|
Olds
|
 |
« Reply #180 on: January 05, 2013, 04:50:19 PM » |
|
Rather than drill out larger I'd be inclined to use thicker wall tube and reduce the size of the shaft you're putting through it. The cross section of the frame tubes has been reduced and 16mm is pretty big for a pivot shaft.
Local reinforcement of the frame is another way to go but is possibly not as neat
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 05, 2013, 05:11:54 PM by Old Newbie »
|
Logged
|
Getting older but no wiser! Just using bigger hammers.
The answer to most problems, fire and lots of it.
|
|
|
|
scannerzer
|
|
« Reply #181 on: January 05, 2013, 08:38:09 PM » |
|
at this stage local reinforcement is the only option i really have as these are seam welded in already buy it will be easily hidden by the time i get footboards on there but sure i'll know for the next build  went shopping today and got these bits that will allow me to finish the bars  A little progress  A little progress thanks to everyone for all the advice it's greatly appreciated as it's easy to change or improve on something as i go along rather than find out at the end when it's basicly too late!! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 05, 2013, 08:59:19 PM by scannerzer »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
scannerzer
|
|
« Reply #182 on: January 06, 2013, 11:39:56 AM » |
|
proposed method of strengthening at pedal pivot
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
scannerzer
|
|
« Reply #183 on: January 06, 2013, 11:41:30 AM » |
|
sorry for the quality of the drawing ....autocad it ain't but hopfully you get the idea
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dave 67
Sr. Member
Karma: 6
Posts: 384
|
|
« Reply #184 on: January 06, 2013, 02:19:34 PM » |
|
That's what I would do but make it so its longer to take the stress away from the hole
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
never to old to learn
|
|
|
|
nabsim
|
|
« Reply #185 on: January 06, 2013, 02:47:48 PM » |
|
Isn't the main force going to be lengthways along the frame tubes in this application? If so I would have thought it would be fine as it is. I have no training on this though I am just speaking what's in my head
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
steven brock
|
|
« Reply #186 on: January 06, 2013, 05:32:42 PM » |
|
I tested this out in the shop and I couldn't bend it!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
steel wasn't invented to make bloody staples with!
|
|
|
|
scannerzer
|
|
« Reply #187 on: January 06, 2013, 07:24:32 PM » |
|
nabsim we did think that but not completely sure either
Steven that good to know i was wondering if anyone had done a test
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
steven brock
|
|
« Reply #188 on: January 06, 2013, 07:35:23 PM » |
|
I drilled two holes 12.5mm centre to the pipe and off centre about 300 mm from one end on a 1.5 mtr length and wedged it in the fork lift bars and tried to bend it nope didn't bugde I was hanging off it and it did flex but returned, this stuff is used in my industry as bed poles and you can swing a 20 stone man off a pole located three inches into a socket in the bed  A little progress |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
steel wasn't invented to make bloody staples with!
|
|
|
|
scannerzer
|
|
« Reply #189 on: January 06, 2013, 07:40:05 PM » |
|
thanks for the info Steven ,goes to show it's stronger than you'd think
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Olds
|
|
« Reply #190 on: January 06, 2013, 08:02:11 PM » |
|
Begining to wish I'd kept quiet on this one.
Just thought it was worth sharing my concerns, over reducing the cross sectional area of the frame tubes by 45 per cent.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Getting older but no wiser! Just using bigger hammers.
The answer to most problems, fire and lots of it.
|
|
|
|
steven brock
|
|
« Reply #191 on: January 06, 2013, 08:14:05 PM » |
|
I think this over steps the common sense theory hence trying it, it was 12.5 not 22 which seems a bit big to me so I'd test it or go with the beef up.. Ill use my software tommorow night at college to calculate it properly  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
steel wasn't invented to make bloody staples with!
|
|
|
|
scannerzer
|
|
« Reply #192 on: January 06, 2013, 08:30:29 PM » |
|
No ON I'd prefare you would bring it to my attention as then it can be re-jigged to suit
and debate can only be good on the forum so any and all comments are welcome.
thanks everyone for your feedback,without which it would be a much less interesting thread
as i have to make a mount for the footboard anyway i'm going to re-inforce the frame at the
same time, 2 birds 1 stone then it's all good
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Manky Monkey
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: 264
Posts: 55102
|
|
« Reply #193 on: January 06, 2013, 09:18:19 PM » |
|
It's your bum in the saddle Mr Scan, so ultimately your choice, but personally, I'd always err on the side of caution. Over engineered is better than in the hedge. As you say, open discussion can only help & may just inform another reader somewhere who hadn't thought of it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
On the last freedom moped out of Nowhere City.
|
|
|
|
nabsim
|
|
« Reply #194 on: January 07, 2013, 01:56:47 PM » |
|
Begining to wish I'd kept quiet on this one.
Just thought it was worth sharing my concerns, over reducing the cross sectional area of the frame tubes by 45 per cent.
Don't say that, it's good. I only put what I would have done/thought before this thread. I quite often have to ask what seems like stupid questions to get things right in my head. What I put was not meant in any way to cast doubt on what you or others have put. Just seems logical to me that if the main stress is going along the tubes into the cross tube it would still be strong as force would go round cross tube. If forces were going down on fame tube then I would think it could be weaker. Need some more type so I can understand so don't stop whatever you do |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
