kikiturbo wrote:
hell, I have nothing against hicost builds... for me personally this is primarily self built car forum.. and it is oh so easy to drift into hi cost..
I think there is always a potential problem when someone just drops in and starts going carbon this, carbon that, so please, be understandable, there are a lot of folks here that went trough their builds the hard way learning what works or not..
Speaking of your build.. My only suggestion is about the frame... I am no fan of at-om style frames, especially the lower "basket" that holds the passengers... it adds nothing to torsional stiffness, and as I said it would be nice to take a look at your frame FEA, and see it's stiffness vs weight..
I completely understand, i do the same thing to people all of the time (other fabricators and engineers). A lot of people don’t understand the complexity of carbon (layup) and the fact that if it is hit right, Not even just right, it will fragment like particle board. That is why the front and rear covers add additional protection for them.
I tried so many approaches to NOT design something like the At-om but for some reason it always came back to that type of layout. And yes i hate the basket too. The At-om uses a full tub which i want to stay away from. It was the best solution to keep a flat underside and hold he passengers, that's it. I am open for design suggestions on this.
The frame ways 230lbs since i cannot get Ø2.5 or Ø2.0 in anything less than .083 wall. I will re-run the simulation since I had to spend 4hrs last night re-notching tubes in solidworks. Since you asked... just a 3point fixed with 1 point dynamic for torsion? I would actually like to get another pair of eyes on it any way.
I promise to post the testing for everyone to see on the arms. If it fails in ANY way.... back to 4130 which i am fine with (actually probably mild so that is fails and doesn’t damage my frame)
thanks kikiturbo. FYI nice welding pic... i just gunked up my mig tip on a practice part a second ago... off to Airgas