Enter your username:
Do you want to login or register?
  • Forgot your password?

    Login / Register




    Results 1 to 6 of 6

    Thread: Frame Design

    1. #1
      Join Date
      Apr 2011
      Posts
      3
      Country Flag: United States

      Frame Design

      Big question is what are the pros or consto a parameter frame vs one that the frame rails are running inboard (say 40"apart)?



    2. #2
      Join Date
      Dec 2006
      Location
      Out of the Burbs of Detroit to SoCal, then onto my ancestral homeland, the woods of Cascadia
      Posts
      1,753
      Country Flag: United States
      Torsional stiffness
      Greg Fast
      (yes, the last name is spelled correctly)

      1970 Camaro RS Clone
      1984 el Camino
      1973 MGB vintage E/Prod race car
      (Soon to be an SCCA H/Prod limited prep)

    3. #3
      Join Date
      Apr 2011
      Posts
      3
      Country Flag: United States
      Which one is stiffer and how?

    4. #4
      Join Date
      Apr 2009
      Location
      san diego
      Posts
      5,102
      Country Flag: United States
      The moment of inertia equation is 1/12*b*h^3. This is for a box structure. If you cannot make the frame taller make it wider.

      Also give a place to mount the cage. More side impact protection. Not much heavier than a parallel frame.

    5. #5
      Join Date
      Nov 2002
      Location
      state of confusion
      Posts
      1,499
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by vinniez View Post
      Big question is what are the pros or consto a parameter frame vs one that the frame rails are running inboard (say 40"apart)?
      What kind of car are you talking about?

      At 40" apart you aren't going to get any real help from the sill structures, so even though the load paths are straighter with an inboard design than with a perimeter frame, the frame members themselves won't be as rigid. Two cross sections that are at least reasonable solidly connected to each other along their length or at several/many individual connection points is going to be much stiffer than the sum of the stiffnesses of the two sections taken individually.

      Designing for torsional stiffness ends up being a "3-D" problem, usually either by very large tube or box sections or by a carefully designed cage where the tubes are mostly loaded in tension or compression rather than bending. The poster-boy example of a "large box section" would be the 1960's Jaguar XKE. You'd only have to crawl over those sills (that came well up into where you'd normally expect part of the door to be) just once to know what I'm getting at, although the sills of more recent cars have been made significantly larger than they used to be in order to satisfy crash performance standards.

      A really good reference for frame design is Omer Blodgett's "Design of Welded Structures", which gets into bending, shear, and torsion. You won't need to look at all of the topics and you won't be working with metal thicknesses that are anywhere near as heavy as you might see mentioned, but the concepts in the torsion section and the tips for making a structure torsionally strong/rigid are worth more than the cost of the book all by themselves. Another of his books, "Design of Weldments", contains a lot of the same information.


      Norm
      Last edited by Norm Peterson; 02-17-2012 at 09:26 AM. Reason: speling
      '08 GT coupe, 5M, suspension unstockish (the occasional track toy)
      '19 WRX, Turbo-H4/6M (the family sedan . . . seriously)
      Gone but not forgotten dep't:
      '01 Maxima 20AE 5M, '10 LGT 6M, '95 626, V6/5M; '79 Malibu, V8/4M-5M; '87 Maxima, V6/5M; '72 Pinto, I4/4M; '64 Dodge V8/3A

    6. #6
      Join Date
      Apr 2011
      Posts
      3
      Country Flag: United States
      I am building a 1959 Rambler American 2 door wagon. 351 windsor, 5 speed trans and a early vette rear,





    Advertise on Pro-Touring.com