, many successful cars have been designed using 3-2-1, so despite the low loading it is not a terrible place to start. But bear in mind they are talking about cars with relatively tall sidewalls, at fairly low speeds, and using sensible (high ductility) materials in the frame. And of course no-one is going to sue them if it fails.

In your thinking you need to separate out the instantaneous shock acceleration on the spindle, from that distributed into the body. The latter is a lot smaller than the former.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
 
So a force that accelerates the body at 3g should be calculated, not the wheel at 3g. This makes much more sense now.

Do you know how the 3-2-1 method compares to modern or even 80's/90's methods? What about road cars?
 
By proto do you mean race vehicle prototypes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top