67efivert
Member
im curious if you have thought in building a set that would work with a tarus rack to help the lack of turning radius ??
probally out of the question but was just curious
probally out of the question but was just curious
67efivert said:im curious if you have thought in building a set that would work with a tarus rack to help the lack of turning radius ??
probally out of the question but was just curious
Scarebird said:
We use simple statics to analyse the stresses, and design accordingly.
brianj5600 said:I have granada spindles on my 67 now. I am confused what the new spindle would do for me?
67coupe351w said:I'm not tryin to flame you but I sure hope you used more than simple statics to design a suspension component.
67coupe351w said:I'm not tryin to flame you but I sure hope you used more than simple statics to design a suspension component.
GypsyR said:Now there's a a good thought. Granada spindles are still out there. I bought "loaded" spindles twice. First set $60, the second $50. So new one spindles for $300 interest me very little.
However...It has been found that it is actually comparatively simple (to other rack solutions) to retrofit an 86-91 or so Ford Taurus steering rack into an early Mustang. A creatively handy person able to make up some mounting brackets, fiddle the pressure line, and mate the rack to his steering shaft can do this for less than $300. This sounds awful nice compared to some aftermarket solutions costing thousands of dollars. But...the Taurus rack increases the turning radius to the point of being annoying. Also there are some bumpsteer problems. other than that it works great. There are a few folks driving these even with the drawbacks.
The bumpsteer problems can be addressed to a degree by tossing down a couple hundred more dollars on a 'bumpsteer kit". No help for the turning radius though.
Now if your castings were modified to work well with with a Taurus rack, you'd have a unique product. Using your spindles and the estimated lowball price on the rack swap, people could fit their cars with a good performing rack and pinion steering setup for less than half of what the aftermarket currently offers.
Is there a market? I can't say. TCP seems to moving quite a few of their rather expensive setups. So are some others.
Would I give $300 for replacement spindles. Not until the junkards run all the way dry. Would I give $300 for a pair that would allow me to get the best from a Taurus rack swap? Ubetcha. No other such a simple and reasonably priced option exists.
You've already gone to the trouble of reproducing parts. If it would be worth it to take them this much farther I can't really say. But it sure sounds like an oppurtunity, barring some unforeseen difficulties.
cstang68 said:What do you mean by this? All he needs to know are the basic forces applied on the loading points of the knuckle...from there calculating the stress/strain the part would experience, then make sure the cross section can withstand it...which is just simple statics. He doesn't need to do a modal analysis on a spindle. I design planes for the military and we do just what degins is doing for prototype production. Simple analysis, quick fabrication, non destructive evaluation (nobody does destructive evaluation in the aerospace world anymore...it's obsolete) and fly the sucker...Then once we get the gov $$$, go back and do FEA (finite element analysis) to see where we can improve the design.
cstang68 said:What do you mean by this? All he needs to know are the basic forces applied on the loading points of the knuckle...from there calculating the stress/strain the part would experience, then make sure the cross section can withstand it...which is just simple statics. He doesn't need to do a modal analysis on a spindle. I design planes for the military and we do just what degins is doing for prototype production. Simple analysis, quick fabrication, non destructive evaluation (nobody does destructive evaluation in the aerospace world anymore...it's obsolete) and fly the sucker...Then once we get the gov $$$, go back and do FEA (finite element analysis) to see where we can improve the design.
TheShagg said:Um..... yeah.... but knowing the forces applied at the spindle requires more than simple statics. You need to take into account the tallest bump you will hit while the car has the most weight transfer due to cornering, at the fastest speed you will hit that, and what the stiffest spring/shock combo is you would be doing this. Then using the acceleration of the wheel and the spring and A-arm mount resistances you can do some calculations, and throw in a good factor of safety. This is a very DYNAMIC process, not static.
But yes, I agree he doesn't have to do all this so long as he is staying with the same design and KNOWS FOR SURE that the process yields a part that is as good as the original design.
67coupe351w said:I'm still not trying to flame anyone, just participating in a discusion:
I'm saying what TheShagg pointed out for me as well as you need to use more than your first 2 years of college to design a component that will last any length of time. Have you learned about fatigue yet? Id hate to fly in a plane that what built on simple analysis.
We destroy stuff at work in the process of validating the design all the time. We are provided with FEA drawings from design then we install strain guages, pressure transducers, torque transducers, string pots, accelerometers...whatever is needed for the particular component being tested then go out and break stuff and then compare to the FEA. Of course not all tests are destructive but when lives are at risk (even when not) we make dang sure our reccomendations are valid.
cstang68 said:I'm sorry but hitting a bump is an instantaneous increase in the force on 1 point...there are no dynamics involved. You would use a load factor to bring the additional shock loads into consideration. Static analysis does take the acceleration into account...F=ma no? =]
Sure, a spring/dampener system has dynamics involved, but the force exerted on the spring/shock from the knuckle can be assumed to be an impulse.
I completed 4 years of college at the #7 aerospace school in the world, and I'm currently working on my MS in composite structures...
cstang68 said:Through NDE, you can calculate material properties (young's modulus, poisson's ratio...ect) just by using UT, and you can test every part you send out and know exactly what properties each piece has, rather than assuming a constant quality through destructive testing randomly within a batch.
Now active NDE is currently being introduced into aerospace world. Acoustic emmision testing is the newest NDE technique where you can actually actively measure the integrity of a structure.
I'd reccomend "Nondestructive Evaluation Theory, Techniques, and Applications" by Peter J. Shull. Its pretty amazing what you can learn through NDE.