MK IV tubular spaceframe drawing

Changed some things on the front frame
 

Attachments

  • Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_27.JPG
    Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_27.JPG
    93.7 KB · Views: 451
I know someone who knows someone.....:cool:
 

Attachments

  • Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_28.JPG
    Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_28.JPG
    123.9 KB · Views: 430
  • Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_32.JPG
    Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_32.JPG
    109.1 KB · Views: 380
  • Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_33.JPG
    Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_33.JPG
    96.2 KB · Views: 363
  • Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_35.JPG
    Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_35.JPG
    72.8 KB · Views: 349
  • Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_37.JPG
    Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_37.JPG
    96 KB · Views: 377
The perimeter triangulation does nothing for torsional stiffness. Looks heavy. I would design a center tunnel running the length between the seats, the larger the better, and use sheer panels where needed instead of all the triangulation. At the rear I suspect the engine/tranny is going to be a stressed member? The rearward weight transfer on acceleration goes into the rear suspension, with the top of the shocks at that height, the only weight that transfers down onto the suspension is the weight above the top of the shock mount, not much. All weight below that point is transferred to the rear and 'locks' the suspension, does nothing for weight transfer. Course I'm not an engineer and this is worth about as much as you paid:). Good luck.
 
I've taken some of your suggestions on board now.
I also had a good conversation with a car designer.
It was hard to make the foot space as big as necessary despite the long R8 wishbones.
we have also tried to consider the crash zone issue.
Everything not so simple....
Now I'll see what the designer means.
In the appendix you can find a 3D PDF, you can hide the sheets at the layers.
The whole thing is not light but hopefully stiff and safe :)
The process continues ....:cool:
 

Attachments

  • Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_39.JPG
    Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_39.JPG
    104 KB · Views: 365
  • Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_40.JPG
    Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_40.JPG
    100.9 KB · Views: 364
  • Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_41.JPG
    Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_41.JPG
    48.5 KB · Views: 356
  • Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_42.JPG
    Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_42.JPG
    64.5 KB · Views: 400
  • Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_Rev_07.PDF
    742.4 KB · Views: 322
The perimeter triangulation does nothing for torsional stiffness. Looks heavy. I would design a center tunnel running the length between the seats, the larger the better, and use sheer panels where needed instead of all the triangulation. At the rear I suspect the engine/tranny is going to be a stressed member? The rearward weight transfer on acceleration goes into the rear suspension, with the top of the shocks at that height, the only weight that transfers down onto the suspension is the weight above the top of the shock mount, not much. All weight below that point is transferred to the rear and 'locks' the suspension, does nothing for weight transfer. Course I'm not an engineer and this is worth about as much as you paid:). Good luck.
I take issue with this. If the side structure/perimeter is properly built/configured, including stiff bulkheads, it will more efficiently carry torsional load than a center tunnel since they are further from the neutral axis. They also have the virtue of providing side crash protection. I might also look at a diagonal between the two rear stays. Your comment on shear panels is right, but in order to really provide shear strength, they have to be rigidly fastened to the structure. Just using pop rivets won't provide enough integrity. In this case, triangulation is a belt and suspenders approach to it, at the cost of some weight. Since this car leaves so much on the table from lack of aero/downforce etc, a little extra weight is a drop in the bucket.
 
The biggest weakness (torsionally) that I see is through the area near the front of the side "pods". The structure needs something to tie the two pods together like a large transverse box well connected to the side structures.
 
Thank you for your answer!
I am also of the opinion that a central tube does not bring so much.
But it causes a lot of problems regarding crash safety.

@Bob
I'm not quite sure what you mean, can you draw a line on the picture to indicate which area you mean?
Thanks a lot!
 

Mike Pass

Supporter
Your space frame is lacking in triangulation which is important in preventing "lozenging" and contributes a lot to stiffness. I have attached a pic of a Van Diemen Formula Ford chassis to illustrate.
A central spine chassis is fine for front to rear axle stiffness. Pics of Lotus Elan and Europa chassis to illustrate. However the critical draw back to these chassis is the total lack of side impact protection.
These 3 examples are well known for excellent handling due to good torsional stiffness with lightness.
Cheers
Mike
 

Attachments

  • Van diemen FF 2003.jpg
    Van diemen FF 2003.jpg
    139.8 KB · Views: 408
  • Banks Lotus Europa chassis.jpg
    Banks Lotus Europa chassis.jpg
    117.1 KB · Views: 368
  • Lotus 47 Elan  chassis.jpg
    Lotus 47 Elan chassis.jpg
    342.2 KB · Views: 412
Central spine chassis may be OK for lower powered cars like the Elan, but think of V8 powered examples and descriptions of wierd, spooky and terrifying handling come to the fore e.g. Lotus 30, De Tomaso Mangusta.
 

Mike Pass

Supporter
Hi Paul,

Yep, a floppy chassis with a V8 is a very bad thing!
Attached are a couple of pics of decent current, stiff good handling V8 chassis. Lots of triangles!

Cheers
Mike
 

Attachments

  • gardner-douglas-t70.jpg
    gardner-douglas-t70.jpg
    565 KB · Views: 466
  • Ultima chassis.jpg
    Ultima chassis.jpg
    160.9 KB · Views: 490

Mike Pass

Supporter
Of course there is always someone who goes just a bit too far.......

Cheers
Mike
 

Attachments

  • Birdcage MaseraTI CHASSIS.jpg
    Birdcage MaseraTI CHASSIS.jpg
    98.1 KB · Views: 526
HJ, assuming your program does not do stress/strain analysis, it might be a good idea to build a model out of balsa wood. That will help you find where the problems are. As Bob noted, stiffness of the bulk heads is crucial, as that's where the loads get fed through the chassis, front to back and vice versa. Super stiff side pods won't keep the chassis stiff if the bulkheads lozenge. The rear bulk head is pretty easy to build stiff since it doesn't have an aperture, but the front is more difficult.
 
Hi,
I've redrawn everything now, starting from a skeleton model.
All lines are connected at nodes.
I want to use this model in a static analysis program.
Almost everything is made of triangles
As a test and for illustration I also created the profiles.
Looks pretty heavy. There are about 500 parts
"If a Little is good, More is better, and Too Much is just enough..." :)

Better so...?
 

Attachments

  • Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_47.JPG
    Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_47.JPG
    131.3 KB · Views: 447
Last edited:
With round tubes about 27% lighter and looks better....
 

Attachments

  • Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_48.JPG
    Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_48.JPG
    128.6 KB · Views: 443
  • Rahmen_Stabmodell_Rev_08_Rundrohr.PDF
    1.1 MB · Views: 324

Neil

Supporter
H.J.;

I've built chassis with round tubing and with square/rectangular tubing. Believe me, round is far more difficult.
 
Neil - You have right-round tubes are lighter and it looks better, but for me too complicated.

I've redesigned everything, especially the suspension area, to simplify it.

The roll cage is now fully integrated into the main frame.
I also tried to install enough bulkheads.

Especially at the front and the side I did a little bit more for crash safety.

What do you think - better?
 

Attachments

  • Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_Rev_12.PDF
    1.3 MB · Views: 286
  • Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_100.JPG
    Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_100.JPG
    91.3 KB · Views: 377
  • Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_101.JPG
    Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_101.JPG
    134.4 KB · Views: 340
  • Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_102.JPG
    Rahmen_GT40_MK_IV_102.JPG
    138.9 KB · Views: 347
Can someone open the 3D PDF file and tell me if it contains the frame?
My friend says there is nothing to see,
but i have everything displayed correctly - hmm
 
Back
Top