how much lighter is chromoly?
05-24-2008, 02:50 PM
#5
Same modulus, same density with mild or moly. Therefore, the difference in weight from the steel tube material would depend on the diameter and wall thickness. Essentially... since the modulus is the same, structurally and from a deformation standpoint with these particular components no matter if it was produced from mild steel or 4130 there would be no benefits from one over another. The loads that these components see, there is zero benefits from 4130 over mild steel; it has to do with the diameter and wall thickness period.
Regarding strength variances, there is little gain from this if you're installing poly or rubber bushings on the ends. The deflection and movement that you're going to see would be mostly from the rubber or poly bushings.
Stock LCA's are 4lbs 8oz, ours are 2lb 12oz, approx 1.75lbs lighter then stock with deflection at a minimum since we are using only rod-ended components. I believe ours are typically 1lb lighter per component then many others lca or phr setups.
Regarding strength variances, there is little gain from this if you're installing poly or rubber bushings on the ends. The deflection and movement that you're going to see would be mostly from the rubber or poly bushings.
Stock LCA's are 4lbs 8oz, ours are 2lb 12oz, approx 1.75lbs lighter then stock with deflection at a minimum since we are using only rod-ended components. I believe ours are typically 1lb lighter per component then many others lca or phr setups.
05-25-2008, 06:01 PM
#6
Yes this is exactly what I meant. The weight savings will depend on the material size the company uses and not by the grade... some companies make Chrome Moly items with the same diameter and wall thickness as there mild steel parts. This makes the weight the same but the Chrome Moly items would be stronger.
Thanks for the business!
Last edited by UMI Performance; 05-29-2008 at 11:25 AM.
05-25-2008, 07:06 PM
#7
Commenting on LCA/PHR's the larger diameter and larger wall mild steel pieces you see many of these companies using will have less deformation and heavier for no reason.
For example, UMI's (not picking on yours in just noticed them since you posted in here…there’s probably others as well) makes mild steel versions that are larger diameter and larger wall thickness then the 4130 versions. The 4130 versions that they make in this particular case for the loads they see will deform more than the larger mild steel pieces. The mild steel versions are far overbuilt making the pieces heavier and from what I see little benefits only negatives. Worst part is not only are they heavier though stiffer, the bushings are the weakest link deforming under load in every direction. Bigger is not always better.
A possible reason why you see some manufactures make similar dimensions for example a mild steel version poly setup vs a rod-ended piece same, structurally, there is no benefit to change it if one of the pieces meets their stiffness and FOS specs.
Unfortunately there's allot of misinformation on the internet regarding material structure and design intent/usage. Some try to improve on someone else’s or their own design when they may not understand material and structural engineering to build a component.
For example, UMI's (not picking on yours in just noticed them since you posted in here…there’s probably others as well) makes mild steel versions that are larger diameter and larger wall thickness then the 4130 versions. The 4130 versions that they make in this particular case for the loads they see will deform more than the larger mild steel pieces. The mild steel versions are far overbuilt making the pieces heavier and from what I see little benefits only negatives. Worst part is not only are they heavier though stiffer, the bushings are the weakest link deforming under load in every direction. Bigger is not always better.
A possible reason why you see some manufactures make similar dimensions for example a mild steel version poly setup vs a rod-ended piece same, structurally, there is no benefit to change it if one of the pieces meets their stiffness and FOS specs.
Unfortunately there's allot of misinformation on the internet regarding material structure and design intent/usage. Some try to improve on someone else’s or their own design when they may not understand material and structural engineering to build a component.
Trending Topics
05-26-2008, 10:03 AM
#9
If I can help anymore please ask. Thank you!
Ryan
05-26-2008, 12:16 PM
#10
12 Second Club
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So to you Suspesion sponsers. Do people want cromoly parts for streanth or light wieght? I was under the impression that it was both strong and lite at the same wall thickness, or mabey didnt need as thick wall cuz stronger than mild steel.
05-26-2008, 02:23 PM
#11
Tillery, this is part of the problem, you have guys who may not be qualified or really understand concepts of material design trying to explain something to the laymen who has even less knowlege regarding design.
It is the type of loads where one material over another differs may shine. This is where it takes someone who actually engineers a product, not just fabricates one to perform best in an application.
This is glossing a bit...and I'm not pinpointing anyone in particular. Some engineers can be clueless while some fabricators are very good at what they do even though they may have not had a formal education with the products they design. Generally, the fabricator can build a component either with too high of FOS whereas is overbuilt, too heavy and proves little to no advantages or underbuilt.
Generally, the fabricator since he may have basic knowledge doesn't really know/understand stresses involve as they probably have never tested them they do not know what/how they really need to build a component to meet the demands.
It is the engineer who designs a component to meet load ratings, meet the typical FOS etc etc.
Take a walk-bridge as a basic example people can probably relate to. If asked to build one, a fabricator with limited knowledge would tend to build a bridge strong enough to run tanks on it. Since he's not sure what he needs, to be safe, he'd probably use far too oversized beams etc. In the end, possibly overcomplicating design, costs etc. It is not about having the strongest piece or biggest diameter component. What IS relevant is that the component meets stresses seen, durable/FOS and meets the required goals set forth.
The engineer would analyze stresses and design, build to meet a specific criteria using the material needed to meet the goals set forth.
A problem with the general population, most do not consider engineering design of a component (which they shoudn't have to), they just see it and like how it looks, sounds or feels. Its then the fabricators who boast their component is X in size or Y in thickness and can hold up a tank...those are the ones that push their "strengths' as a positive aspect whereas though it would probably be strong, the consumer is just adding erroneous weight to the vehicle for no reason reducing performance (when that is not really their goal).
This is when the company who actually uses an engineer to design a component builds it better suited though the laymen looks at it and thinks "I want the other guys as it looks much stronger and that company said it was bigger/thicker and better".
You don't have to be an engineer to build an incredible component. Sometimes, some get lucky or through trial and error finally get it right. Many of you guys though are at the mercy of the ones that are building it...whether they really know what they are doing or not.
It is the type of loads where one material over another differs may shine. This is where it takes someone who actually engineers a product, not just fabricates one to perform best in an application.
This is glossing a bit...and I'm not pinpointing anyone in particular. Some engineers can be clueless while some fabricators are very good at what they do even though they may have not had a formal education with the products they design. Generally, the fabricator can build a component either with too high of FOS whereas is overbuilt, too heavy and proves little to no advantages or underbuilt.
Generally, the fabricator since he may have basic knowledge doesn't really know/understand stresses involve as they probably have never tested them they do not know what/how they really need to build a component to meet the demands.
It is the engineer who designs a component to meet load ratings, meet the typical FOS etc etc.
Take a walk-bridge as a basic example people can probably relate to. If asked to build one, a fabricator with limited knowledge would tend to build a bridge strong enough to run tanks on it. Since he's not sure what he needs, to be safe, he'd probably use far too oversized beams etc. In the end, possibly overcomplicating design, costs etc. It is not about having the strongest piece or biggest diameter component. What IS relevant is that the component meets stresses seen, durable/FOS and meets the required goals set forth.
The engineer would analyze stresses and design, build to meet a specific criteria using the material needed to meet the goals set forth.
A problem with the general population, most do not consider engineering design of a component (which they shoudn't have to), they just see it and like how it looks, sounds or feels. Its then the fabricators who boast their component is X in size or Y in thickness and can hold up a tank...those are the ones that push their "strengths' as a positive aspect whereas though it would probably be strong, the consumer is just adding erroneous weight to the vehicle for no reason reducing performance (when that is not really their goal).
This is when the company who actually uses an engineer to design a component builds it better suited though the laymen looks at it and thinks "I want the other guys as it looks much stronger and that company said it was bigger/thicker and better".
You don't have to be an engineer to build an incredible component. Sometimes, some get lucky or through trial and error finally get it right. Many of you guys though are at the mercy of the ones that are building it...whether they really know what they are doing or not.
12-07-2008, 02:34 PM
#14
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ft. Worth, TX
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tillery, this is part of the problem, you have guys who may not be qualified or really understand concepts of material design trying to explain something to the laymen who has even less knowlege regarding design.
It is the type of loads where one material over another differs may shine. This is where it takes someone who actually engineers a product, not just fabricates one to perform best in an application.
This is glossing a bit...and I'm not pinpointing anyone in particular. Some engineers can be clueless while some fabricators are very good at what they do even though they may have not had a formal education with the products they design. Generally, the fabricator can build a component either with too high of FOS whereas is overbuilt, too heavy and proves little to no advantages or underbuilt.
Generally, the fabricator since he may have basic knowledge doesn't really know/understand stresses involve as they probably have never tested them they do not know what/how they really need to build a component to meet the demands.
It is the engineer who designs a component to meet load ratings, meet the typical FOS etc etc.
Take a walk-bridge as a basic example people can probably relate to. If asked to build one, a fabricator with limited knowledge would tend to build a bridge strong enough to run tanks on it. Since he's not sure what he needs, to be safe, he'd probably use far too oversized beams etc. In the end, possibly overcomplicating design, costs etc. It is not about having the strongest piece or biggest diameter component. What IS relevant is that the component meets stresses seen, durable/FOS and meets the required goals set forth.
The engineer would analyze stresses and design, build to meet a specific criteria using the material needed to meet the goals set forth.
A problem with the general population, most do not consider engineering design of a component (which they shoudn't have to), they just see it and like how it looks, sounds or feels. Its then the fabricators who boast their component is X in size or Y in thickness and can hold up a tank...those are the ones that push their "strengths' as a positive aspect whereas though it would probably be strong, the consumer is just adding erroneous weight to the vehicle for no reason reducing performance (when that is not really their goal).
This is when the company who actually uses an engineer to design a component builds it better suited though the laymen looks at it and thinks "I want the other guys as it looks much stronger and that company said it was bigger/thicker and better".
You don't have to be an engineer to build an incredible component. Sometimes, some get lucky or through trial and error finally get it right. Many of you guys though are at the mercy of the ones that are building it...whether they really know what they are doing or not.
It is the type of loads where one material over another differs may shine. This is where it takes someone who actually engineers a product, not just fabricates one to perform best in an application.
This is glossing a bit...and I'm not pinpointing anyone in particular. Some engineers can be clueless while some fabricators are very good at what they do even though they may have not had a formal education with the products they design. Generally, the fabricator can build a component either with too high of FOS whereas is overbuilt, too heavy and proves little to no advantages or underbuilt.
Generally, the fabricator since he may have basic knowledge doesn't really know/understand stresses involve as they probably have never tested them they do not know what/how they really need to build a component to meet the demands.
It is the engineer who designs a component to meet load ratings, meet the typical FOS etc etc.
Take a walk-bridge as a basic example people can probably relate to. If asked to build one, a fabricator with limited knowledge would tend to build a bridge strong enough to run tanks on it. Since he's not sure what he needs, to be safe, he'd probably use far too oversized beams etc. In the end, possibly overcomplicating design, costs etc. It is not about having the strongest piece or biggest diameter component. What IS relevant is that the component meets stresses seen, durable/FOS and meets the required goals set forth.
The engineer would analyze stresses and design, build to meet a specific criteria using the material needed to meet the goals set forth.
A problem with the general population, most do not consider engineering design of a component (which they shoudn't have to), they just see it and like how it looks, sounds or feels. Its then the fabricators who boast their component is X in size or Y in thickness and can hold up a tank...those are the ones that push their "strengths' as a positive aspect whereas though it would probably be strong, the consumer is just adding erroneous weight to the vehicle for no reason reducing performance (when that is not really their goal).
This is when the company who actually uses an engineer to design a component builds it better suited though the laymen looks at it and thinks "I want the other guys as it looks much stronger and that company said it was bigger/thicker and better".
You don't have to be an engineer to build an incredible component. Sometimes, some get lucky or through trial and error finally get it right. Many of you guys though are at the mercy of the ones that are building it...whether they really know what they are doing or not.
12-07-2008, 03:54 PM
#15
12 Second Club
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW I forgot about this. Well I do understand what your saying about stuff being overbuilt. I work with tubing with a yeild tensile streanth of 80,000 lbs derated to 10,000 psi burst. Thats 1 inch to 2 3/8 tubing with a wall thickness about .109. Its a bias weld not any butt welds unless we have to repair any bad spots, which then makes it weaker. Oh sorry I work Coiled Tubing. And I would never run this for any suspension because it would be too much. And too heavy. You(SJM) might find it interesting on the process of QUALITY TUBING on how the take a flat strip of material and turn it into a string of tubing. Now I think there is alot we can learn from those who have used different materials for automotive use like the aviation industry. I learned alot With Boeing and Sikorsky. And the K.I.S.S method-keep it simple stupid. Anyway mild steel will work for me and gets the job done on the street. And most thing I build or fab using a mandrel is Hyd tubing,exhaust,roll cages. Well sorry about getting off subject.
