CSI_MuNkY Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Its got nothing to do with the cut out. Its a piece of plate, the only way for something like that to work is to have grooves machined into it. When I say grooves I don't been ones that go all the way through. To add strength you have to create a channel. What you have there, is a plate with no support, it will bend under the weight of a w-body. If it doesn't bend as soon as you put the weight on it, it will the first time you take a hard corner. Have an engineer look at that (one that has done suspension) and they will laugh at you. Anyone that has taken any sort of structural steel course will know that a piece of plate (doesn't matter how thick it is) will always be weaker than a channel, and a channel is weaker than a tube. That is why everyone wants TUBULAR control arms. Right now I just see flat. Sorry if I seem too negative, I just woke up and there is 6 inches of snow outside Jamie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mra32 Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Its got nothing to do with the cut out. Its a piece of plate, the only way for something like that to work is to have grooves machined into it. When I say grooves I don't been ones that go all the way through. To add strength you have to create a channel. What you have there, is a plate with no support, it will bend under the weight of a w-body. If it doesn't bend as soon as you put the weight on it, it will the first time you take a hard corner. Have an engineer look at that (one that has done suspension) and they will laugh at you. Anyone that has taken any sort of structural steel course will know that a piece of plate (doesn't matter how thick it is) will always be weaker than a channel, and a channel is weaker than a tube. That is why everyone wants TUBULAR control arms. Right now I just see flat. Sorry if I seem too negative, I just woke up and there is 6 inches of snow outside Jamie Dont tell him to cut grooves in that piece! What I think I'm understanding as you saying is that if you want to make a plate stronger, you cut grooves in it? I beams arent strong because there is a cut out, they are almost as strong as a regular beam with no cutout because the part that mainly effects the amount of load it can take is just as wide as a normal beam. This is a simple example that should only consist of simple bending, but thats the main idea behind cutting parts out. Its not that cutting things out make it any stronger than it would be without cutouts. In fact, the only sort of benefit that any cutouts provide aside from eliminating physical interference with other parts is lighter weight. Man I am incapable of writing...but is this in line with what you were saying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSI_MuNkY Posted December 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 No, your reading me all wrong. Cutting grooves in it won't do shit. You have to machine slots in it. Something that goes, lets say, half way through to create a channel effect. See the attached picture... A peice of plate will bend easier than channel, a channel will bend easy than a tube... So essentailly a plate will be weaker than stock. Granted he is using thick plate, it will still bend easily under the weight of a 3500 lb car going around a corner. This is why all the major suspension companies do tubular. The one he posted a page back is probably made out of billet aluminum at least an inch and a half thick with slots machined into it (read SLOTS not holes) IMHO, any sort of tubular set up would be FAR superior than what I am seeing pictured above. It will be stronger and lighter. By the time you get a plate thick enough to hold the weight of our cars when the weight shifts onto them,your going to be up to a plate that probably weighs 2 or 3 times more than the stock one. Jamie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mra32 Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Ok I just came up with another example, maybe something that everyone can understand better Building columns are made with I beams or square HSS (Hollow Structural Steel), this is for strength. The I beam or HSS have way more strength that a peice of flat bar. Flatbar is CHEAP in comparison to I beams and HSS, but useless in a structural application. What he has there is flat, no side supports like an I beam has, and it is certainly not tubular. Jamie Yes, we understand that thin plate is much weaker than something like an I-beam. My question comes in how you are relating this principle to the control arms. I'm still not sure if you are saying that if he started with the same piece and machined pockets into it, that it would be stronger than the original plate alone. It would make sense that a fat ass plate of aluminum with some correctly placed pockets would be stronger, but he seems to like his 5/8" plate aluminum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSI_MuNkY Posted December 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Pockets, yes thats an excellant word for them. Not only would it be stronger, but it would be lighter as well. That being said, being boxed in (aka tubular) would be even stronger. And isn't stiffness the main reason for upgrading your control arms? Mark, What is the reasoning for going with this method over using DOM or chromoly tube bent to suit and welded? The expense of making a jig? And my appoligies about the hard time once again. I work with structural steel every day and know the properties of it. (Tube > Channel > Plate is what I was taught in all my metalurgy and structural classes) so I am just having a hard time understanding why you are going to plate over the industry standard (tube) for performance control arms. Jamie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mra32 Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Pockets, yes thats an excellant word for them. Not only would it be stronger, but it would be lighter as well. That being said, being boxed in (aka tubular) would be even stronger. And isn't stiffness the main reason for upgrading your control arms? Mark, What is the reasoning for going with this method over using DOM or chromoly tube bent to suit and welded? The expense of making a jig? And my appoligies about the hard time once again. I work with structural steel every day and know the properties of it. (Plate > Channel > Tube is what I was taught in all my metalurgy and structural classes) so I am just having a hard time understanding why you are going to plate over the industry standard (tube) for performance control arms. Jamie I guess I'm just not seeing where simply removing material will make something stronger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOT2B GM Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 I'm pretty sure you mean Tube > Channel > Plate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSI_MuNkY Posted December 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Yeah, I did mean Tube > Channel > Plate I just got home and Matt and I were talking about it, seems he still had some confusion about what I was trying to say. So I did another quick doodle in AutoCAD Basically what I am trying to say is to machine the solid plate into more of an I-beam, like the section pictured. (even a C-channel would be stronger than flat plate) Ideally you would want to start with something bigger than 5/8" though and have a 3/16" or 1/4" flange thickness throughout Having a thicker member would also allow more weld where you weld on the sleeves for the bushings. Jamie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 I'd like to see how these plates withstand. I'm suspecting epic failure, along with rebuilding your front suspension, replacing your brakes, new wheels, and maybe a bit of body/paint repair. Seriously, build tubular. You'll have twice the amount of members willing to buy, they look better, cheaper to make, and most importantly- STRONGER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mra32 Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 Got bored tonight, so banged this out. So which design would be stronger? They are both a total of 1 inch thick with total external dimensions of 12x15. The one with pockets has an 1/8" web. Notice the weight of the two pieces too, I think thats correct given that the density of aluminum is 0.098 #/in^3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOT2B GM Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 Got bored tonight, so banged this out. So which design would be stronger? They are both a total of 1 inch thick with total external dimensions of 12x15. The one with pockets has an 1/8" web. Notice the weight of the two pieces too, I think thats correct given that the density of aluminum is 0.098 #/in^3 1/8" web might be a bit on the thin side, I would personally want 3/16" at least preferably 1/4" . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhrarhG Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 Got bored tonight, so banged this out. So which design would be stronger? They are both a total of 1 inch thick with total external dimensions of 12x15. The one with pockets has an 1/8" web. Notice the weight of the two pieces too, I think thats correct given that the density of aluminum is 0.098 #/in^3 Well, from a strength standpoint, no way is removing material going to make it stronger. What would be important to see would be a comparison of the Section Modulus in the X-X direction where it necks down near the ball joint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19Cutlass94 Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 you guy are completely missing the point. Tube steel is MUCh stringer thand just about anything tha can be used in this application. Its either tube steel or a waste of your time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mra32 Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 Well, from a strength standpoint, no way is removing material going to make it stronger. What would be important to see would be a comparison of the Section Modulus in the X-X direction where it necks down near the ball joint. This was exactly what I was getting at. I could model a worst case scenario with ansys when I head down to school next. I could probably throw in an actual tubular one, but these are all guesses at the dimensions. While it should give a good idea of one design over the other, it would be by no means gospel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mra32 Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 you guy are completely missing the point. Tube steel is MUCh stringer thand just about anything tha can be used in this application. Its either tube steel or a waste of your time. Looks like you are missing the point...nobody is developing steel control arms for these cars as far as we know. Start with what exists first. Do I think tubular steel ones would be better? YES. Show progress someone has made on these and the conversation can change gears Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19Cutlass94 Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 i doubt these will actually ever happen, so Im not really too worried about it. The reason they need to be tubular is because there is two difference designs that need to be made, one for people with lowered cars and one for stock height cars. Plates will not work. The design in good and you need something, but still. Even if these could be made with plate or tubular, no one is going to pay the price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mra32 Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 i doubt these will actually ever happen no one is going to pay the price. agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtremerevolution Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 i doubt these will actually ever happen no one is going to pay the price. agreed cough...poly control arm bushings...cough... http://www.w-body.com/forum/index.php?topic=80131.0 3 very satisfied impressed customers...so far... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19Cutlass94 Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 i doubt these will actually ever happen no one is going to pay the price. agreed cough...poly control arm bushings...cough... http://www.w-body.com/forum/index.php?topic=80131.0 3 very satisfied impressed customers...so far... poly bushing do nothing for control arm alignment on lowered cars... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtremerevolution Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 i doubt these will actually ever happen no one is going to pay the price. agreed cough...poly control arm bushings...cough... http://www.w-body.com/forum/index.php?topic=80131.0 3 very satisfied impressed customers...so far... poly bushing do nothing for control arm alignment on lowered cars... Come again? I don't recall alignment being the reason I and 2 others have done this mod. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19Cutlass94 Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 The whole point of this was to get two designs made, one for stock height cars, but since almost everyone that wants one has a lowered car, it was to fix the alignment issue of the control on a lowered car. On a stock height car, the control arm is completeky horizontal, but not on a lowered car. It was to fix this issue.Poly bushings are great, I will not argue this fact, and even on a lowered can Im sure will improve the performance, but there is still the issue of alignment. I believe ealier in this thread it is explained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtremerevolution Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 The whole point of this was to get two designs made, one for stock height cars, but since almost everyone that wants one has a lowered car, it was to fix the alignment issue of the control on a lowered car. On a stock height car, the control arm is completeky horizontal, but not on a lowered car. It was to fix this issue.Poly bushings are great, I will not argue this fact, and even on a lowered can Im sure will improve the performance, but there is still the issue of alignment. I believe ealier in this thread it is explained. My apologies, I must have missed it. this whole "tubular front control arm for w-bodies" is really a joke to me because I really don't think its going to happen. I'm amused by the number of people who hold off on the poly control arm bushing mod because of some hope that these will get developed at some point. Can't alignment on our cars be adjusted even when lowered? My alignment is perfect on the Regal even while lowered with ST springs. Obviously, you can't adjust the alignment at will to increase camber for autocrossing or racing where you need more traction with our stock control arms, but is that really that important of a feature to have? Pardon my ignorance; I don't track race very much with my w-body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 It's the fact that the ball joints sit at a weird angle when the control arm is not horizontal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtremerevolution Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 It's the fact that the ball joints sit at a weird angle when the control arm is not horizontal. Does this negatively affect the car's handling ability or the wear of the ball joints in any way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 Ball joint wear, and having the control arms horizontal as opposed to angled downwards would slightly increase strength. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.