×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Costin and Phipps Appendix I question

Costin and Phipps Appendix I question

Costin and Phipps Appendix I question

(OP)
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.

RE: Costin and Phipps Appendix I question

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: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies  http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Costin and Phipps Appendix I question

(OP)
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?

RE: Costin and Phipps Appendix I question

Yes I do. For modern road cars 321 would not give acceptable durability. However as a starting point for a proto it is not too bad, so long as you inspect for cracks frequently.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies  http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Costin and Phipps Appendix I question

(OP)
By proto do you mean race vehicle prototypes?

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources